Integrated Trailing Edge Flap Track PDF

Integrated Trailing Edge Flap Track
Mechanism for Commercial Aircraft
by
Sven P. Schoensleben
Master Thesis
Winter Term 2005/06
at the Center of Structure Technologies
Prof. Dr. Paolo Ermanni
Reference Number: IMES-ST-05-198
Advisor: Christof Ledermann

II
Abstract
Flap track fairings are familiar features of every modern commercial aircraft. In
recent developments much has been done to decrease fairing drag with sophisticated
aerodynamic design. But a significant parasite drag always remains which is
particularly substantial at high airspeed during cruise, a flight phase not requiring any
flap track actuation, the fairings thus being responsible for part of the parasite drag
and unnecessary fuel consumption. Avoidance of this fairing drag could therefore lead
to an improvement in the aircraft’s operating costs as well as a payload increase due
to less fuel consumption.
Since in the retracted state flap loads are minimal when compared to a final approach
configuration where stiff, strong and thus voluminous flap supports are needed, a
‘weaker’ and smaller mechanism and flap support system would suffice during cruise.
This thesis presents how a basic concept for an integrated flap track mechanism could
be designed, fitted into the wing strake in the flaps up position, while aerodynamic
flap setting requirements are satisfied. Various realistic constraints are taken into
account.
Rather than pure theoretical reasoning a pragmatic hands-on approach was chosen for
this project. The results are obtained by mostly intuitive and experimental
construction work, while always accounting for requirements resulting from the
professional background and application of the project.
The first three chapters represent a semester thesis by the same author. The
introducing chapter gives a rough estimation of the economic benefit for a typical
airliner when integrated flap tracks are used. Second, a comprehensive look into
current systems is presented. The third chapter shows all necessary components with
detailed descriptions and finally the full mechanism in conceptual form.
The actual master thesis begins with chapter 4, at first outlining various constraints
and considerations for the detailed design process which is explained extensively in
chapter 5 based on a fully working demonstrator model of the mechanism. Further
structural details are outlined in chapter 6 together with a CAD model, which is the
basis for a set of movies and some selected FEM analyses in chapter 7. Finally, a
conclusion in chapter 8 gives a brief summarization of pros and cons as well as an
outlook.
III
IV
Acknowledgements
This report presents the results of a semester and master thesis carried out at the
Center of Structure Technologies of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH
Zurich.
I would like to thank my advisor Mr. Christof Ledermann and Prof. Dr. Paolo
Ermanni, who allowed me to do this equally challenging and exciting project, the
basic idea of which came to my mind on one of my many flights.
My thanks also go to Mr. Fritz Zaugg and Mr. Robert Krueger of SR Technics, Zurich
Airport, Switzerland, as well as Mr. Daniel W. Knecht of the Swiss Aircraft Accident
Investigation Bureau. I would like to thank as well Mr. Ben Holert from the Aircraft
Systems Engineering Department of the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg,
Germany, for his valued expert tips.
Disclaimer & Conditions

Any information or opinions presented in this report are entirely the author’s and do
not necessarily comply with those of either ETH Zurich, any company mentioned, or
any other party involved. Any liability in connection with this report and its pertaining
project will be declined.
Photos and drawings contained herein which come without any reference or copyright
indicated are the sole property of the author. Third party commercial utilization of any
information or picture in this report is subject to beforehand clearance. The photos are
available in digital format from the author upon request. The author can be contacted
at svenschoensleben@yahoo.com.
The new technical principles presented in this report must be used, under any
circumstances, for peaceful purposes only. Usage in aircraft and other devices
intended for and/or involved in any armed forces operation is strictly prohibited. This
prohibition includes application on military derivatives of commercial aircraft.
The invention as presented in this report is subject of a patent application filed with
the United States Patents and Trademark Office on June 2, 2005. Licensing requests
are welcome and may be addressed to:
Technology Transfer
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
ETH Transfer
Raemistrasse 101
CH-8092 Zurich
Switzerland
V
VI
Table of Contents
Abstract III
Acknowledgements V
Disclaimer & Conditions V
Table of Contents VII
Nomenclature XI
Chapter 1 1
Introduction
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Economic Advantage Estimate 2
Chapter 2 7
State of the Art
2.1 Technical and Legal Aspects 7
2.2 Current Technologies 8
2.2.1 Integrated Flap Tracks Already Developed 8
2.2.2 Flap Systems for Small Transport Aircraft 10
2.2.3 The Boeing Approach 13
2.2.4 What Airbus Did 15
2.2.5 The British Aerospace Brainstorm 19
2.3 Future Trends 21
2.3.1 As Simple as Possible 21
2.3.2 Non-mechanical Flap Synchronization 21
2.3.3 Adaptive Wing Approach, Multifunctional Wing 21
Chapter 3 23
Design Approaches for Integrated Flap Tracks
3.1 Design Premises 23
3.1.1 The Standard Package 23
3.1.2 Other Premises for this Project 23
3.2 Component Concepts 24
3.2.1 Guides 24
3.2.2 Actuation 26
3.2.3 Flap Angle Control 30
3.2.4 Main Flap Support Angle Control 31
3.2.5 Folding Strengthening Mechanism 36
3.2.6 Tab Actuation 37
3.2.7 Flap Vane Actuation 40
3.3 Assembled Mechanism 41
Chapter 4 45
Preliminary Considerations for Detailed Design
4.1. Nomenclature 45
4.2 Design Environment 46
4.2.1 Coordinate Systems 46
4.2.2 Dimensions 47
4.2.3 Flap Extension Characteristics 49
4.2.4 Three-Dimensional Flap Deployment With Swept Wings 49
4.2.5 Flap Loads 54
4.3 Flap Structure 55
4.3.1 State of the Art 55
4.3.2 The B747SP Approach 56
4.3.3 Approach for This Project 59
VII
Chapter 5 61
Detailed Mechanism Design and Demonstrator Model
5.1 Overview 61
5.2 Main Slider and Support Fitting 64
5.2.1 Main Suspension Flap Attachment Location 64
5.2.2 Main Suspension Wing Attachment Location 65
5.2.3 Main Slider Dimensions 66
5.2.4 Guide Structure Assembly 68
5.3 Support Angle Control Linkage 72
5.3.1 Vertical Section Dimensions 72
5.3.2 Lateral Configuration and Dimensions 73
5.3.3 Support Angle Control Linkage Sliders and Main Slider Appendages 76
5.3.4 Main Suspension Elements 79
5.4 Transformation Locking Mechanism 80
5.4.1 Programming Cam and Sliding Bolt Placements 80
5.4.2 Vertical Layering and Fitting 82
5.5 Main and Flap Angle Control Slider Linkage 84
5.5.1 Main Slider Actuation 84
5.5.2 Main Cam and Sliding Element 86
5.5.3 Auxiliary Cam and Links 87
5.5.4 Flap Angle Control Slider 91
5.6 Flap Body 94
5.6.1 Structural Considerations 94
5.6.2 Flap Main Support Attachment 95
5.6.3 Flap Angle Control Link Attachment 96
5.7 Flap Vane 98
5.7.1 Amended Actuation Mechanism 98
5.7.2 Application to Demonstrator 99
5.8 Flap Vane Gap Cover 104
5.9 Main Mechanism Actuation 107
5.9.1 Actuation Screw 107
5.9.2 Force Transmission 108
5.10 Wing Fixed and Moving Bottom Covers 109
5.11 Tab Layout and Actuation 112
5.11.1 Tab Layout 112
5.11.2 Tab Angle Control Slider 113
5.11.3 Tab Actuation Rods 114
5.11.4 Tab Operation Overview 116
5.12 Spoiler 117
5.13 Inboard Flap Track Station 119
5.13.1 State of the Art 119
5.13.2 Simplified Demonstrator Approach 119
Chapter 6 123
Structural Details and CAD Model
6.1 Overview 123
6.2 Guide Structure Assembly 124
6.2.1 Mounting Plate 124
6.2.2 Main Slider Roll Support and Other Structures 125
6.3.1 Suspension Link 129
6.3.2 Main Slider Angle Link 130
6.3.3 Support Angle Control Linkage Sliders 130
6.3.4 Main Suspension Elements 131
6.4 Transformation Locking Mechanism (TLM) 133
6.4.1 Upper Part 133
6.4.2 Lower Part 134
6.5 Wing Bottom Covers 136
6.5.1 Fixed Covers 136
6.5.2 Moving Covers 137
VIII
6.6 Flap Body 139
6.6.1 Rib Placement 139
6.6.2 Top Shell Stringers 139
6.6.3 Flap Vane Gap Cover 140
6.7 Miscellaneous Views 141
Chapter 7 143
FE Analysis
7.1 Main Slider 143
7.1.1 Loads 143
7.1.2 Modeling 144
7.1.3 Results 146
7.2 Flap Angle Control Slider 148
7.2.1 Loads 148
7.2.2 Modeling 149
7.2.3 Results for -30° Tab deflection 150
7.2.4 Results for +30° Tab deflection 152
7.3 Main Suspension Elements 153
7.3.1 Loads 153
7.3.2 Modeling 154
7.3.3 Results for +2.5g 155
7.3.4 Results for -1.0g 158
7.4.1 Loads 161
7.4.2 Modeling 162
7.4.3 Results 163
Chapter 8 165
Conclusion
Appendix 168
Appendix A: Relevant FARs 168
Appendix B: Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapRotation.nb’ 170
Appendix C: Flap Load Estimation 172
Appendix D: Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapLoad.nb’ 177
Appendix E: Main Flap Support Size Estimation 186
Appendix F: Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapJointDim.nb’ 187
Appendix G: Demonstrator Parts and Assembly Manual 188
Bibliography 193
IX
X
Nomenclature
Latin Symbols, Abbreviations
a Sonic speed [m/s]

AOA Angle of attack
CD Drag coefficient [-]
CD0 Drag coefficient at α = 0° [-]
CL Lift coefficient [-]
cTJET Specific fuel consumption for turbojet aircraft [1/h]
D Drag [N]
DOC Direct operating costs
e Oswald factor [-]
G Weight [N]
m Mass [kg]
S Surface area [m2]
STOL Short takeoff & landing
T/O Takeoff
v Speed [m/s]
Greek Symbols
α Angle of attack [°]

αmax Stalling angle of attack [°]
Λ Wing aspect ratio [-]
ρ Density [kg/m3]
XI
XII
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Motivation
Flap track fairings are familiar features of every modern commercial aircraft. While
the size of flap track mechanisms in proportion to aircraft tended to increase in recent
developments much has been done to decrease fairing drag with sophisticated
aerodynamic design.
However, a significant drag always remains, and it goes exponentially with airspeed.
Thus there is a particularly substantial parasite drag at high airspeed during cruise, a
flight phase not requiring any flap track actuation. It is a legitimate question why this
approach must be kept in future.
One reason is that significant loads act on a flap system including its fairings, and that
these loads should be distributed to rather big parts and areas to avoid exceeding of
material limits. Such big parts cannot be reasonably built into the main wing structure
as fuel and other systems leave only very little space for any other mechanism.
On the other hand, since in the retracted state flap loads are minimal when compared
to a final approach configuration, a ‘weaker’ (so smaller) mechanism and flap support
system would suffice during cruise. It could be devised in a way that it builds up to a
stronger system when flaps are extended. It is the main aim of this study to investigate
whether this is at all possible.
Photo © Max Koerte
Figure 1.1 The goal of this project ― in short
1
1.2 Economic Advantage Estimate
As with any technical innovation the question of the economic benefit is a valid one.
This subchapter is intended to give a rough estimate in terms of fuel savings or range
improvement.
The following investigation is done on the basis of the A340-300. However, it is not
in any way intended to be exact, but rather to give an order of magnitude, which is
also valid for other aircraft of the same class. Thus some rough assumptions are made
and explained at the appropriate locations.
First a drag coefficient must be specified for a typical fairing. As can be seen in
figures 1.1 and 1.3 they do not all have exactly the same shape but are rather designed
to minimize drag at their specific location on the wing. Note that in figure 1.3 the
outermost fairing is from the outer engine pylon; the three flap track fairings of the
outer flap are shown. The fourth flap track fairing for the inner flap can be seen in
figure 1.4.
For the purpose of this rough estimate they will all be dealt with as the same,
disregarding their aerodynamic differences. Exact drag data is not freely available, but
literature suggests that cD,Fairing = 0.05 is a reasonable assumption for such kinds of
roughly spindle-shaped bodies, with the maximum cross section perpendicular to the
airflow as the reference area S [3]. As shown in figure 1.2 below this area is about
S = 0.6m x 0.5m = 0.3m2.
0.5m
0.6m
Figure 1.2 Side and front view with approximate dimensions
The following A340-300 data is taken from [2], [3] and [5].
Reference Wing Area 363.10 m2

Economic Cruise M = 0.84 @ Flight Level 390 = 11890m
Service Ceiling Flight Level 410
Range 6750NM = 12500km
MTOW 257000kg, whereof 113000kg fuel
Drag Polar cD = 0.0165+0.0435*cL2
Aspect Ratio & Oswald Factor Λ = 9.5, e = 0.77
2
Figure 1.3 A340-300 wing view ― ‘clean’ cruise configuration
Figure 1.4 A340-300 final approach ― landing configuration

(at Juliana International Airport, St. Maarten, D.W.I.)
ICAO Standard Atmosphere (from [2]):

Altitude 0m 11890m
Barometric Pressure p 1013.25hPa 196.172 hPa
Density ρ 1.225 kg/m3 0.324 kg/m3
Temperature T 288.15K = 15°C 210.93K = -62°C
Mach Speed a 340.9m/s = 662.65kts 291.66m/s = 567kts
3
Now the actual calculations are carried out:
Step 1: Speed
M = 0.84, a = 291.66m / s ⇒ v = M ⋅ a = 245m / s = 476kts = 882km / h
Step 2: CL,max range, CD,max range
Drag polar (symmetric polar assumed): C D = C D 0 + k ⋅ C2L = 0.0165 + 0.0435 ⋅ C2L

Follows with formula from [2] for maximum range of jet aircraft:
CD0 0.0165
C L,max range = = = 0.356
3⋅ k 3 ⋅ 0.0435
which, inserted in the drag polar, yields
C D,max range = C D 0 + k ⋅ C2L,max range = 0.0165 + 0.0435 ⋅ 0.3562 = 0.022
Step 3: Drags
To avoid any coefficient and reference area mismatch all drags are first expressed in
actual forces rather than directly evaluating a ‘weighted’ overall CD.
Overall drag @ cruise:

ρ 2 0.324
Dovrl @ cruise = CD,max range ⋅ Swing,ref ⋅ ⋅ v cruise = 0.022 ⋅ 363.1 ⋅ ⋅ 2452 = 77677 N
2 2
Fairing drag @ cruise:

ρ 2 0.324
Dfairing @ cruise / fairing = C D,fairing ⋅ Sfairing,ref ⋅ ⋅ v cruise = 0.05 ⋅ 0.3 ⋅ ⋅ 2452 = 145.86 N
2 2
Follows with a total of 8 flap track fairings: Dfairing@cruise = 1167N
(Assumptions: additional economization of interference drag by removing the fairings

and thus additional edges is not considered here; therefore this approach is
conservative. Further CL,max range is assumed to be constant.)
Overall drag @ cruise with ‘integrated’ flap tracks, i.e. no fairings:
D ovrl @ cruise, new = D ovrl @ cruise − Dfairing @ cruise = 77677 N − 1167 N = 76510N
Step 4: New CD & lift/drag ratio
Inverting the steps above yields the new overall drag coefficient:
Dovrl @ cruise,new 76510

C D,max range,new = = = 0.02167
ρ 2 0.324
Swing,ref ⋅ ⋅ v cruise 363.1 ⋅ ⋅ 2452
2 2
4
⎛C ⎞ 0.356
Old lift/drag ratio: ⎜⎜ L ⎟⎟ = = 16.1818
C
⎝ D ⎠ old 0 . 022
⎛C ⎞ 0.356
New lift/drag ratio: ⎜⎜ L ⎟⎟ = = 16.4282
⎝ C D ⎠ new 0.02167
16.4282
Ratio of both values: = 1.0152
16.1818
Aerodynamic efficiency thus increases by about 1.5%.
Step 5: New range or fuel consumption
The range is calculated by means of the following formula (for turbojet aircraft) taken
from [2]:
1
1 2 G C 2 ⎛ mT / O ⎞
Range = ⋅ ⋅ L ⋅ ln⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
cTJet ρ Swing,ref C D m
⎝ T/O − m Fuel , Used ⎠
With only CD changing the following ratio comes up (same as for lift/drag ratio):
Rangenew C D,old 0.022

= = = 1.0152
Rangeold C D,new 0.02167
Thus the range increases by about 1.5% or about 200km on a 12500km flight if the
same amount of fuel is consumed. This is enough to reach an alternate airport in many
cases.
If the range is the same and fuel savings are of interest the following equation needs
to be solved (with CL = 0.356, mT/O = 257000kg, mFuel,Used,old = 113000kg):
1 1
C 2 ⎛ mT / O ⎞ C L2 ⎛ mT / O ⎞
Range new = Rangeold ⇒ L ⋅ ln⎜⎜ ⎟= ⋅ ln⎜⎜ ⎟
C D new m − m ⎟ C m − m ⎟
⎝ T/O Fuel , Used ,new ⎠ D old ⎝ T/O Fuel , Used ,old ⎠
Solving yields mFuel,Used,new = 111743kg,

i.e. a saving of mFuel,Used,old - mFuel,Used,new = 1257kg
or about mFuel,Used,saved/mFuel,Used,old = 1.1%
5
Literature suggests that about 30% of a long-haul aircraft’s DOC are due to fuel costs.
1.1% of these 30% would therefore reduce the DOC by 0.3% [2].
This may seem only very small savings and not worth considering. However, today’s
aviation is a field of extreme economic competition, with low airfares leaving the
financial excess revenue (i.e. gain not only paying for the flight’s operation costs) per
seat and flight for an airline only at sometimes very few dollars.
If, for example, DOC for a specific long-haul flight may be US$ 50k, the avoidance of
fairings could generate an excess revenue per flight of 0.3% of US$50k, i.e. US$150.
This is indeed very low, but as explained may be still of importance for low-cost
carriers. It must be noted, however, that these figures are extremely dependent on
general fuel cost, which tend to increase.
These considerations did not account for any additional maintenance costs which are
likely to increase with complexity of the system. Thus an integrated flap track should
not be so complex and costly in maintenance as to outweigh any savings achieved.
But, according to maintenance engineers, the handling of flap track fairings on current
aircraft is extremely tedious and costly, with the consequence that they are not
removed for track inspection unless absolutely necessary. Eliminating of these
fairings could therefore reduce costs from this point of view and may also allow for
easier inspection. Overall maintenance costs may thus remain the same even with
more complex flap tracks.
For an airline, more important than range increase or fuel savings is the higher
payload capacity. In this context the anticipated payload increase of 1257kg for a
given range due to fuel savings becomes very attractive. This could mean an
additional loading of ten paying passengers including their luggage (tickets of which
may generate an additional combined revenue of US$5000 and up) or the equivalent
in cargo, where over one metric ton generates already a relevant revenue also for non-
low-cost carriers. But again the flap track’s weight increase due to complexity should
not outweigh these savings, although a somewhat heavier system might not be
avoided.
Thus the most important — while trivial — insight gained from this chapter for the
project at hand is as follows: integrated flap track mechanisms should not be of a
complexity which increases overall maintenance costs and weight so much that any
additional payload revenue either becomes unattractive or at all impossible.
If this can be avoided, usage of integrated flap track mechanisms could lead to a
significant economic benefit for an airline, even though reducing the aircraft’s DOC
only marginally.
6
Chapter 2
State of the Art

2.1 Technical and Legal Aspects
Flaps are extremely loaded parts, and so are the flap tracks made up of their structural
parts and actuators; besides, in every flap track unit each part must be allowed to fail
without the whole assembly getting unstable. Thus the different load cases are more
varying than in most other parts of an aircraft. This leads to generally very robust and
rather heavy parts. A number of airworthiness directives related to various failures in
flap track systems of different aircraft types clearly show that these issues are not to
be underestimated.
Still, all of these mechanisms are to consume the least space possible, particularly
those parts which need a fairing outside the actual wing structure. Within the wing
space is usually very limited since the torque box should be as large as possible to
fulfill its purpose and accommodate the most fuel, leaving little space for other
systems. The latter are often stored behind the rear spar of the torque box, the space
which would also be needed by an integrated flap track. It is part of this project to
investigate if this clash of interests can be solved.
The deployment of trailing edge flaps always entails a considerable decrease of αmax,
i.e. the angle of attack at which the wing airflow would stall. Thus before any flaps
are moved the leading edge slats are deployed and a slot opens there through which an
airflow can pass and regenerate the upside wing boundary layer. This increases αmax,
compensating for the impact of the flaps. If the slats are inoperative for any reason the
use of flaps is prohibited.
Again for boundary layer regeneration reasons one ore more slots are opened at the
flaps when they are deployed. Highly efficient but complicated systems may have up
to three slots opened in their fully extended (flaps down) position.
Federal and Joint Airworthiness Regulation FAR/JAR 25.701(a) require the

synchronization of flap surfaces on both sides and suggest a mechanical link between
them or another safe and reliable method (see appendix). Modern high-lift systems in
transport aircraft usually have a mechanical shaft transmission system and a central
power drive unit synchronizing the flap panels. Should the flap system fail to extend
or retract on one side of the aircraft a torque limiter automatically shuts down and
freezes flap movement to avoid a highly asymmetric lift distribution, a dangerous
condition which cannot be trimmed out on most commercial aircraft.
7
2.2 Current Technologies
2.2.1 Integrated Flap Tracks Already Developed
It is noteworthy that in earlier years of aviation integrated flap tracks were more
common than nowadays. This is partly because of then less ‘packed’ wings; since
they were mainly empty, relatively big mechanisms could be stored inside the wing.
Two similar patents filed 1945 and 1950, respectively, show such flap tracks.
These two patents show an efficient combination of translating tracks and

programming elements, a similar system used today for (always integrated!) leading
edge slat devices. It is currently not used in this way for trailing edge flaps, however.
Figure 2.1 Extract from a patent document [10] filed 1945
8
Figure 2.2 Extract from a patent document [11] filed 1950
9
2.2.2 Flap Systems for Small Transport Aircraft
Although not the main topic of this project, studying flap tracks of smaller aircraft
gives a broader view on the field.
Figure 2.3 Cessna Grand Caravan (at St. Barts, F.W.I.)
The Cessna Grand Caravan is a rugged aircraft used on difficult airfields (including
STOL). Therefore it needs fowler flaps the small guide tracks of which can be seen in
figure 2.4 below, but since it is not a top-notch aircraft anyway from the aerodynamic
point of view there are no fairings on the rear tracks.
Figure 2.4 Cessna Grand Caravan flap tracks (at Philipsburg, St. Maarten, D.W.I.)
10
Figure 2.5 De Havilland Canada DHC6-300 Twin Otter
Originally designed for the rough arctic of northern Canada the very robust
De Havilland Canada DHC6 Twin Otter became a widely used and extremely reliable
aircraft flying different types of missions all over the world. It may operate from
bumpy STOL airfields (with approach angles up to 30°) but also from huge
international airports, which calls for a wide range of approach and departure speeds.
This is accomplished by a sophisticated and very efficient flaperon high-lift system:
the double-slotted flaps extend over the whole wingspan up to the wing tips. The flap
supports and tracks have a pivot point at their lowest point; since the ailerons are part
of the flap systems they must be controlled via the tracks. The aileron (here flaperon)
control rod can be seen in figure 2.6 below.
Flap
Flaperon Control Rod
1st Slot
Flap Vane
2nd Slot
Flaperon
Flaperon
Trim Tab
Pivot Point
Figure 2.6 Twin Otter flaperon tracks in flaps up position
11
The outer parts of the tab are used as ailerons (thus called flaperons), while the inner
parts are the actual flaps and are tilted a bit further when compared to the flaperons;
the flaps down position can be seen in figures 2.7 and 2.8 below.
Flap Vane
nd
2 Slot 1st Slot
Flaperon
Flap
© 2005 Carlos Aleman. All rights reserved

Figure 2.7 Twin Otter landing configuration (final approach, St. Maarten, D.W.I.)
© 2003 Dan Valentine. All rights reserved

Figure 2.8 Twin Otter landing configuration
(steep angle approach into St. Barts, F.W.I., real!)
Although dating back from the sixties this flaperon system might prove to be path
breaking for future developments, where such systems extending over the whole
wingspan will probably play a major role.
12
ATR aircraft have a similar but simpler system where the whole flap pivots around a
specified line under the wing; the fairings thus seem to ‘spread’. This system was also
successfully applied on large aircraft by McDonnell Douglas.
Figure 2.9 ATR42 landing configuration
Figure 2.10 Flap track with fixed pivot point, from [4]
2.2.3 The Boeing Approach
Boeing is known to screw highly complex flap track mechanisms onto their aircraft.
They are admirable engineering work and very compact especially in the flaps up
position, keeping ‘useless drag’ at a minimum. High maintenance expenditure due to
many joints and parts are some disadvantages, however. Most Boeing aircraft have
double slotted flaps, at least for the inner flaps. The basic principle is a slotted fowler
flap (i.e. first increasing wing surface, then tilting the flap), with the second slot
opening in landing configuration by moving the tab. The flaps are moved by a rotary
actuator which transmits a yaw motion from a central command unit. This actuator
extends almost throughout the wing span and needs to withstand all wing movements
including oscillations due to turbulence, besides a relatively high bias torque.
© 2005 Steven Filipowicz. All rights reserved
Figure 2.11 Boeing 767-300 taking off (at Amsterdam-Schipol, Netherlands)
13
Figure 2.12 B767 outer flaps (single-slotted), from [4]
Figure 2.13 B767 inner flaps (double-slotted for landing), from [4]
14
2.2.4 What Airbus Did
Unlike Boeing, Airbus used robust and rather big guide tracks in their early models.
They work well, but their fairings are more voluminous than those of Boeing, since
there is no ‘folding and stowing’ of the mechanism.
The flaps were mainly double-slotted and moved by a system of rotating shafts and
translating ball screw link actuators. They allow accurate positioning, are relatively
light and very efficient, but due to high rotation rates of the parts there is a need for
high quality bearings as well as intensive lubrication.
Figure 2.14 Airbus A300 (at Male, Maldives)
Figure 2.15 A300 flap/slat control through shafts, from [4]
15
Figure 2.16 A300 flap track and operation, from [4]
Figure 2.17 A300 flap track structural part (made from one raw material block)
Figure 2.18 A300 flap track assembly
More recent Airbus aircraft feature a slightly different flap track system. Having a
single-slotted system, the A340 features a track/carriage system with a rear link; the
whole is no longer operated by a translating ball screw link but by a hinged type
actuator which makes a yaw motion of about 120°. The A330 flap tracks are identical
to those of the A340, and the A320 family uses the same concept too.
16
Figure 2.19 A340-300 (at Zurich, Switzerland)
Carriage
Track
Actuator
Rear Link
Figure 2.20 A340 flap track, according to [13]
The newest product of Airbus, the A380, goes without any carriage but uses a pure
linkage system which keeps maintenance at a minimum. Unlike the A340, the
outermost fairing (i.e. the pylon fairing) is a flap track fairing at the same time (see
figure 2.23). This efficient combination is not new, as will be shown in the next
chapter.
Fore Link
Actuator Rear Link
Figure 2.21 A380 flap track (not drawn to scale with Figure 2.20!), according to [13]
17
© 2005 French Frogs Airslides. All rights reserved
Figure 2.22 A380-800 roll-out
© 2005 Stuart Isett. All rights reserved
Figure 2.23 A380-800 wing view
18
2.2.5 The British Aerospace Brainstorm
British Aerospace use an innovative flap track fairing approach on their

BAE146/AVRO series originate back from the 1970s. Two of three main fairings are
integrated in the (inevitable) engine pylon, as shown in figures 2.25 and 2.26, thus
avoiding additional drag. The flap tracks themselves are carriage type.
Figure 2.24 BAE146-200 (at Salines Intl Airport, Grenada, W.I.)
However, as seen in figure 2.25, the ‘useless drag’ problem remains for the third flap
track fairing as well as the fairings of small tab controls (which open a second slot in
landing position).
This flap-pylon double fairing works well with this specific high-wing aircraft
configuration. It allows plenty of engine nacelle ground clearance even though these
are mounted quite low with respect to the wing, keeping the flap and particularly the
fairing off the hot exhaust blast also in landing configuration. With other standard
low-wing configurations this double fairing is usually not feasible because of exhaust
blast interference. Exceptions are aircraft with very high engine bypass ratio, i.e. a
small hot blast (see A380). With conventional aircraft an inner aileron could be placed
there instead of a flap; small tab parts kept off the blast have also been investigated
(see chapter 2.3.3).
Figure 2.25 BAE146 flap track fairings
19
Figure 2.26 BAE146 flaps ― up/takeoff/landing configurations
20
2.3 Future Trends
2.3.1 As Simple as Possible
As seen with the evolvement of Airbus flap tracks simple systems are used nowadays.
Single-slotted systems prevail, and their disadvantages (when compared to more
complicated systems) are compensated for by the simpleness and maintenance
savings.
This is done even though this entails rather big flap tracks, leaving most of the
voluminous fairing ‘empty’ and drag-producing.
In [1], P. K. Rudolph writes: ‘In the field of high-lift systems, Airbus has done
extremely well and has four airplane models flying with single-slotted flaps that
provide adequate maximum lift, airplane attitude and very good takeoff L/D. Many
experts in the field believe that Airbus has actually overtaken Boeing in several
airplane technologies, especially in high lift.’
However, given actual and future concerns on fuel efficiency and environmental
friendliness as well as the fact that current airplane concepts are thought to be
exhausted, any improvement possible should be thoroughly investigated. The question
whether integrated flap tracks are feasible is therefore a useful one, even though such
a system will most probably come up more complex.
2.3.2 Non-mechanical Flap Synchronization
As outlined in chapter 2.1, FAR/JAR 25.701(a) require the synchronization of flap

surfaces on both sides. While a mechanical link is suggested other possibilities to
ensure symmetric flap deployment are currently investigated, since the regulation
makes provision for ‘approved equivalent means.’ With the background of future ‘all-
electric planes,’ electronic control is a useful approach. However, as with any critical
system in the aircraft, failure probability must be demonstrated to be 10-9.
2.3.3 Adaptive Wing Approach, Multifunctional Wing
As mentioned in chapter 2.2.2 efficient flaperon systems are expected to play a major
role in the future. Among other reasons a high lift/drag ratio with high drag enables an
aircraft to descend steeper than the present 3° on final approach which is very
desirable from a noise point of view.
On current aircraft the lift distribution is usually far from the most drag-efficient ideal
one. This is partly due to the engine pylons: since there are often no flaps and/or slats
at these locations no additional lift is produced there when flaps are extended (see
figure 2.27). Further, there is no additional lift at the ailerons, although they are
sometimes used as flaperons.
21
Flaperon Area of Reduced
Lift Due to Pylon
Figure 2.27 A340-300 outer wing in landing configuration

(on final approach to RWY09, St. Maarten, D.W.I.)
For these reasons current research looks into the possibility of extending the spoiler
and flap system up to the wingtip, combined with a differentially controllable tab
system at full span of the trailing edge. This would allow to generate an almost ideal
lift distribution, high drag where needed (i.e. for a steep final approach), while
avoidance of engine blast is possible by appropriate tab control at these locations.
Besides, it allows very efficient gust load and roll control. Despite of more
complexity its high flexibility also makes it an interesting candidate for aircraft
families.
This kind of first-generation adaptive wing with its multifunctional flap system was
introduced in a similar way with the Twin Otter in the sixties and seems to be
successfully on line for larger aircraft.
Additional Spoilers
Extended Flap
Tabs
Figure 2.28 Future multifunctional flap system, according to [12]
22
Chapter 3
Design Approaches for

Integrated Flap Tracks
3.1 Design Premises
3.1.1 The Standard Package
There are three basic design concepts which prevail in aerospace design:
• Safe-life:
part/system is designed such that no catastrophic failure can occur during
the full service life (i.e. flight hours or cycles). Example: nose gear
• Fail-safe:
redundant load paths exist, of which each is able to bear the full load should
one path break down completely. Example: at least two main wing spars
where one can bear the full load
• Damage-tolerant:
damages such as cracks may be tolerated to a certain length and are not
relevant to flight safety, but it must be insured they do not grow to a hazardous
extent and are detected at the latest at the next routine inspection. Example:
various parts with notches due to rivets
It is apparent that the safe-life method leads to rather heavy parts since they must
withstand particularly dynamic loads. Further, expensive high-strength materials
would be used for such components, partly again for weight reasons.
Fail-safe layout, on the other hand, comes up with lighter single structures. However,
since there are at least two load paths, the weight advantage is somewhat relativized.
But these at least two structures can be arranged in such a way that a new function can
be achieved (such as both spars used as the bordering elements of the main wing
integral tank, or a symmetric load distribution). For these reasons fail-safe design is
mainly applied in this project, but only where it is reasonable from a technical point of
view.
3.1.2 Other Premises for this Project
As explained in chapter 2.3 adaptive multifunctional wings will probably become

more important in the future, therefore the integration of the pertaining mechanisms
will be of interest. Single-slotted flap systems prevail now and are mainly considered
in this project, but the integration of at least one additional slot will be investigated
since the tab acts again as a camber flap on the flap body itself which may cause
23
stalling if there is no boundary layer regeneration. Further, mechanical flap panel
synchronization is not of primary concern since efforts are undertaken to achieve this
by other means.
All of this likely entails a more complicated system than current developments, but
given the benefits as anticipated in chapter 1.2 this might still be worth a try.
3.2 Component Concepts

In the following figures the arrows have the following meaning:
indicates a motion
pointer for explanations
3.2.1 Guides
As seen in chapter 2 the actual flap motion and force transmission may be
accomplished by guides or by linkages. Again, a closer look back gives a hint on how
integrated flap tracks could be built. Slat tracks have always been integrated, and as
can be seen in figure 3.1 below this is accomplished using a combination of
translating track supports, fixed programming cams and actuators (rotary actuator in
this case).
Figure 3.1 B767 wing leading edge slats, from [4]
24
These components are usable for trailing edge devices too. However, the translating
track should not intrude the spars if possible due to structure and integral tank sealing
problems.
There are several kinds of translating tracks already developed; most of them have in
common that they use open profiles only. While this is not ideal from a structural
design point of view one needs to bear in mind that all parts in an aircraft must be
visitable by eye and (semi-)optical tools, and should not trap any moisture because of
corrosion problems. This point, however, might become less important through the
use of composite materials.
The detailed design of guides and bearings is done later in a detailed construction.
But, as a possibility, if a standard I-type beam is used as a translating track (slider)
then guides/supports with rolls could look as follows:
Vertical Supports
Vertical Support Roll
Horizontal Support Roll
Slider (I-Beam)
Horizontal Support
Figure 3.2 I-beam translating track supported by rolls
Of course the rolls should not ‘float’ freely. They could either be fixed to the slider,
which would be a useful method for the horizontal support rolls, or they could be
placed in cavities in the supports as shown below.
Figure 3.3 Simple roll bearings
25
It is desired that there be only one actuator on each flap track, with any necessary
differential translating track movements directly linked to it. Besides simplification
this would ensure exactly the same expected movement at each flap deployment,
which may not be absolutely guaranteed with actuators on each translating track.
This can be achieved by the use of programming cams, as shown in figure 3.4 below.
At least two slider links are needed, with a bolt at their connection sliding along the
cam and thus lengthening or shortening the distance between the two slider parts
(d, blue in the figure) as required. This distance depends on the programming cam
shape, which must be a specific mathematical curve chosen appropriately in order to
generate a desired overall slider motion as shown in the plot on the right side of
figure 3.4.
For stability reasons (too high forces acting on link/cam etc) the angles in the linkage
should be kept small, not much more than shown in the figure. Therefore, with only
two links the spectrum of distance shortening/lengthening is rather limited. It could be
increased by using more than two links folding up in a zigzag scheme, but this could
again lead to some stability problems and complexity.
Programming Cam
Slider Linkage
(Specific Mathematical Curve)
Sliding Cam Bolt
Slider Interconnection Non-Programming Cam
Figure 3.4 Effect of programming cam
3.2.2 Actuation
There are many system components (going to the outer wing) located right behind the
rear spar, so there is very limited space to pack any additional mechanisms into it.
Rotary actuators economize space as seen with the B767 (see figures 2.12 and 2.13),
but as described they may have a weight problem due to high loads. Similar
considerations apply to hinged type actuators as used in Airbus aircraft.
Screws with jacks are more lightweight actuators, with a very high power to weight
ratio. This would make them attractive for lightweight structures and systems.
However, as seen in the A300 example, they need relatively much longitudinal space,
which is very limited and precious for an integrated flap track mechanism. Therefore,
the following arrangement has been conceived for this project.
26
Since there is usually enough space in the lateral direction of a wing for parts like a
thin rotary actuator or a screw, such a screw could be mounted laterally behind the
rear spar. By means of an appropriate linkage system effective slider control is
achieved while keeping longitudinal space consumption at a minimum.
Figure 3.5 below shows the complete fail-safe design of the actuation system. Since
the two main sliders are directly interconnected mechanically (not only in the attached
flap), this symmetric approach minimizes slider bending and lateral loads on the main
guide track. However, for fail-safe design reasons each side must be able to bear the
full load in the event of any failure, including lateral loads not encountered in normal
operation (for example due to the failure of one main link, which leaves a lateral force
on the guide tracks). The two auxiliary sliders may also be connected mechanically, at
least in the flap body itself. With this design it is ensured that any part can break
without the whole system failing or even loosening of the flap assembly.
In the actual construction attention needs to be paid to extra loads on the screw due to
wing bending and possibilities to avoid bending of the screw. The screw itself comes
in two physically separate parts (one for each side), but both being interconnected in
the drive unit. Flap loads in longitudinal direction would still have a significant
impact on the screw by inducing a bending loading case. A detailed construction
would need to minimize this screw bending by absorbing longitudinal flap loads for
example in a separate screw jack guide, leaving only the actual screw moving load in
its longitudinal direction.
Bearing Screw Drive Unit & Bearing Attachment Spar
Screw Jack
Main Link
Cam Linkage Bolt
Main Slider
Interconnection Programming Cam
Auxiliary Slider Linkage

Main Slider
& Flap Support
Auxiliary Slider
Main Guide Track
Figure 3.5 Fail-safe symmetric ball screw actuation concept
27
As mechanical flap panel synchronization is no longer an absolute must, an electric
motor could be considered at each flap track drive unit; the screw or any connected
driving parts do not need to extend over the whole wingspan, which allows them to
have just the length needed to fulfill the purpose of moving the jack.
Still, there are significant problems with this symmetric fail-safe approach. Some of
them are due to relatively high forces occurring on the main links and screws near the
flaps up position. To reduce these forces the angle between the screw’s axis and the
main sliders should be as wide as possible, but this entails a rather long system
(measured in the plane’s longitudinal direction). The space needed may not be
available especially with highly packed integrated flap tracks.
Another problem arises because the attachment spar (in most cases this would be the
rear spar of the wing’s torque box) must be perpendicular to the slider actuation
direction. On most commercial aircraft this is only the case for the inner flaps, where
a secondary spar behind the main gear well (see figure 3.6) is indeed almost
perpendicular.
Main Gear Well

Rear Spar
Secondary Spar
Figure 3.6 B767 views, from [5]
28
For the outer flaps the above symmetric concept would not work since the rear spar to
which the whole system needs to be attached to is not perpendicular, and the flaps
must be deployed parallel to the flight direction. The following mechanism may be
useful in this case.
Attachment Spar
Bearing Screw
Auxiliary Cam Screw Drive

Sliding Bolt
Bearing
Main Screw Jack Link

Main Cam
Sliding Bolt
Auxiliary Cam Link
Main Slider Link
Main (Linear) Cam
Auxiliary Slider Link
Main Slider
Auxiliary Slider
Auxiliary Programming Cam
Main Slider Guide
Auxiliary Slider Guide
Figure 3.7 Non-perpendicular spar ball screw actuation concept
With the dimensions shown it is ensured that no sliding bolt goes into a locking
position (i.e. pushing 90° to a cam border etc), and lateral force on the screw is kept
small: most of the force in the slider’s moving direction is absorbed in the main cam.
The main cam is shown linear in the figure above, but could also be shaped to meet
specific requirements.
29
As opposed to a system with perpendicular spar, this system comes up with another
problem: As shown below the screw rotary axis and the slider hinge line are no longer
parallel. Therefore the main link attachment plane on the screw jack needs to tilt via
another joint to become parallel to the slider plane.
Screw Jack
Screw Jack – Main Link
Attachment Spar Attachment Plane
Slider Hinge Line Screw Rotary Axis

& Jack Hinge Line
Screw Jack Plane
Parallel Planes
Figure 3.8 Hinged screw jack main link attachment
A symmetric fail-safe approach as shown in figure 3.5 is not possible here; simply
putting another screw on the other side would not work since acute angles would
occur between the links, which would entail high forces if not making a smooth
sliding bolt motion impossible. Therefore a fail-safe design is achieved by simply
doubling the elements and glueing them, with each part of these doubled elements
being able to bear the full load. As the only part the screw needs to be designed safe-
life.
Glue
Figure 3.9 Fail-safe link/slider and bolt
3.2.3 Flap Angle Control
Besides just moving the flap back- and downwards its angle must be appropriately set
at each position. Therefore the following simple control method is found to be
suitable.
At every wing profile there is a center of pressure (similar to aerodynamic center), a

specific point at which the resultant aerodynamic force acts. This point is located
between about 25% and 35% of the chord line, dependent on the incidence angle of
the airflow. Since there is no moment about this point it is advisable to attach the
main flap support at this location in order to minimize loads on other supports.
30
These other supports control the angle of the flap by means of a linkage as shown in
figure 3.10 below. The attachment/pivot point at the flap must be located a bit up such
that the linkage never attains an angle of 180°, since this could block the mechanism.
The precise motion of this auxiliary flap control and linkage can be achieved by
programming cams as described in chapter 3.2.1. Note that only a rather small relative
motion is needed between auxiliary and main slider (as indicated by the arrow on the
slider in the figure below) to achieve a considerable flap angle.
Auxiliary Flap Support

& Angle Control Linkage
Main Flap
Flap Pivotal Point
Support Slider
Figure 3.10 Flap angle control concept
This approach means that standard lightweight structure design with shells and
stringers cannot be applied throughout the span of the flap body, since other than with
conventional approaches this integrated track automatically entails a cut in a standard
lightweight structure, at least where the supports are located. This will be an issue to
be addressed in the detailed construction.
3.2.4 Main Flap Support Angle Control
The flap including its supports also needs to move downwards. There are some force
transmission issues too: as shown in figure 2.12 (B767 outer flaps) these loads are
absorbed in a main suspension element (containing a bearing for the rotary actuator)
attached to the rear spar. The loads from the flaps pass into both the top and bottom of
this element, which allows transmission of the moment (due to flap load) while the
forces at the spar remain as small as possible with the dimensions at hand.
This basically two-point bearing force absorption approach is also necessary for an
integrated flap track to keep bearing loads small. This can be accomplished together
with a support angle control mechanism as shown on the next page. With this linkage
design the linkage slider load decreases with flap extension, even though the actual
flap loads increase considerably: the main force flow passes through the two back
links of the angle control linkage (i.e. suspension link and main slider angle link) and
goes directly into the main suspension, with the linkage slider and the angle control
link only having a supporting function.
31
Again to avoid blockage of the mechanism no angle should ever attain 180°. The
angles as shown below allow an appropriate linkage positioning. Note: due to flap
weight the support would move automatically downwards even if some links attain
180°. However, this is true for ground operation only. In flight conditions are
conceivable where aerodynamic forces exactly balance the flap’s weight, thus the
‘bended links’ approach is still necessary here.
Main Suspension Main Support Angle Control Linkage
Support Angle Control Retracted Main Support Slider

Linkage Slider
Suspension Link
Main Slider Angle Link
Rear Spar
Support Slider Folding Strengthening Extended Main

Angle Control Link Mechanism Support Slider
Figure 3.11 Flap downward motion control concept
With the geometric dimensions shown in figure 3.11 above, already a very small
angle control linkage slider actuation in the flaps up position would lead to a
significant downward motion of to main support slider. While this may be desired for
some aerodynamics premises it automatically entails a rather high force on the linkage
slider near the flaps up position. In the actual construction this must be accounted for;
a method of applying a ‘locking device’ attached to the main slider will be
considered.
In the following figures of this subchapter (all top views) different flap settings are
labeled accordingly for easier reference (seven settings for these examples, ‘0’
corresponds to flaps fully retracted). The exact dimensions would need to be deduced
from the aerodynamic requirements and the general mechanism proportions, which is
to be done accurately in a detailed construction. Filled arrows indicate the respective
flap extension motions.
32
The mechanism shown in figure 3.12 below both reduces loads on an actuator and
allows accurate control of the support angle control linkage slider even when it moves
only very little near the flaps up position. Magenta on the right side are support angle
control linkage slider positions; on the bottom in red a perpendicular and basically
linear ‘transformation and locking cam’ is shown. Green is a link A (in different
positions) with one end attached to the slider and the other, sliding along the cam, is
attached to an actuator (other link, leverage etc) basically pushing the link
horizontally. As can be seen with the label positions this mechanism transforms the
highly nonlinear motion of the slider into a more steady cam motion. This
‘linearization’ also applies to the forces encountered.
In the ‘0’ position this green link firmly locks the slider, since the link’s cam-sliding
end pushes 90° towards the cam (which then absorbs the full load on the slider) and
thus theoretically no horizontal actuator force is required; the actuator would have a
supportive function. In the ‘6’ position the whole mechanism could not be moved
back if the cam were fully linear (90°-pushing problem again, but now undesired).
Therefore the cam is bent between position ‘5’ and ‘6’; i.e. the 90° angle is reduced to
about 80°, which is enough since the actual forces on the slider between ‘5’ and ‘6’
are small, as the slider and its attached link only have a supporting function there; see
also figure 3.11.
Support Angle Control

Linkage Slider Motion
Link A
Transformation
and Locking Cam
Figure 3.12 Transformation and locking cam
The guides for the sliders should all be mounted onto a single plate the bottom of
which is identical to the aerodynamic wing strake in the flaps up position; this
approach comes up with the least joints. All cams and the fixed pivot points shown in
subsequent figures would also need to be attached to this mounting plate in order to
avoid additional joints.
Basically the main slider motion must be converted to a desired support angle control
linkage slider, as shown in figure 3.13 on the next page. The main slider motion is
introduced to this mechanism by a fixed appendage which moves exactly in parallel to
the main slider (see also figure 3.25 on page 43).
33
As displayed in figure 3.13 the main slider moves only little between ‘5’ and ‘6’ when
compared to the other positions. This is due to aerodynamic requirements: in the last
stage of flap deployment, the flap does basically not move backwards but more
downwards (therefore the support angle control linkage slider moves a long way
between ‘5’ and ‘6’) while increasing its angle of attack considerably at the same
time.
Again to ‘linearize’ the main slider motion a link C is attached to both the main slider
appendage and the (only rotating) lever B. This is achieved successfully, as can be
seen in with the different label positions.
Lever B

Linkage Slider
Main Slider
(Appendage)
Link C
Figure 3.13 Main slider motion transformation mechanism
Now this rotation of lever B needs to be transformed into a more linear motion of link
A. This cannot be done by a single link as the motions are basically opposite to each
other, and neither do they have exactly the same subdivision proportions for the
different settings. Therefore introducing another programming cam is appropriate here
and is done using the following mechanism.
Link D is attached at about the middle of Lever B, and also fixed to a triangle-shaped
lever E. Lever E, which basically inverts the motion of lever B, is attached to link A
via the links F and G, with the bolt connecting F and G sliding along a programming
cam. The bolt connecting G and A slides along the transformation and locking cam.
34
Link D Lever B
Transformation
Lever E and Locking Cam
Link G
Programming Cam
Link F
Figure 3.14 Motion inversion and programming cam
Although this mechanism is rather complicated no other means was found to fulfill
requirements of exact slider control, small element loads, no blockage (90°/180°
situations), plus fitting into the very limited space available in the retracted position.
The following figures show the mechanism with drawn elements in retracted and
extended position (cams are still displayed schematically).
Link D Lever B Link A

Linkage Slider
Lever E
Main Slider
(Appendage)
Link C
Link G
Link F
Figure 3.15 Transformation and locking mechanism — retracted position
35
Linkage Slider
Link D
Lever E Link A
Link F
Link G
Lever B
Link C
Main Slider
(Appendage)
Figure 3.16 Transformation and locking mechanism — extended position
3.2.5 Folding Strengthening Mechanism
If needed there is also a folding strengthening mechanism which contains the main
support slider guides and absorbs most of the bending moment on the sliders
produced by the flap load. These loads are minimal in the retracted position, but rather
high when flaps are extended. This means strong and big guides etc are needed with
flaps extended, but smaller and less strong components are sufficient when flaps are
retracted.
As mentioned in the preceding chapter, the guides for the sliders are all fixed to a
single mounting plate. While this plate is probably stiff enough to withstand any
moments encountered with flaps up this may no longer be the case with fully
extended flaps where a high bending moment acts on the guides and the rather (last
but not least for weight reasons) thin mounting plate. If this should be the case, to
stiffen this plate when needed a strengthening mechanism could be attached to the
plate via hinges, which basically folds up another plate on each side and thus
increases the mechanism’s overall moment of inertia (i.e. increases its flexural
strength).
36
Attachment Plane (i.e. Rear Spar)
FLAPS RETRACTED
Suspension
Slider Guides Mounting Plane
FLAPS EXTENDED
Hinge Line
Folded Up Stiffening Plate
Extended Slider
Figure 3.17 Folding strengthening mechanism
37
3.2.6 Tab Actuation
Since in a multifunctional wing the tab is part of the flap body, as opposed to a
flaperon directly attached to the wing’s main structure, its actuator must be located
either within the flap body or this task needs to be accomplished from outside and via
leverages or other means. There is probably not enough space left within the flap
body due to the integrated track and support which take much volume; there are
concerns of power transmission, too. If hydraulically actuated the respective pipes and
hoses need to move a rather long way which makes them vulnerable for fatigue, stone
hits if hanging exposed, or even corrosion.
To be effective an aileron or a camber flap should not be deflected by more than 30°
to each side. But this is already quite much from an actuation point of view: in current
aileron systems, actuated by cylinders and leverages, there are often bulges in the
wing strake (at least at the bottom surface) to accommodate for the levers in fully
deflected aileron position. As long as pure lever systems are used this cannot be
avoided unless very high forces are encountered on short levers.
These problems may be avoided with the following approach as shown in figure 3.18
on the next page. Besides support ribs the tab contains at least one actuation rib which
features some kind of spike. This spike is designed such that it fits exactly into the
flap body (i.e. its strake) when the tab is fully deflected to either side. There is a facet
on its tip which is needed to allow for a smooth slide in the actual actuator: the
laterally moving tab angle control slider features a cam which the spike is forced to
follow and thus a rotation is induced in the tab. This slider cam can be linear (in the
back view) or may be shaped as a specific programming cam, but in the latter case the
actuation rib spike facet needs to be rounded.
The slider is actuated via a shaft as shown in figure 3.18. This is basically an
extendable spline shaft, attached to the main slider and designed to follow both the
main support slider’s extension and downward motion. It also needs to allow for the
flap angle adjustment motion as described in chapter 3.2.3 above, and this is
accomplished using a cardan joint with its kinematic center located exactly on the
main support slider’s hinge line.
Note that usually there is a taper angle other than zero at least on outer flaps. This
means that the flap’s leading and trailing edge are not parallel, and this angle too can
be accounted for using that same cardan joint.
38
Main Support Tab Control Shaft Cardan Joint Tab Support
Slider
Tab Support Rib
Flap Body
Tab Angle Control Slider
Tab Tab Actuation Rib
Figure 3.18 Tab actuation mechanism
Spike Facet Actuation Rib Spike Slider Cam
Figure 3.19 Tab angle control slider — side and back view
3.2.7 Flap Vane Actuation
With the introduction of a tab as explained in the last subchapter, the flap body
becomes basically like a conventional wing. The tab acts as a simple camber flap on
the actual flap body, with all its problems including reduction of αmax as explained in
chapter 2.1. Therefore it is advisable to include a flap vane in the system which opens
up an additional slot on flap deployment, thus acting like a slat for the flap body. Such
a vane becomes effective only at rather high back- and downward position of the flap;
the pertaining mechanism should thus open the slot only at and after this point.
Besides, aerodynamics require specific overlaps and gaps (as shown in figure 3.20)
for each flap position which need to be accounted for.
Basically the same actuation/programming system as for the B767 slats (see figure
3.1) can be applied for the most accurate positioning of the flap vane. A simplified
system is shown in figure 3.21: it is assumed that the vane moves on a circular track
with specific radius.
39
Figure 3.20 Overlap and gap specifications, according to [13]
The support slider (which is firmly fixed to the vane) thus has a circular shape with
this radius, moving on support rolls. It is attached to the main support slider via the
cam link and the main slider link; they are joint in a bolt which is forced to follow a
programming cam.
As explained above the vane should be actuated only after a significant backward and
tilting motion of the flap body has taken place. The main slider would move during
any position change of the flap; therefore the programming cam features two parts.
The first is circular with its center at the joint location of the retracted slider and
radius equal to the cam link’s length, i.e. this part of the cam is non-actuating as the
cam link follows a circle around its joint with the flap vane slider. Thus the latter
encounters no moving force for this cam part. The second part of the cam is now
designed such that the vane follows the desired path.
Flap Vane Slider Support Roll
Non-actuating (Circular)
Actuating Part Part of the Cam
of the Cam
Flap Vane
Flap Vane Slider
Cam Link
Support Slider
Main Slider Link
Programming Cam
Figure 3.21 Flap vane actuation
40
3.3 Assembled Mechanism
Now the component concepts as outlined above are combined to one single flap
actuation mechanism. In order not to overload the figures below, they do not show the
flap vane and tab actuation mechanisms, neither are spoilers and their support ribs
displayed.
The flap track/support should allow the following motions (color groups for the
individual motions will be kept for this chapter):
Flap Angle Control Motion
Support Angle Control Motion Backward Motion
Figure 3.22 Flap track mechanism — main motions
The figures on the following two pages show the assembled mechanism in both the
flaps up and flaps down position. All labeling is consistent with chapter 3.2; for easier
identification programming cams are always drawn grey, even where they are actually
masked by other elements (but there the borders are shown in dashed lines). The
legend may be useful for reference.
41
Programming Cam
Fixed Pivotal Point
Link and Programming Cam Sliding Bolt
Standard Link Bolt
Figure 3.23 Elements legend
Main Flap Track Suspension Bolts Attachment Spar
Main Flap Track Screw Drive

Suspension
Screw Bearings
Extended Slider
Guides Mounting Plate
Screw Jack
Support Slider Angle Control Link
Suspension Link
Main Slider
Angle Link
Flap Angle Control

& Auxiliary Flap
Support Link
Flap Body
Tab
Figure 3.24 Flap track mechanism — flaps fully retracted
42
Flap Angle Control Main Flap Extension Cam
Slider Guides
Main Support
Slider Guide
Support Angle
Control Linkage
Sliders
Main Wing Structure Edge
Flap Vane Leading Edge
Support Angle
Control Cam
Transformation
Slider Guides Mounting Plate
and Locking Cam
Flap Angle Control Sliders
Flap Angle
& Mechanical Interconnection
Control Cam
Main Support Slider
Main Flap Support Bolt
Main Slider
Appendages
Flap Body
Tab
Figure 3.25 Flap track mechanism — flaps fully extended
Although mainly a task to be done in the detailed construction, the slider profiles are
suggested as shown in figure 3.26 below. Fail-safe design can be achieved by glueing
(red lines) two parts.
Main Support Slider Flap Angle Control Slider
Main Slider
Appendage
Figure 3.26 Recommended slider profiles
43
An inverted T-beam profile was chosen for the flap angle control sliders as with this
profile both a firm guiding as well as accommodation of the flap angle control and
auxiliary support link are possible.
For the main slider actuation, note that there is an additional link (dark red) when
compared to figure 3.7 on page 29. This is necessary because the main support slider
guide, having to bear a very high load especially in extended position, is a closed
profile and should not be slotted. This additional link slides on top of this guide and is
connected to the main slider only after the guide’s end.
This mechanism concept basically proves to fit within the wing strake in the flaps up
position. Note that the support angle control linkage including its sliders needs to be
slightly different for each side: while the transformation and locking mechanism itself
is perfectly symmetric, the support angle control mechanism and its sliders are
somewhat distorted to fit into the very limited space available in the retracted state.
A small cam part is still interfering with the flap’s leading edge in the retracted
position (see figure 3.24).
Solving these and other problems as well as the exact vertical ‘layering’ of all
leverages etc remains to be done in a detailed construction, but does not affect the
basic working principles. This mechanism takes all requirements (as outlined in
chapter 3.1) into consideration.
44
Chapter 4
Preliminary Considerations
For Detailed Design
4.1 Nomenclature
‘airfoil’ (US) or ‘aerofoil’ (UK): another expression for an aerodynamic wing profile
‘inboard:’ refers to parts, assemblies etc closer to the fuselage/center of an aircraft
‘outboard:’ refers to parts, assemblies etc farther from the fuselage/center of an

aircraft
‘flap track station:’ refers to a full flap track assembly at a specific location on the
wing including all supports, guides and actuators; there are at least two such stations
per flap. Usually they are numbered as ‘Station 1’, ‘Station 2’ etc, the lowest number
being allocated to the station closest to the center of an aircraft. For a given set of
stations to which a flap is attached one station is the ‘master station’ while the others
are the ‘slave stations’.
‘chord line:’ roughly refers to the line from a airfoil’s leading edge to its trailing edge.
Its length is usually referred to as ‘chord’.
‘sweep:’ refers to the angle between fuselage (longitudinal) and mean wing spar
direction, normally represented by the 0.25 chord line of the wing or less often also
the leading edge. Many smaller aircraft with this angle being perpendicular (normal
direction) have unswept wings, while most current large airliners feature backswept
wings. The difference between actual mean wing spar angle and normal direction is
referred to as ‘sweepback angle,’ or, in some less common designs where the wing is
inclined in forward direction, as ‘sweepforward angle’.
‘taper:’ basically, a wing (or flap, aileron, rudder etc) with parallel leading and trailing
edge is untapered (a so-called trapezoidal wing with parallel leading and trailing edge)
and otherwise is tapered, regardless of its sweep angle. A tapered wing has therefore
different chords at the wing tip and root; ‘taper ratio’ (tip chord divided by root chord,
or sometimes also by equivalent centerline chord) is used to describe this wing
characteristic. Untapered wings have a taper ratio of 1.
45
4.2 Design Environment
4.2.1 Coordinate Systems
A standard aircraft-fixed coordinate system is commonly used in aerospace

technology, with the x-axis pointing forward along the aircraft’s longitudinal axis, the
z-axis pointing earthward and the y-axis chosen according to the right-hand rule. The
coordinate system’s origin is often chosen at the center of gravity or nearby, but
sometimes also more forward, especially if further lengthened versions of the aircraft
are planned. The origin is placed on the plane of symmetry if the plane is symmetric,
which is almost always the case.
Y
X
Figure 4.1 Coordinate system normally used
For this project another approach is applied: since the rear spar makes a good
reference and most dimensions of interest are located behind it and all detailed
construction in this project will be done on the left wing (arbitrary but not
uncommon), the coordinate system being used is chosen in such a way that the least
possible negative values appear. The origin is located at the outer skin of the wing’s
bottom shell and on the back plane of the rear spar. The y-axis points toward the
trailing edge with the z-axis pointing upwards, and the x-axis pointing from inboard to
outboard on a left wing situation.
Figure 4.2 Coordinate system used in this project
46
4.2.2 Dimensions
For the purpose of this thesis the B767 outboard flap’s dimensions are being used
approximately, and the inner station thereof. This approach is mainly chosen to get
realistic results, and because with this station the flap suspensions are attached
exclusively to the main wing rear spar (see fig. 4.5) rather than several attachment
points on the wing’s lower side (compare approach of Airbus).
As this project is mainly about developing an integrated flap track mechanism it is

beyond its scope to demonstrate structural stability of the main wing with this flap
track attachment method, but since it apparently works in a widely used aircraft there
is good reason to apply it in the following design work without further specific
investigation.
Inboard Flap Track Station

23°
Outboard Flap
Figure 4.3 B767 wing lower side: flap track station used
A rear spar sweepback angle of 23° is chosen from fig. 4.3 above as a realistic
reference for this project. For the purpose of flap load calculations the following
approximate flap dimensions are used (similar to a B767 outboard flap):
47
1815mm
619mm
8750mm
Figure 4.4 Flap dimensions
The basic section shapes and dimensions are shown in fig. 4.5 below. They are
derived from the B767 outboard flap track mechanism, see also fig. 2.12 on page 14.
480mm
1686mm
2260mm
Figure 4.5 Basic section shapes and dimensions
To be efficient the tab needs to have sufficient chord; it also acts as a standard camber
flap or aileron for the flap body which then becomes similar to a wing itself.
Literature suggests [2,3] that such a camber flap/aileron chord should be around 25%
to 33% of the wing chord, and maximum deflection should be 30° up or down. In this
case attention must be paid to avoidance of collision with the spoiler, but with the
dimensions shown in figure 4.5 above this is not a problem.
For these reasons the length from the tab pivot/attachment point to its trailing edge is
set to 560mm, which is about 33% of the flap’s chord 1686mm, and the maximum
deflection is 30°.
48
4.2.3 Flap Extension Characteristics
The exact backward/downward positions and corresponding angles of the flap are
defined by the aerodynamic requirements. For this project no such data is available,
but the different positions as shown in fig. 4.6 below are a realistic reference and will
be used this way.
Colors go from green to red for the different flap extension states. The flap vane is
deployed only in the last three states, where they are also shown in figure 4.6 below.
The tab is shown only with the fully extended flap position. The different flap chord
angles are labeled appropriately.
0°
3°
10°
18°
27°
33°
38°
Figure 4.6 Flap extension characteristics
4.2.4 Three-Dimensional Flap Deployment With Swept Wings
As opposed to unswept wings with untapered flaps perpendicular to the flight path,
fowlering with swept wings is more complicated. The flap body no longer moves
solely on a cylindrical surface, but performs a complex three-dimensional motion.
This usually entails ball joint suspensions. For swept wings there are two basic flap
extension principles as shown on the following two pages.
Trapezoidal Fowlering:
Where a flap is untapered but swept it usually moves on a cylindrical surface as

shown in fig. 4.7. The flap suspension motions form a trapezoidal shape as shown in
blue. Note that this surface is not necessarily circular but defined by aerodynamic
requirements, and that since the flap is swept this cylinder is oblique, i.e. its axis is not
perpendicular to the sections.
49
Trapezoidal fowlering is often used in inboard flaps which are untapered on most
common airliners (see also B767 in fig. 4.3 above). An advantage of this principle is
that theoretically exactly identical flap track stations could be used for such flaps,
although this is rather uncommon. Besides, an untapered flap with identical sections
throughout its span may be built with only one rib shape.
Figure 4.7 Trapezoidal fowlering principle
Conical Fowlering:
When a flap is tapered and swept the intersection point if its trailing an leading edge is
often identical to that of the wing’s leading and trailing edge. The flap usually moves
on a conical surface as shown in fig. 4.8. The flap suspension motions form a conical
surface shown in blue, as opposed to the trapezoidal shape depicted on the preceding
page. Note that this cone surface is again not necessarily circular and its axis is not
perpendicular to the sections.
Conical fowlering is almost always used in outboard flaps, which are mostly tapered
to a certain degree. The taper ratio with reference to the span is often identical or
close to that of the wing as this allows to place the rear spar as far backward as
possible. With this principle no two flap track stations are exactly identical. Further,
depending on the exact aerodynamic requirements, some of these tracks need to be
installed somewhat offset of the aircraft’s longitudinal axis. With conventional
systems this entails a wider fairing and thus more parasite drag (Airbus A380 is a
good example). With integrated flap tracks this disadvantage can be fully eliminated.
50
Figure 4.8 Conical fowlering principle
In this project only trapezoidal fowlering will be considered, as this allows a much
simpler production process of the demonstrator model and besides, two identical flap
track stations can be used in the CAD model. This approach has no negative impact
on the aim of the thesis which is to demonstrate that the mechanism as depicted in
chapter 3 basically works.
The flap’s 3D rotation around its main suspension point can be split into three
separate rotation angles, each of which is relevant for the suspension ball joint design.
Therefore these three angles need to be derived approximately already at this stage. In
the following three figures these rotations are shown; green is the flap plane before
and red after rotation, respectively. The angles are α, β and γ, but in this subchapter
they have no reference to other variables such as the angle of attack, for example.
First, besides a backward translation typical for fowlering, the flap is rotated about a
parallel to the aircraft’s Y-axis (see fig. 4.1 above), i.e. the direction perpendicular to
fuselage and flight path. This is approximately the main flap angle and is indicated as
α in figure 4.9 on the next page. The blue line represents the projection of the ‘raw’
wing plane onto the deployed flap in the following three figures, and the dash-dot
lines are the respective rotation axes. In the α rotation it is identical with the blue
projection line.
51
Direction Perpendicular
to Fuselage and Flight Path
Raw Wing
Plane
.
Wing Back Edge

(Swept Wing)
α
Wing/Flap Trailing Edge
(In Flap Retracted State)
Wing Back Edge

Projected on Flap Plane
Figure 4.9 α flap plane rotation
Since the flap plane must be parallel to the wing’s back edge (in untapered flaps,
otherwise same central point), it needs to be rotated such that this blue projection line
comes up parallel to the wing’s back edge. This rotation angle will be called β and is
shown in figure 4.10 below.
β Wing Back Edge

(Before β Rotation)
Wing Back Edge

(After β Rotation)
Figure 4.10 β flap plane rotation
52
Finally, the flap’s leading edge must be made parallel to the wing’s back edge. This is
the intention of the γ rotation as shown in figure 4.11 below. The axis is perpendicular
to the flap plane, so the blue projection line will of course remain the same.
.
γ
Flap Leading Edge
(Before γ Rotation)
.
.
Flap Leading Edge
(After γ Rotation)
Figure 4.11 γ flap plane rotation
These three angles are calculated using a Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapRotation.nb’

(see Appendix B), using vectors and appropriate rotation matrices. For a sweep angle
of 23° and a maximum flap angle of 38° approximately the following angles are
obtained: α = 38°, β = 15°, γ = 5°
Note that this calculation does not take into account the main suspension angular
motion; the corresponding angular value would need to be subtracted from the
α value above, and it depends on the actual main suspension layout and dimensions.
Therefore, if a standard ball joint is used it must allow for a rotation of less than 38°
around its main axis and about 15° in the lateral direction.
15°
<38°
Figure 4.12 Ball joint rotation angles
53
4.2.5 Flap Loads
The actual loads on a flap and its tracks depend on many different parameters. Even
though nominal aerodynamic loads are already significant, the various failure loading
cases have even more impact and are often dimensioning. There are actually several
hundreds up to thousands of such failure cases which need to be considered in an
actual aircraft certification process. Some of them involve jamming of sliding ball
joints, a failure case also appearing in technically immaculate aircraft: it is not very
uncommon that a mechanic puts his screw-wrench into such a joint box and soon
forgets he has done so. Although there are torque limiters on flap track actuators the
loads resulting from jamming may exceed aerodynamic loads by 20% up to 70%.
Nominal flap loads include forced flap deformation (bending and torsion) and loads
due to wing bending. The maximal aerodynamic load is often encountered in a
‘return-to-land’ situation, i.e. when an aircraft still gets airborne after a technical
failure, dumps fuel and immediately lands again with its maximum allowable landing
weight.
Wing and resulting flap bending also entail a lateral motion of the flap body. To avoid
high lateral loads on flap tracks there is one master station which absorbs all lateral
loads; all other slave stations allow the flap body to move freely in the lateral
direction.
Within the scope of this thesis only very basic loading cases are considered, since the
main intention is to develop a working mechanism. According to the FARs/JARs the
operating range for a commercial airliner is -1.0g to +2.5g. The maximum nominal
aerodynamic loads are attained with fully deployed flaps on final approach.
Therefore, the following loading cases will be considered in this thesis, all of them for
a flap angle of 38° and a speed of 140 knots (with ICAO Standard Atmosphere
conditions at sea level):
+2.5g and tab up 30°
+2.5g and tab down 30°
-1.0g and tab up 30°
-1.0g and tab down 30°
Besides a basic safety factor of 1.1, to account for jamming loads another safety factor
of 1.7 is applied. Rather small basic safety factors are used in aerospace engineering
since on one hand the operational range includes unusually high loads, and on the
other hand failure characteristics of the various materials are mostly well known.
As realistic flap load data is difficult to obtain freely, and varies widely depending on
the aircraft itself with its design, loading and flight configuration, a rough calculation
based on theoretical premises is carried out in this project. This gives a rough idea of
the actual flap loads, although far from being exact. Appendix C shows the various
formulas and steps needed to get these loads, which are finally computed using the
Mathematica Notebook FlapLoad.nb (see Appendix D).
54
4.3 Flap Structure
4.3.1 State of the Art
Basically, a flap body is simply a wing also from a structural point of view. The
standard lightweight thin-walled design approaches are as well applied, with shells,
spars and stringers. Trade-off studies are done to attain the most favorable results as
to the number of spars and stringers to be used; it is not uncommon that three or more
spars are built into a flap body. The trailing edge part is often made up of a covered
honeycomb structure.
Flap Rear Spar
Flap Top Shell Stringer Cutouts
Flap Front Spar
Flap Rib
Figure 4.13 A330/340 standard flap body structure
Carriage Flap
Figure 4.14 A330/340 standard flap track
55
Fig. 4.13 above shows a common structure which is applied on the A330/340 aircraft
families. A front and a rear spar are connected by ribs; only the top shell is stiffened
by stringers. This forms a torque box with the flap nose not being a relevant part of it.
Figure 4.14 shows the flap track mechanism as used on the A330/340 aircraft. Since
the element connecting the flap to the carriage is mounted fully on its outside, the
flap’s lightweight structure shell is not impaired, apart from some rivet and screw
holes.
With the application of an integrated flap track as depicted in chapter 3 it is not

possible to keep this design approach fully. At least one side of the shell needs to be
cut in order to accommodate the main slider and pertaining guides in the flaps
retracted position. Any deviation from membrane loads through cutouts and similar
leads to a heavier system than what could be achieved ideally; therefore such
disruptions must be kept at an absolute minimum.
4.3.2 The B747SP Approach
Coming up with an aircraft for very specific applications, Boeing also introduced a
new kind of flap track mechanism with the B747SP (‘Special Performance’). This
aircraft was designed for ultra long haul trips and can be recognized by its very short
fuselage. The flap track mechanisms are integrated to a high degree, but there are still
small flap track fairings as shown in fig. 4.15 below.
Flap Track Fairings

© 2005 Stefan Jahn. All rights reserved
Figure 4.15 B747SP with partially integrated flap tracks
56
The fact that this flap track mechanism has so far only been used on this (old) aircraft
shows that there are some serious issues to be considered which are also relevant for
this project.
The mechanism itself is fairly simple, as fig. 4.16 below shows. A two-link approach
produces satisfactory flap extension characteristics, although they are only an
approximation to the ideal, which may be a disadvantage from an efficiency point of
view. However, the simplicity of the system is a huge advantage for maintenance.
© 2005 Philip Terpstra. All rights reserved
Figure 4.16 B747SP partially integrated flap track system
As explained in the preceding subchapter the main problem with this and any
‘integrated’ flap track approach is the disruption of a standard thin-walled lightweight
flap body structure common to all other standard flap suspension methods. With the
B747SP this is particularly evident as can be seen in figures 4.17 and 4.18 on the
following page where large cutouts on the flap body top sides are visible. This design
entails a rather heavy system, particularly since the top side of the lightweight
structure is disrupted. Still, the cutouts are needed since the rear link connects flap and
suspensions about in the middle of the flap.
57
Flap Body Structure Cutouts
© 2004 Mehdi Nazarinia. All rights reserved
Figure 4.17 B747SP flap structure cutouts
Flap Suspension Thorns
© 2004 Stefan Welsch. All rights reserved
Figure 4.18 B747SP fully extended flaps
58
As depicted in fig. 4.18 above the flap suspensions act like ‘thorns’ disturbing the
airflow in the flaps extended position. As particularly the top part of the airflow
around an airfoil is very susceptible to disturbances, discontinuities on the top side
lead to considerable efficiency losses due to boundary layer separation. With this
approach, however, there are flap body cutouts anyway at these locations which
would not act as an efficient airfoil.
If the top side of the wing and flap combination could be kept clear of any disruption
this would likely lead to an increase in efficiency compared to the B747SP approach.
4.3.3 Approach for This Project
The state-of-the-art approach as explained in chapter 4.3.1 should be kept wherever

possible. A two-spar structure will be applied with at least one spar kept continuous; it
is obvious that this is possible with the rear spar only and thus there is not much sense
in introducing more than one additional spar. The tab should be attached right at the
back of this rear spar and the main flap support right in front of it.
Thus only the front spar needs to be cut and only in its lower part, the size of the
cutout depending on the dimensions of the main slider and pertaining guides. The
latter also affect the size and placement of the stringers; therefore their vertical
dimensions should be as small as possible to keep weight increases at a minimum. On
the other hand the main slider’s vertical size should be as large as possible to provide
for a high geometrical moment of inertia and a favorable weight-to-strength ratio.
These conflicting requirements need to be addressed also from a main support bearing
point of view: as explained in the preceding chapters the main suspension attachment
point needs to be a ball joint/bearing, and such ball joints need to have a specific
minimal size for given materials and load. This bearing must also be able to follow
rotating motions as explained in chapter 4.2.4.
To avoid some of the problems with the B747SP approach, again ‘Don’t touch the top
side of the flap body’ wherever possible is therefore the way to go in this project.
59
Intentionally left blank
60
Chapter 5
Detailed Mechanism Design

and Demonstrator Model
5.1 Overview
The demonstrator model is built in scale 1:4. Apart from the calculation in chapter
5.2.3 all dimensions are shown in demonstrator size, i.e. four times smaller than what
they would be on a real airplane like the B767. To keep a better overview these
dimensions are depicted only for some elements explained at the beginning of this
chapter; this allows the reader to get an impression of the actual proportions. The
main intention of this chapter, however, is to give an insight into the full design
process and caveats which would be encountered when applying this concept to a real
airliner.
Figure 5.1 below shows the finished demonstrator model; the span of the wing section
used is about 1m. As can be seen on the bottom right picture, it is indeed possible to
leave the flap’s top structure intact and to ensure a smooth airflow on the top side.
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended
Flaps Fully Extended
Figure 5.1 Assembled demonstrator model
61
As explained in chapter 4.1, the flap needs to be suspended on at least two stations.
Since building two identical integrated flap track mechanisms would be too time-
consuming and not of any additional benefit for this project, only one such
mechanism is built and the other is a simulated station 1 flap track, i.e. built into the
fuselage structure and thus of a much simpler nature (it shall be explained in chapter
5.13). A section of the fuselage is included in the demonstrator as can be seen in fig.
5.1 above.
The next figure shows that the task of integrating the flap track into the wing strake
and thus eliminating a fairing can indeed be accomplished using the concept presented
in chapter 3.
Side View
Front View
ELIMINATED
Figure 5.2 Task accomplished!
Chapter 5 shows the necessary design steps in a straightforward way wherever

possible. However, choosing the appropriate dimensions and design is, as often in
engineering, a highly iterative process; therefore references to later subchapters
cannot be avoided at each point. The results as presented herein show a feasible
approach, although far from being optimized in every detail.
The materials used for the demonstrator model are mainly plywood and aluminum;
for some parts stainless steel, brass and copper are used as well. Lubrication is
provided by a low viscosity lube oil for metal-to-metal sliding surfaces; for all other
sliding contact surfaces (metal-to-wood and wood-to-wood) a special lubricant
Waxilite® has been used which is a substance based on paraffin and specially
designed for such purposes.
62
As an overview, figure 5.3 shows the finished main mechanism assembly.
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended
Figure 5.3 Main mechanism assembly
Figure 5.4 below shows its nomenclature, consistent with chapter 3 wherever
possible.
Link D Main Cam

Sliding Element
Lever B
Main Flap
Link C Extension
(Linear) Cam
Flap Angle
(Auxiliary) Main Screw
Control Cam Jack Link
Main Slider Lever E

Appendages
Link F
Main Flap
Support Bolt Link G
Main Slider Auxiliary Auxiliary Flap Angle Auxiliary Main Slider

Slider Link Cam Control Cam Link Link
Sliding Bolt (Auxiliary)
Slider Guide
RED: Nomenclature Consistent with Chapter 3 BLUE: Nomenclature Differing from Chapter 3
Figure 5.4 Main mechanism assembly nomenclature
63
5.2 Main Slider and Support Fitting
5.2.1 Main Suspension Flap Attachment Location
As a first design constraint the main flap attachment point should be close to the
flap’s aerodynamic pressure point, so at about 25%-30% of the flap chord. This
minimizes the load on the secondary suspensions due to flap moment; however, there
will be a considerable moment when the tab is deflected.
On the other hand, the attachment point should be located as far to the back as
possible to allow for a maximum overlap of the main slider and its guide in the flaps
fully extended position (see fig 5.5 below); if it is too small then the main slider
bearings in the guide and the main slider itself might get overstressed. An overlap of
about half of the main slider’s length should be sufficient.
565mm
330mm
28mm
16mm (bearing radius

including reserve)
Main Support
Slider Guide
Overlap
approx. 100mm
Main Slider
Figure 5.5 Flap suspension and main slider overlap
An attachment point too far to the back is not useful either since this entails a large
cut in the lightweight structure. To keep most of the standard flap structure shown in
fig. 4.13 on page 55 the rear spar should not be cut in any way, and the tab with its
bearings and actuators should be accommodated right behind the rear spar.
64
As explained in chapter 4.3.3 the flap’s top structure should not be touched either for
the same reasons. When setting the vertical flap attachment position attention must be
paid to allowing enough room for the stringers (also considering the flap’s 3D
motions, see also figure 5.69). Therefore it should be located as close as possible to
the bottom surface of the flap, while just letting enough room for the flap main
bearing and the main slider guide bearings. The slider guide structure height will
therefore come up at about the flap main bearing diameter, but not much more. The
main bearing diameter needs to be calculated roughly already at this stage, and for the
given loads about 60mm result (see Appendix E), or 15mm in demonstrator scale.
30mm will be used as a reference for the structure’s height, leaving about 20mm for
the main slider’s height.
Taking all these constraints into consideration the main suspension flap attachment
location has been set as shown above in fig. 5.5. Thus only the nose section of the flap
top part needs to be cut (besides the flap vane), and given that this section is not
normally designed as a part of the load path this does not have a significant impact on
the stiffness of the flap top structure.
5.2.2 Main Suspension Wing Attachment Location
Again for the purpose of maximizing slider overlap, the corresponding main
suspension attachment point at the wing structure should be located as close as
possible to the main wing rear spar. On the other hand there must be sufficient room
for the attachment bolt, also taking into consideration this bolt’s dimensions in the x
direction.
Affecting the vertical attachment location, another constraint is the concave shape of
the flap bottom surface: the main support slider guide must not collide with it. As
described on page 31 the main suspension element it is attached to needs to transfer
the moment produced by the flap load into the rear spar. In order to minimize the
pertaining loads the main suspension wing attachment point should be located as close
as possible to the bottom surface. A tangential configuration (including allowance for
bearings etc) is therefore the best trade-off. The following figure 5.6 shows the
selected dimensions.
30mm
Bottom Surface Tangent
32mm
Figure 5.6 Main flap suspension wing attachment location
65
5.2.3 Main Slider Dimensions
It is only now that an actual very rough dimensioning of the main slider can be done.
As explained in chapter above, it must not be higher than 20mm. Therefore its width
and thicknesses must be chosen accordingly. Figure 5.7 below shows the front part of
the slider, which is designed fail-safe by gluing together two standard profiles (see
also figure 3.26 on page 43). These combined profiles make up the main slider width
which is 30mm, a dimension obtained through various iterations and taking into
account many different constraints.
Figure 5.7 Main slider (raw)
A bolt attachment element is added to the main slider. The main flap support bolt is
inserted there and finally the main flap support ball joint.
Figure 5.8 Main slider with bolt attachment element
66
Figure 5.9 Flap main support ball joint attached to main slider
With the dimensions shown in figures 5.5 and 5.6 above, an approximately 300mm
long main slider results, with a minimum guide overlap of 100mm. Therefore, in the
flaps fully extended position the main slider lever arm is about 200mm long. For
stress calculations real dimensions must be used, i.e. in the following calculation the
arm length is 800mm and the maximum slider height 80mm, the width being 120mm.
The loading case +2.5g / tab 30° down with flaps extended yields the highest bending
stress on the main slider since this is the point where the highest loads occur (see
graph in appendix D). Half of the respective lift value of L = 81kN will be used in the
calculation since two flap track stations bear the flap load (main support angle will be
neglected). Two factors of 2.5 (operation range +2.5g) and 1.1 (standard safety factor)
are applied. As the design is such that jamming of ball joints etc anywhere in the
mechanism does not influence the main slider directly, a jamming safety factor of 1.7
is not applied here. However, fatigue is an issue which must be accounted for, so as a
first measure a safety factor of 2 is appropriate, and it is introduced as a multiplication
of the load rather than a reduction of the material constant since the latter is not yet
known.
120mm
15mm
80mm 10mm
Figure 5.10 Main slider dimensions
⎛ 81kN ⎞
M = 200mm ⋅ ⎜ ⋅ 2.5 ⎟ = 20250kNmm
⎝ 2 ⎠
120 ⋅ 803 (120 − 10 ) ⋅ ( 80 − 2 ⋅15 )

3
I= − = 3.97 ⋅106 mm 4
12 12
67
with zmax = 80mm/2 =40mm
M
σ= ⋅ zmax = 204 N / mm 2
I
Therefore, with a standard safety factor of 1.1 and another one of 2 for fatigue show
that the main slider material should have an elastic limit of at least 450N/mm2, a value
attainable with many steel and titanium alloys. Due to fatigue issues aluminum is not
recommended for the main slider, even though the necessary strength may be attained.
This calculation proves the selected dimensions to be appropriate as a first design,

though not optimized. So in demonstrator scale the dimensions of the main slider are
a height of 20mm and a width of 30mm.
5.2.4 Guide Structure Assembly
So far dimensions have only been set for the y and z directions, respectively. Figure
3.24 on page 42 already showed some basic proportions, and is displayed again below
in fig. 5.11. A mounting plate has been suggested in chapter 3; the red lines roughly
outline this plate. Note that with this mounting plate layout the actuation screw needs
to be placed somewhat further away than shown below.
Figure 5.11 Mounting plate environment
68
In the following figure the dimensions used in the demonstrator model are shown. The
blue dash-dot line is equal to the main flap suspension wing attachment location as
explained in chapter 5.2.2 above and is therefore one of the main flap hinge lines. The
red dashed line is the reference line for the figures above which show the
configuration in y-z direction.
The width is chosen to be 170mm, which is basically the result of an iterative process
(as well as the other dimensions shown). It should not be much wider than current flap
track fairings so as not to impair flap efficiency too much in comparison to current
flap track systems. Figure 1.2 on page 2 shows the approximate width for an A340
fairing to be about 0.5m, or 125mm in demonstrator scale. The chosen width is
therefore about a third larger than this reference.
The reason for chamfering the bottom right corner will be explained later in chapter
5.7.2; it is done to avoid collision with the flap’s top structure due to the β flap
rotation angle as well as structural problems.
44mm 29mm
Flap Vane
Leading Edge Line
80mm 90mm
170mm
Figure 5.12 Mounting plate basic dimensions
There are two main suspension elements which on one hand allow a fail-safe design
and on the other hand permit lengthening the main slider if the main suspension bolt
is doubled rather than a single bolt. Another advantage of two suspensions is that
lateral forces can better be absorbed. The distance between them should therefore be
as large as possible, but it is limited by various constraints which will be discussed
later. The dimensions shown in fig. 5.12 above are found to be practical. Dimensions
not shown are either given by the design environment (such as the flap vane’s leading
edge line) or will be introduced in the appropriate chapter.
The raw mounting plate of the demonstrator looks as follows (with some guide
elements already mounted).
69
Main Flap Track Suspension Bolts
Figure 5.13 Mounting plate with main suspension bolts
Fig. 5.14 below shows the main slider in flaps retracted state, embedded between its
guides which are fixed to the mounting plate.
Main Slider Main Slider Guides
Figure 5.14 Embedded and retracted main slider with guides
Since the guides are fixed on the mounting plate they can as well act as distance
pieces, or as a web rib if embedded in a lightweight construction: a cover plate,
basically the same part as the mounting plate is attached at the top of the guides. This
cover then acts as a flange, greatly increasing the bending stiffness of the assembly.
As the main slider dimensions are already chosen such that it is able to bear real flap
loads, there is good reason for assuming that the guide structure assembly will do so
as well. A folding strengthening mechanism as described in chapter 3.2.5 will
therefore not be included in the demonstrator.
70
The cover acts, at the same time, as a base for both the auxiliary cam and the main
slider control link/cam. Fig. 5.15 below shows the mounted cover with some cam
elements attached (it equally shows the transformation locking mechanism which will
be explained in chapter 5.4). Figure 5.16 shows a side view of the built-in full guide
structure assembly with the relevant features visible.
Cover
Figure 5.15 Guide structure assembly with cover attached
Mounting Plate Cover Auxiliary Cam Main Slider Guides
Figure 5.16 A first functional check of the guide structure assembly
It does make sense to attempt to design this guide structure assembly in way that it
can be easily detached as a whole, both from the flap and the main wing structure,
while moving parts like sliders and levers remain in this assembly. This allows better
and less costly maintenance (better access if detached) and replacement, if needed; i.e.
such a unit could be replaced quickly as a whole without the aircraft being grounded
for a long time.
71
5.3 Support Angle Control Linkage
5.3.1 Vertical Section Dimensions
As with the main slider positioning there are again several contradicting requirements
with the support angle control linkage.
First, the secondary suspension point must be specified. It should be as much up as

possible (flap moment) and be at a backward position where it does not interfere with
spoiler attachments and actuators. Here the approach of using two main suspension
elements in conjunction with a swept wing may create problems since the inboard
element would protrude into the spoiler (see also figure 5.17 on the next page), which
must be kept at a minimum. It is also intended to attach the spoiler directly to these
main suspension elements to save the weight of other extra spoiler suspensions.
Another constraint is the suspension link’s angular position in the flaps retracted
position. An approximately vertical position as shown in fig. 5.17 is considered
optimal to direct the load flow in a way that the support slider angle control link is not
overly stressed. In order to keep the suspension link from penetrating the flap’s top
structure, the backward position as shown in figure 5.17 is deemed best with all
constraints taken into account. Note that due to the main wing sweep angle the
problem is more prominent with the inboard support angle linkage; but the
dimensions as shown in fig. 5.17 are chosen such that the inboard suspension link
only collides with the nose section of the flap’s top structure ─ a part which is not
considered relevant for the flap top stiffness and removed anyway for the guide
structure assembly.
The position and angle of the suspension link having been set, this leaves only small
margins for its length. On one hand it must not penetrate the wing surface bottom, and
preferably it should neither do so with the mounting plate if possible. On the other
hand, in order to avoid blocking as explained on page 32 in chapter 3.2.4, no angle
may attain 180° or 90° in the flaps retracted position.
Finally, the main slider angle link must be specified. Again, the blocking avoidance
approach applies, which entails that this link must be tilted downwards as much as
possible. On the other hand, since the load flow produced by the flap moment must be
as straight as possible, this link should be attached as far on the back as possible of the
guide structure assembly, a requirement conflicting to the one just explained above.
Furthermore, too long links are more likely to bend under compression load (which is
the primary loading case due to aerodynamic lift of the flap). Therefore, the main
slider angle link length is chosen such that it meets an additional requirement: to
relieve the support slider angle control link as much as possible in the flaps extended
position, both the suspension link and the main slider angle link should be parallel, i.e.
the load flows directly through these two elements and into the main suspension
element. With an attachment point on the guide structure assembly as close as
possible to the bottom surface the length of the main slider angle link can be derived.
The setting as shown in fig. 5.17 on the next page shows a feasible approach which
meets all of the above requirements as far as possible.
72
133mm
Collision Risk With Spoiler
Collision Risk With Flap
79mm
21mm
215mm
42mm
87mm
Secondary
Suspension
Point 42mm
Main Slider
Angle Link
Suspension Link
Support Slider
Angle Control Link
Figure 5.17 Support angle control linkage y and z dimensions
5.3.2 Lateral Configuration and Dimensions
Fig. 5.18 on the following page shows the actual layout of the support angle control
linkage. In order to avoid tensions, joints are, wherever possible, designed as ball
joints in aerospace engineering. For the linkage at hand this design is only applied for
the main slider angle link. If the suspension link were equipped as well with ball
joints the whole linkage would likely collapse under compression loads due to flap
lift. Therefore, in order to prevent bending of the linkage, the suspension link is
designed with axial bearings rather than ball joints.
73
Suspension Link
Main Slider
Support Slider Angle Link
Angle Control
Link
Figure 5.18 Support angle control linkage (outboard)
Main Suspensions Elements (Raw) Collision Risk With Spoiler
Suspension Link Main Slider Angle Link

Support Slider Angle Control Link
Figure 5.19 Support angle control linkage functional check
The inboard and outboard linkage assemblies are not exactly symmetric, as can be
seen in figures 5.19 and 5.21. The reason is shown in fig. 5.20 on the next page: at the
outboard linkage there is a collision risk between the main slider angle link and the
auxiliary cam, therefore this link must be placed as far to the outboard side as
possible. For the inboard linkage the collision risk arises between the main slider
linkage and the suspension link, which entails that the suspension link must be placed
as far to the inboard as possible.
74
Figure 5.20 Support angle control linkages collision risk
Again, the exact positions of the individual links are the result of an iterative process
which takes the auxiliary and main slider control linkage into consideration. The
following figure shows the dimensions as they were determined accounting for all
requirements.
49mm
65mm
55mm
59mm
Figure 5.21 Support angle control linkages x dimensions
75
5.3.3 Support Angle Control Linkage Sliders and Main Slider Appendages
As mentioned in chapter 3, the support angle control linkage sliders and main slider
appendages are different on each side. The outboard slider looks as follows:
Link A Attached Support Slider Angle Control Link
Attachment Socket
Figure 5.22 Outboard support angle control linkage slider (outboard/inboard view)
The slider has two guide elements on the inboard and outboard side. Note that the
outboard guide needs to be designed in a way that it allows free motion of link A,
while still providing satisfactory guidance to the slider when it is at a far aft position,
i.e. the flaps extended position (see fig. 5.2.1 on the preceding page). In the model this
is accomplished by a cut in the guide element as shown in fig. 5.23 below.
Slider
Inboard Guide
Outboard Guide
Link A
Figure 5.23 Installed outboard support angle control linkage slider
The outboard main slider appendage has essentially the same profile. On one hand,
this avoids collision problems with guides of the support angle control linkage slider.
On the other hand, this allows for an improved additional locking possibility if the
appendage is designed such that it just meets with support angle control linkage slider
in the flaps up position. The appendage is guided by a simple L-profile attached to the
guide structure assembly.
76
Outboard Main
Guide Profile Slider Appendage
Figure 5.24 Outboard main slider appendage installed
Due to the wing sweep angle, the inboard support angle control linkage slider has its
control link attachment socket farther away from the rear spar than the outboard one.
On the other hand the link A attachment point needs to be set even somewhat closer to
the rear spar due to constraints with the transformation locking mechanism cams (see
chapter 5.4.1) Further, the inboard main slider appendage needs to be extended close
to the rear spar in order to get the link C attachment point to the appropriate location.
Thus, the inboard slider looks distorted when compared to its outboard counterpart.
Support Slider Angle Control Link A Guide Sliding Rib

Link Attachment Socket Attachment Socket
Figure 5.25 Inboard support angle control linkage slider (inboard/outboard view)
This distortion makes a simple guidance as with the outboard slider impossible.
Therefore, the inboard slider has a guide sliding rib which assures a straight backward
and forward motion, while it is kept from tilting by being clamped between the cover
on the top and a clamping tread on the bottom, which at the same time provides the
inboard boundary of the guide cam.
77
Slider
Link A
Clamping Tread
Guide Cam
Figure 5.26 Installed inboard support angle control linkage slider
Again, the main slider appendage follows basically the same profile in order to benefit
from the same guide cam and also for additional flaps up blocking reasons already
mentioned with the outboard counterpart.
In addition, the inboard main slider appendage must not collide with the flap’s top
structure due to the β flap rotation angle; i.e. the same requirement which led to
chamfering of the guide structure assembly. Chapter 5.7.2 will show the collision
consequences if this is not taken into consideration. The two-part design as shown in
fig. 5.27 below meets the requirements; besides, the flap vane actuation linkage
(further detailed in chapter 5.7) also needs an attachment point somewhere on the
main slider or its surrounds and it can thus be easily accommodated between the two
parts. Note: the final design of the flap vane control link is shown on fig. 5.28 and
differs slightly from the layout shown in fig. 5.27 below.
Flap Vane Inboard Part Outboard Part Flap Main Suspension Guide
Control Link Bolt Attachment Socket Sliding Rib
Figure 5.27 Inboard main slider appendage
78
This design further takes into consideration that enough space is needed for the
inboard main slider angle link attachment as well as the whole inboard support angle
control linkage as shown below.
Inboard Main Slider Appendage Space for Inboard Support

Angle Control Linkage
Figure 5.28 Installed inboard main slider appendage
However, this design does not allow a twofold flap angle control slider as was
suggested in fig. 3.25 on page 43. This space is now needed by the outboard part of
the inboard appendage, as shown above. Nevertheless, using only one flap angle
control slider even simplifies the whole design; this part of the mechanism will be
discussed in chapter 5.5.4.
5.3.4 Main Suspension Elements
As explained at the very beginning of this report, a requirement of this project is to

demonstrate that with integrated flap tracks it is still possible to accommodate all
electrical and hydraulic systems on the back of the rear spar. This means that the
suspension elements need to be cut at some point, and figure 5.29 on the next page
shows where this is best done. Due to constraints as explained on page 65 above, the
guide structure assembly is limited anyway in its vertical dimensions. So there is
enough space on top of it for other systems, and it is there where the cutouts are
placed on the suspension elements. They are not structurally optimized, however.
Besides, in a lightweight construction the elements are unlikely to be solid blocks as
shown in figure 5.29. Chapter 6.3.4 will show a detailed and more optimized
construction of them. Note the relatively long arm of the inboard suspension element;
this is necessary because main slider auxiliary cam link must be stowed between this
element and the guide structure assembly (see also fig. 5.45), and the suspension link
attachment point is relatively far behind the rear spar.
The dashed lines in figure 5.29 show the approximate upper and lower boundaries of
the guide structure assembly in the flaps retracted position.
79
Figure 5.29 Inboard and outboard main suspension elements
Due to the wing’s sweep angle these main suspension elements are not mounted
perpendicular to the rear spar, but at an angle of 67°, or 23° to the normal,
respectively.
67°
Figure 5.30 Main suspension elements mounted on the rear spar
5.4 Transformation Locking Mechanism

5.4.1 Programming Cam and Sliding Bolt Placements
As mentioned on page 44 in chapter 3.3, there is a problem yet to be solved with the
programming cam of the transformation locking mechanism: the cam interferes with
the flap vane in the flap retracted position as shown on the next page in fig. 5.31.
While link F and G actually just fit within the limited space in front of the flap vane’s
leading edge, the cam itself does not since it must ensure the desired link positions
also when flaps are fully extended. So far the design assumed, to simplify the
construction, that the programming cam sliding bolt and the connection of link F and
G are basically the same.
If the cam sliding bolt is placed somewhere in the middle of link F then the
programming cam would move forward and the collision problem can be solved;
however, this could now lead to a collision with the transformation and locking cam
(depending on the sliding bolt diameters). The ratios as shown in fig. 5.32 represent
an appropriate trade-off meeting these constraints.
80
Programming
Cam Sliding Bolt
Figure 5.31 Collision: programming cam and flap vane
Collision Risk
Transformation
and Locking Cam
Programming Cam
Transformation
and Locking
Cam Sliding Bolt Collision Risk
Programming
Cam Sliding Bolt
Flap Vane
Leading
Edge Line
Figure 5.32 Programming cam sliding bolt placement and collision problems
81
5.4.2 Vertical Layering and Fitting
To accommodate all links of this rather complex mechanism it is divided in two parts,
a lower and an upper one.
For maintenance and production cost reasons the transformation locking mechanism
uses identical parts placed symmetrically for the inboard and outboard side. This
entails much design and trade-off work to find the most appropriate lengths and ratios
for each of the parts. In particular they must all fit within the space between flap vane
and rear spar in the flaps retracted position.
Figure 5.33 shows a satisfactory approach where this requirement is met; the dashed
blue line represents the flap vane leading edge line.
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended

Link A
Transformation
and Locking Cam
Programming Cam

Lever E
Link F
Link G
Support Angle Control Linkage Sliders
Figure 5.33 Transformation locking mechanism (lower part)
Since the intention of the transformation locking cam is to transform small loads on
link G into high loads on link A and the connected slider, rather high loads are
expected to act on this cams’ sliding bolt, which acts at the same time as the
connection of links G and A. A symmetrical load transmission from this bolt into the
guide structure assembly would therefore be highly desirable to prevent the bolt and
link from tilting and punctiform overstressing of the cam surface. Similar
considerations apply to the lever E bolt. Therefore the same two cams are included in
a plate which is added to the guide structure assembly right on top of these links, but
somewhat lower than the cover already discussed in chapter 5.2.4 above. These
mounting plate top counterparts are shown in figure 5.34 on the following page.
82
This figure shows as well the top part of the transformation locking mechanism. It is
designed very thin so that it does not consume much space in the vertical direction; it
just fits within the top cover and the mounting plate top counterparts.
To allow this compact design, however, the link C needs to be curved to avoid
collision with link D. If it were still straight, other constraints could not be met (this is
again the result of an iterative process). This is shown on the right of fig. 5.35 below,
where the dashed lines represent hidden link edges. The concept and design of the
linkage is such that link C will not be stressed very much in comparison with other
parts. Therefore such a bend is considered to be tolerable.
Outboard Top Top Programming Cam Top Transformation Inboard Top
Counterpart and Locking Cam Counterpart
Figure 5.34 Mounting plate top counterparts
Downward Connecting Link D Lever B Link C Link C

Bolt (to Lever E) Curvature
Figure 5.35 Transformation locking mechanism (upper part, flaps retracted)
83
The specific programming cam shape was found by setting the desired main
suspension angle and corresponding main slider extension for various configurations,
then locating the appropriate cam sliding bolt positions. For an actual airliner design
this hands-on approach would of course be replaced by an exact 3D mathematical
curve calculation.
5.5 Main and Flap Angle Control Slider Linkage

5.5.1 Main Slider Actuation
As mentioned on page 44 in chapter 3.3, the main slider is actuated via an additional
link (dark red in figures 3.24 and 3.25) which is connected at about the position of the
main flap support bolt. Due to the nature of the linkage, near the flap retracted
position there is a high sideward force acting on this additional link as the connected
main slider link pushes/pulls at a rather large angle. However, the main slider should
not be stressed further laterally since its task is to mainly bear the regular flap load
which acts in the z and y direction. Therefore, the connection of the additional link
(which will now be called main slider control slider) and the main slider should be
such that no lateral forces are transferred between the two, but only the extension
motion. This is accomplished by a twofold thorn which is clamped between main
slider profiles and main flap support bolt, but otherwise is able to move freely. The
main slider control slider has its own guides mounted on the cover, which absorb
lateral forces acting on it. Smooth motion is ensured by a guide sliding rib on each
side of the slider.
Thorn
Figure 5.36 Main slider control slider
Guide Sliding Ribs

Main Slider
Control Slider
Main Slider
Main Flap
Suspension Bolt Constrained Motion
Thorn
Figure 5.37 Main slider control slider installed
84
Outboard Guide Main Slider
Control Slider
Inboard Guide
Figure 5.38 Main slider control slider guides
The main slider link is designed as a straight standard part with a ball joint at each
end. It is connected to the main slider control slider through a bolt/crank element at
the appropriate location.
Bolt/Crank Element Main Slider Link
Figure 5.39 Main slider link
This attachment location depends on a number of constraints such as the main (linear)
cam position, the main slider link and the collision risk with the inboard support angle
control linkage as shown in figures 5.40 and 5.41 on the following page. Attention
must be paid to the main slider link motion, which in fact forms a hyperbola, i.e. a
collision risk with the support angle control linkage arises, not at the flaps fully
extended or retracted positions, but somewhere in the middle.
The following figure shows the configuration with the main slider about 20%
extended. Since the support slider angle control link is still fairly down the main slider
link just passes without colliding.
85
Main Slider Link
Suspension Link
Support Slider
Angle Control Link
Figure 5.40 Main slider link collision risk (main slider about 20% extended)
When flaps are further extended the support slider angle control link comes up and
leaves no more space for the main slider link to pass. But since the main slider link
has moved further on the hyperbola it still fits in without collision, also due to the
support slider angle control link’s design which is bent to one side (see also fig. 5.18)
and therefore leaves enough space for the main slider to pass by, as shown in fig. 5.41
below.
Bent Support Slider

Angle Control Link
Figure 5.41 Main slider link collision risk (main slider about 70% extended)
5.5.2 Main Cam and Sliding Element
The main slider link is attached to a main cam sliding element instead of a main cam
sliding bolt as was suggested in chapter 3.2.2 on page 29. Due to various constraints
explained in the next chapter the auxiliary cam link needs to be attached somewhat
offset as shown in fig. 5.44. This also requires that rotation of this element be
blocked; this is done by a cam sliding rib which extends along the element.
The cross section shown in fig. 5.42 on the following page corresponds roughly to the
location indicated by the cyan dashed line in fig. 5.43.
86
Main Cam Sliding Rib Main Cam Sliding Element
Main Cam Guide
Figure 5.42 Main cam and sliding element cross section
The main linear cam is very thin (only about the main slider control slider’s thickness)
and mounted on the cover. The upper part of the transformation locking mechanism
just fits in beneath that cam.
Main Cam Sliding Element Blocked Rotation Main Cam Guides
Figure 5.43 Main cam sliding element
5.5.3 Auxiliary Cam and Links
As mentioned above there are several constraints which the auxiliary cam slider and
link must meet. The design process has shown that within the given setting this is not
possible if the auxiliary and main slider links are attached at the same location on the
main cam slider. However, they can be met by offsetting and bending the auxiliary
cam link as shown in fig. 5.44. Since the design concept is such that the auxiliary cam
link does not experience loads of the same magnitude as the main slider link the
bending does not adversely affect structural weight too much.
87
Auxiliary Auxiliary Cam Auxiliary Cam Attachment
Slider Link Sliding Bolt Link Bend Point Offset
Figure 5.44 Auxiliary cam link layout and attachment
The following figures and explanations outline the set of constraints which led to this
design, starting at the flaps retracted position and then listing the various collision
risks encountered upon flap extension. All of these requirements are to be combined
with the main intention of the auxiliary cam as a programming cam, i.e. to set the
respective desired flap angle throughout the flap extension motion.
In the retracted position the auxiliary cam link must, together with the main slider
link, fit in between the inboard main suspension element and the main cam mounted
on the guide structure assembly. The main suspension element should be cut only
where absolutely necessary, so as not to affect its structural behavior too adversely.
This means that the element’s arm should be as large as possible in the z-direction,
this size being limited by the space needed for the auxiliary cam link (therefore the
bend in the link). Furthermore, the sharp curve in the element should be as far away
from the rear spar as possible to avoid interference with the cutout, and also for
structural reasons; by offsetting the auxiliary cam link attachment point on the main
cam slider this distance can be increased.
Inboard Main Inboard Main

Suspension Suspension
Element Arm Element Curve
Collision Auxiliary
Risk Area Cam Link
Main Slider Main (Linear)

Link Cam Guide
Figure 5.45 Auxiliary cam link (retracted position, view from inboard)
88
The same collision risk area marked in fig. 5.45 above is shown again in the following
fig. 5.46, seen from the other side and referred to as collision risk area 1.
Further, the auxiliary cam sliding bolt must neither collide with the outboard main
suspension element (collision risk area 2) nor with the main slider control slider
(collision risk area 3).
Outboard Main Inboard Main

Element Element
Collision Collision
Risk Area 2 Risk Area 1
Collision Auxiliary
Risk Area 3 Cam Link
Auxiliary Cam Auxiliary

Slider Link
Figure 5.46 Auxiliary cam link (retracted position, view from back outboard)
When the flaps are extended the auxiliary cam sliding bolt travels along the cam and
reaches the outboard support angle control linkage. At this point of extension, the
support slider angle control link stays just below the auxiliary cam and thus does not
interfere with the auxiliary cam link. It likewise just passes the outboard suspension
link; this is possible since at this extension point the suspension link is still near the
vertical position.
Outboard Auxiliary
Suspension Link Cam Link
Collision Auxiliary
Risk Area Cam Sliding Bolt
Outboard Support Auxiliary

Slider Angle Slider Link
Control Link
Figure 5.47 Auxiliary cam link (main slider 30% extended, view back outboard)
Figure 5.48 shows that support slider angle control link moves upward and the
suspension link rotates backward soon after the auxiliary cam link passage; thus the
auxiliary cam link could no longer pass now.
89
The figure shows as well a collision risk referred to as collision risk area 1 between
the auxiliary (programming) cam and the slot in the cover which is needed for the flap
angle control slider actuation bolt (see next subchapter). Note that the cam must also
provide for the support slider angle control link passing.
While the suspension link’s backward rotation may create problems with the outboard
part, it is even necessary for the inboard part where just this additional space is needed
for the auxiliary cam link to pass (referred to as collision risk area 2).
Flap Angle Collision

Control Slider Risk Area 2
Actuation Bolt
Slot
Collision
Risk Area 1
As the flaps are extended further, the inboard suspension link rotates further backward
too. Again, this extra space is needed for the passage of the auxiliary cam link’s ball
joint end, as shown in fig. 5.49 below. Note that there is only enough space near the
vertex of the angle (green dashed lines) formed by the suspension link and support
slider angle control link. The attachment point’s vertical location on the main cam
sliding element must be chosen accordingly.
Collision
Risk Area
Vertex
90
Auxiliary Cam Flap Angle
Control Slider
Actuation Bolt
Slot
Collision
Risk Area Cover Cut
Figure 5.50 Auxiliary cam (back part, top view)
Adjacent to the slot already mentioned, there is a relatively large cut in the cover. This
is needed for the flap angle control link and attachment as will be explained in the
next chapters. The auxiliary cam therefore needs to be placed in a way that it does not
interfere with this cut, as shown in fig. 5.50 above.
5.5.4 Flap Angle Control Slider
As mentioned above there is only one flap angle control slider in the demonstrator. A
flap is suspended on at least two flap track stations, and with two attachment points
per station there are at least four such points in total. Three are sufficient for the flap
being suspended statically determinate, so one of the four can fail without the system
getting dramatically unstable. Therefore, a design with only one flap angle control
slider per station is still considered to be fail-safe.
The slider is basically an L-profile. The flap angle control link is clamped to the L-
profile through an element which at the same time serves as the actuation force
transfer element for the slider.
Note that due to the flap’s complex 3D rotation the flap angle control link must
feature ball-joints at each end. The flap angle control slider must allow for, to a
certain degree, free motion of this link; the same applies to its counterpart on the flap.
91
Actuation Bolt Socket Flap Angle Control Link
Figure 5.51 Flap angle control slider and link
Note the cuts in the profile at its end. They are needed to avoid collision (in the flaps
retracted position) with the main flap track suspension and respective bolts as shown
below; the dashed yellow arrows show the features which come in contact in the flaps
retracted position. The profile could be cut straight instead, but the appendage to the
back still gives the flap angle control slider some extra guidance stability.
Figure 5.52 Flap angle control slider cuts
The flap angle control slider is retained and bound by a guiding band, a part of the
guide structure assembly. The build-up process of this band is shown in fig. 5.53 on
the following page.
92
Guiding
Band
Figure 5.53 Flap angle control slider guide build-up
However, this design requires a cut in the cover, which, as explained in chapter 5.5.3
above, is responsible for many collision risks. Still they can be resolved and this
design as well allows for the flap angle control link attachment element to be stowed
in the flaps retracted position (further explained in chapter 5.6.3).
The flap angle control slider is attached (and secured) to the auxiliary slider link
through a bolt as shown in fig. 5.54 below.
Flap Angle Flap Angle Flap Angle Auxiliary

Control Link Control Slider Control Slider Slider Link
Actuation Bolt
Figure 5.54 Flap angle control slider attachment
93
5.6 Flap Body
5.6.1 Structural Considerations
As mentioned on page 56 in chapter 4.3.1, with this integrated flap track concept a cut
in the bottom of the flap structure cannot be avoided. Still, its impact can be kept at a
minimum by choosing a cut shape which does not worsen the situation further by a
strong notch effect. Therefore right or even acute angles in the force flow should be
avoided.
Fig. 5.55 below shows the basic structural layout lines, which depict the front and rear
spar, the rectangular ribs and the main flap suspension attachment location. The rear
spar is continuous as was suggested in chapter 4.3.3. This cannot be fully applied to
the front spar which is made up of two sections, at least in the lower part, to avoid
collision with the guide structure assembly.
Rib Front Spar Sections Flap Suspension Area Rear Spar
Figure 5.55 Flap bottom shell (lower side shown): structure layout
The following figure shows the anticipated force flow lines. Here it becomes evident
that one of the reasons for chamfering a corner of the guide structure assembly is to be
found in flap structural considerations. A force concentration is expected at the flap
suspension area. Note, though, that such a substantial concentration applies to the flap
bottom only; the flap top is mainly not cut so the force flow will be much smoother.
Figure 5.56 Flap bottom shell (lower side shown): force flow lines
The following figure shows the basic flap build-up; note the continuous top part of the
front spar.
94
Front Spar Rear Spar
Flap Support
Attachment Block
Figure 5.57 Basic flap build-up
5.6.2 Flap Main Support Attachment
Since almost the full flap load flows through the flap main support attachment, this
element must be designed very robust. In an actual airliner application a shear field
design could be considered rather than a solid block. The following figure shows the
ball joint mounted onto the attachment block.
Figure 5.58 Flap support attachment block
To allow an evenly distributed load transmission from the flap body into this block it
must be attached to as many parts as possible. Therefore it is attached to the rear spar,
to the outboard boundary rib (non-rectangular), and to the bottom shell via a set of
rivet fields.
95
Of course it would also need to be riveted to the top shell in a real airplane, but in the
demonstrator this is not done for the following reason: to allow for inspection and
installation a general requirement for a structure like a wing is that each section (like a
‘box’ between two ribs) be accessible through access panels in the skin. To keep the
work for the demonstrator at a reasonable level, the whole top shell is easily
detachable and thus serves as a single access panel rather than several access panels
distributed all over the flap body; it is only attached to the front and rear spars by
means of relatively few screws.
Outboard Boundary Rib Inboard Boundary Rib Front Spar Rear Spar
Figure 5.59 Installed flap support attachment block (flaps extended position)
5.6.3 Flap Angle Control Link Attachment
Besides setting the flap angle itself, the flap angle control link also bears the load due
to basic flap moments. The main flap support was roughly set such that aerodynamic
loads act at this point, so almost no additional moments due to these loads are added
to the flap moment. Still, the distance between main flap support and flap angle
control link attachment point is a lever arm and should thus be as long as possible to
reduce the load on the link. However, this point must not be too far to the front as the
link should fit in the cover cut and collision particularly with the auxiliary cam must
be avoided. So selecting the right point is again a highly iterative process. The
attachment block for the flap angle control slider is mounted on the top part of the flap
front spar, as can be seen in figures 5.60 and 5.61.
96
Flap Front
Spar Top
Flap Angle
Control Link
Attachment
Element
Flap Angle
Control Link
Flap Angle
Control Slider
Figure 5.60 Flap angle control link and attachment
Flap Angle Control Link Attachment Element
Figure 5.61 Flap angle control link and attachment (bottom view)
Figure 5.62 shows the mounted flap fully retracted. The flap angle control link
attachment element just fits into the gap of the guide structure assembly.
97
Flap Angle Control Link Attachment Element
Figure 5.62 Flap angle control attachment in the flaps retracted position
5.7 Flap Vane

5.7.1 Improved Actuation Mechanism
A flap vane actuation mechanism has been presented on page 40 in chapter 3.2.7. This
mechanism, however, creates problems in the detailed design process, since it requires
a link being attached somewhere in the middle of the main slider or its appendages.
Attaching it that much in front of the main flap support point requires the guide
structure assembly to be cut further and be built wider in the x direction.
The approach shown in fig. 5.63 allows the flap vane actuation mechanism to be
attached near the flap main support. A flap vane actuation rod performs a rotation
controlled by a flap vane control link as the angle between flap and main slider is
increased. This motion is passed on to a flap vane actuator link which controls the flap
vane extension.
98
Flap Vane Actuator Link Flap Vane Actuation Rod
Flap Vane Control Link
Figure 5.63 Flap angle control attachment in flaps retracted position
For simplification the mechanism as shown does not feature any programming device.
However, it is possible to split the flap vane actuator link in two links, the connecting
bolt of which sliding on a programming cam.
This simplification will also be applied to the demonstrator model. Still, the flap vane
extension characteristics are very close to ideal: the angle between flap and main
slider is increased considerably only in the final flap extension process and thus it is
only then the flap vane will be extended notably, which is exactly the projected
behavior.
5.7.2 Application to Demonstrator
The flap vane is split into two sections, as otherwise it would collide with the guide
structure assembly in the flaps retracted position. The flap vane sliders and ribs are
built as one part, so the flap vanes and sliders are rigidly connected. It is possible,
however, to introduce an additional degree of freedom by designing a pivotal flap
vane support (see B767 slat system in fig. 3.1).
99
Flap Vane Slider
Figure 5.64 Outboard and inboard flap vane section
Each flap vane section must be supported by at least two guide stations, or
receptacles, as shown in fig. 5.65 below. They are attached at the front spar and act at
the same time as nose ribs. In order to avoid forced loads on the flap vanes, the lateral
degree of freedom is only restrained at one receptacle. Nevertheless, the flap vane still
extends straight as both sliders of one section are controlled simultaneously and thus
chocking is prevented.
Note that the flap vanes must be extended perpendicular to the flap leading edge, as
they are rigidly connected to their sliders. This means they are somewhat displaced
sideward when extended. This effect is not considered to have a detrimental effect on
performance.
Bottom Flap
Front Spar
Flap Front
Spar Cutout
Flap Vane
Receptacle
Figure 5.65 Outboard flap vane receptacles (nose cover removed)
The flap front spar must be cut behind each receptacle to accommodate the sliders in
the retracted position, and for the actuator link to pass.
100
Flap Nose
Cover
Top Flap
Front Spar
Bottom Flap
Front Spar
Flap Vane
Actuator Link
Flap Front
Spar Cutout
Flap Vane
Slider
Figure 5.66 Flap vane actuation
In the figure above the actuator link and the flap vane slider are not yet connected; the
full flap vane montage process can be seen on page 190 appendix G.
The nose covers need to be cut as well; in order to avoid aerodynamic problems like
resonances the cuts are just large enough for the flap vane sliders.
Flap Nose Cover Flap Nose Cover Cut
Figure 5.67 Attached and cut flap nose covers
The flap vane actuation rod extends over the flap span and is located right behind the
top of the flap’s front spar. The flap ribs are designed to act as bearings for this rod,
and the flap top shell is part of this bearing system.
101
Figure 5.68 Flap vane actuation rod with actuator links attached
This flap vane actuation rod is now being attached to the flap vane control link which
has already been introduced on page 78 in chapter 5.3.3. As with the flap angle
control link, the flap vane control link too needs to allow for a complex 3D rotation of
the flap, which entails a ball joint support approach also for this link. Production
problems led to the design of this link as shown in fig. 5.28, with only the bottom part
being a real ball joint and the top part allowing a minimal tilt.
The connection point between flap actuation rod and control link should be as close to
the front spar as possible, since the stringers on the flap’s top shell should be
distributed as evenly as possible to keep the original structure as shown in chapter
4.3.1. The flap vane actuation rod too has a stiffening effect and thus acts, to a certain
extent, as an extension to the front spar top. The demonstrator model does not feature
the stringers, however.
Another constraint limiting the control link length is collision with the flap top shell in
the flaps retracted position.
Figure 5.69 on the next page shows the flap vane actuation mechanism and the
general situation, particularly stowing of the guide structure assembly in the flaps
retracted position. The bottom picture shows that the front spar’s top part just fits in
above the guide structure assembly. The top picture shows another reason for
chamfering the inboard main slider appendage and thus also the guide structure
assembly: due to the flap’s beta rotation the appendage would collide with the flap’s
top shell and stringers if it is too wide. By choosing the two-slider appendage design
this problem can be solved and the flap vane control link can be attached
conveniently.
102
Flap Vane
Control Rod
Flap Vane Collision

Control Link Risk Area
(Main Slider
Appendage
with Flap Top)
Figure 5.69 Flap vane control link attached

(fully extended, half extended, retracted)
103
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half
Extended
Figure 5.70 Flap vane extension characteristics
5.8 Flap Vane Gap Cover

As mentioned in the preceding chapter the flap vane comes in two sections. Besides,
the flap body nose is cut at the guide structure assembly location. This leaves a large
gap between the spoiler trailing edge and the flap near the fully extended position; and
since the flap top shell acts like a sharp leading edge this would produce unacceptable
problems such as resonance (the flap would basically act similar to a flute). To avoid
this, a cover is introduced to bridge this gap and allow a smooth airflow at the wing’s
top side. The slot opened by the flap vane is not continuous and will therefore reduce
the flap effectiveness. However, the airflow through such a slot there would be
blocked anyway due to the presence of the guide structure assembly.
Spoiler Inboard Flap Vane
Outboard Flap Vane Inboard Flap Nose
Outboard Flap Nose Flap Top Shell
Figure 5.71 Flap vane gap cover (flaps fully extended)
104
The gap cover is suspended and actuated by a set of links. The right extension
characteristics are attained by appropriately placing an aft and fore link at the inboard
and outboard side and mounting them on the flap’s in- and outboard boundary ribs.
The corresponding attachment points and link lengths depend on the desired extension
characteristics, which are constrained by the flaps fully extended position, the
clearance needed towards the spoiler, and the space needed by the guide structure
assembly in the flaps fully retracted position (see figure 5.75 on the next page).
The rear and fore links are bent so they fit in the small gap left between the guide
structure assembly and the flap boundary ribs, and that they do not collide with each
other during the extension process.
Fore Link Aft Link Actuation Link
Figure 5.72 Flap vane gap cover top and bottom view
Fore Link Aft Link
Figure 5.73 Flap vane gap cover suspension links
Due to the 3D flap rotation the actuation link needs to feature ball joints at its ends,
but for this project this is replaced by just leaving enough allowance at the attachment
holes. The link’s length and attachment point (ideally selected on the main slider
control slider) depend on of the gap cover extension characteristics.
105
Gap Cover
Main Slider
Control Slider
Actuation Link
Figure 5.74 Gap cover actuation link attachment (flaps fully extended)
Gap Cover
Outboard
Outboard Flap Nose
Flap Vane
Figure 5.75 Gap cover (flaps fully retracted position, view from outboard)
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended
Figure 5.76 Flap vane gap cover motion
106
5.9 Main Mechanism Actuation
5.9.1 Actuation Screw
As described in chapter 3.2.2 the main actuation screw is directly attached to the rear
spar. There is a suspension at each side of the screw; as opposed to the main flap track
suspension elements they are mounted perpendicular to the rear spar. Since the wing
is subject to bending and the screw should not be bent if ever possible, it is essential
that the screw bearings be attached to the suspension elements by means of ball joints.
Still, for the purpose of the demonstrator, standard axial bearings are used.
As shown in fig. 5.77 below, there are two guides to keep the screw jack from
deviating upwards or downwards when forces acting on it are not parallel to the screw
axis.
Screw Screw
Outboard Inboard
Screw Jack
Guides
Screw Jack
Screw
Figure 5.77 Actuation screw
The wing section with the screw attached is shown next.
Figure 5.78 Wing section views
107
5.9.2 Force Transmission
The motion and force produced by screw rotation is transmitted to the main screw
jack link via the screw jack. The other end of the link is attached to the main cam
sliding element. The hinged screw jack main link attachment problem as depicted in
fig. 3.8 on page 30 is solved by simply using ball joints at each end of the main screw
jack link.
Screw
Outboard
Suspension
Screw Jack
Main Screw
Jack Link
Figure 5.79 Screw jack with main screw jack link attached
Main Screw
Jack Link
Figure 5.80 Main screw jack link attached to main cam sliding element
Fig. 5.78 above showed the outboard screw suspension cut in the backward part. This
is necessary to avoid collision with the main screw jack link, which, like the main
slider link, performs a hyperbolic motion during extension.
Fig. 5.81 shows the environment of the main screw jack link with the assembled
mechanism and attached flap.
108
Screw Jack
Main Screw
Jack Link
Flap
Figure 5.81 Assembled mechanism and flap (half extended position)
5.10 Wing Fixed and Moving Bottom Covers

To ensure a smooth airflow the bottom wing surface gap between the wing rear spar
and the flap vane leading edge needs to be closed. This is usually done by attaching
covers right behind the rear spar and suspending them at the spoiler suspension
elements.
Due to its downward motion, the guide structure assembly would collide with these
covers; this is why they must be designed to follow the motion. On the other hand,
downward motion of the covers interferes with a smooth airflow and therefore likely
reduces flap effectiveness, so they must be designed in a way to reduce this impact
wherever possible.
Fixed Cover
Suspension Inboard
Moving
Cover
Outboard Main
Moving Cover
Cover
Figure 5.82 Fixed and moving bottom covers attached
109
The main cover is the part located directly under the cut in the flap body. It is attached
to the wing section by a hinge line and to the guide structure assembly by means of a
sliding crank. The sliding design of this crank is necessary as the main cover and the
guide structure assembly have different hinge lines (the crank could also be replaced
by a link).
Sliding Crank
Outboard
Moving
Cover
Main Cover
Figure 5.83 Moving bottom covers in flaps retracted position
When the flaps are extended, parts such as the main slider and appendages are openly
exposed to the environment, particularly water spray on wet runways, or snow which
would likely get lumpy in the mechanism. Besides, the cut flap bottom is likely to
disturb the airflow significantly. For these reasons the main cover features an
extendable part which is attached to the flap body and protects the mechanism at each
flap extension position. Due to the 3D flap rotation this extendable part must be
somewhat flexible (the demonstrator model uses a thin copper sheet for this part).
Flap Body
Main Cover
Extendable Part
Figure 5.84 Main cover extendable part attached to flap body
This extendable part slides in cams on the main cover; it thus fulfills its purpose to
protect the mechanism and ensure a smooth airflow, as shown in fig. 5.85.
110
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended
Main Cover
Main Cover Extendable Part
Figure 5.85 Wing bottom covers (side view)
The outboard part of the guide structure assembly has a shape which allows the cover
to be designed in two sections. This cover chamfering reduces the negative impact on
flap performance. By setting the control link attachment points appropriately the
extension as shown in figures 5.85 and 5.86 can be obtained.
Section 1
Control Links
Section 2
Figure 5.86 Outboard wing bottom cover
Since the inboard guide structure assembly moves downward only minimally the
corresponding moving cover has one section only, and one control link.
111
Inboard
Moving
Control Link Cover
Figure 5.87 Inboard wing bottom cover
The front views shown in fig. 5.88 below demonstrate the good protection of the
mechanism in all extension states.
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended
Figure 5.88 Wing bottom covers (front view)
5.11 Tab Layout and Actuation

5.11.1 Tab Layout
The tab layout is a standard rib-shell structure. One of the ribs is the tab actuation rib
with its spike. However, in an actual airliner such trailing edge tabs would be
designed as honeycomb structures.
The whole tab is supported by a single rod which is inserted from one side. The ribs
are doubled; the attachment elements on the flap just fit within them.
112
Tab Actuation Rib
with Spike
Tab Bottom Shell

Tab Double Rib
Tab Support Rod
Figure 5.89 Basic tab structure
Figure 5.90 Finished tab
5.11.2 Tab Angle Control Slider
The slider and its actuation mechanism are identical to the approach described in
chapter 3.2.6, except that the leverage is upside down. The tab control lever is located
as close as possible to the flap’s top shell, the reason will be outlined later. The lever
extends through the flap rear spar and the flap support attachment block.
Tab Control Lever Tab Control Link Tab Angle Control Slider
Slider Cam
Figure 5.91 Tab actuation slider and leverage
113
Tab
Angle
Control
Slider
Tab
Attachment
Tab Element
Spike
Tab
Figure 5.92 Tab actuation slider with tab spike inserted
Tab Control Lever
Figure 5.93 Tab control lever inserted
5.11.3 Tab Actuation Rods
An extendable rod is attached to this lever and a bearing on the guide structure
assembly via cardan joints; this design allows tab operation at each flap extension
position and takes the 3D flap rotation into account.
Figure 5.94 Extendable tab actuation rod (fully extended)
114
Extendable Tab
Actuation Rod
Cardan Joint
Tab Control Lever
Figure 5.95 Extendable tab actuation rod attached to tab control lever
Extendable Tab Actuation Rod Bearing Cardan Joint
Figure 5.96 Extendable tab actuation rod attached
The extendable rod is attached to another part which is eventually parallel to the rear
spar; it is there the actual actuator (electric or hydraulic) could be mounted. In the
demonstrator this rod is directly attached to a lever.
The rod bearing on the guide structure assembly is not mounted exactly at the main
flap track suspension bolt location. This entails a backward motion of this bearing
when the guide structure assembly moves downward. Therefore, the tab actuation rod
is made up of two sections, one parallel to the rear spar and the other moving forward
and backward with the bearing.
Moving Section Cardan Joint Section Parallel to Rear Spar
Figure 5.97 Tab actuation rod
115
Due to the multiple cardan joints the moving rod section would become unstable if a
torque is applied. Therefore, the moving section needs to be restrained in the vertical
direction, with a free forward and backward motion being ensured. This restraint is a
simple fork mounted on the guide structure assembly, as shown in fig. 5.99 below.
Moving Section Section Parallel to Rear Spar
Figure 5.98 Tab actuation rod installed
Moving
Vertical Section
Restraint
Guide Structure
Outboard Main Assembly Cover
Suspension
Element
Figure 5.99 Tab actuation rod vertical restraint
5.11.4 Tab Operation Overview
With the tab actuation mechanism as outlined in the preceding chapters it is possible
to operate the tab at every flap position and particularly as well during the extension
process. This is important to ensure stability of an aircraft with an adaptive wing
where rolling is controlled only by means of such tabs.
116
Flaps Retracted
Flaps Half Extended
Figure 5.100 Tab operation over the full flap extension range
5.12 Spoiler
Although not the main subject of this thesis it is still important to have a short look at
the integration of spoilers (or also speed brakes, depending on the purpose). A
collision risk with the inboard main suspension element and support angle control
linkage has already been discussed in chapter 5.3.1.
To cut down on weight wherever possible the suspension elements already installed
will serve as well as suspensions for the spoiler.
Spoiler
Spoiler Actuation
Attachment Attachment
Element Element
Figure 5.101 Spoiler top and bottom side
117
Spoiler Suspension Elements Spoiler Actuator
Figure 5.102 Spoiler suspension elements and actuator
In the demonstrator model the spoiler is attached by means of a single rod inserted
into the spoiler suspension and attachment elements, similar to the tab attachment
system. The rotary actuator element and its link are attached to the corresponding
attachment element on the spoiler.
Spoiler
Attachment Rod
Figure 5.103 Spoiler attachment rod inserted
Spoiler
Actuator
Figure 5.104 Spoiler actuation
118
5.13 Inboard Flap Track Station
5.13.1 State of the Art
In practically every modern airliner the number one flap track station is integrated in
the fuselage.
The Airbus A330/340 system as shown in fig. 5.105 below uses a system with
programming cams and sliders. This system requires a slot in the fuselage structure;
for aerodynamic efficiency reasons it is closed in the flaps retracted position.
To keep this slot as small as possible there is a single attachment block (carriage) for
the flap; the block is suspended on and controlled by two programming cams.
Right Inboard Flap Slot Programming Cams Carriage
Figure 5.105 A330/340 #1 flap track station (right side), view from out- and inboard
5.13.2 Simplified Demonstrator Approach
Since the intention of using such a flap track in the demonstrator model is to reduce
work, a somewhat simplified system is used; the slot remains open. There are two
bolts sliding along two cams instead of a single carriage. This requires cutting the
fuselage section more than with a single carriage, but facilitates the programming cam
placement. They need to be chosen such that they do not collide with each other, but
nonetheless provide for the desired flap extension characteristics. Furthermore, they
must be set such that the corresponding attachment points on the flap body do not
collide with other structural boundaries, like the flap’s rear spar, nose, top and bottom
shell.
The sliding bolts are at the same time ball joints attached to the flap. Rigid attachment
elements can not be used here due to the flap’s 3D rotation. The fuselage slot needs to
be large enough to accommodate these ball joints. The sliding bolts are kept
perpendicular to the cams by attaching them to a panel sliding on the fuselage
section’s inboard surface.
119
Sliding Bolt Sliding Panel Sliding Bolt
Figure 5.106 Sliding bolt inserted in cam, and attached to sliding panel
Fore Cam Rear Cam
Figure 5.107 Fuselage section with inboard flap track cams (outboard/ inboard view)
Due to the flap’s beta rotation the flap body top moves somewhat to the inboard and
thus into the slot with full flap extension. Figure 5.108 shows that the slot is just large
enough to avoid a collision. Due to its extension perpendicular to the leading edge, the
flap vane moves somewhat to the outboard which is just enough to avoid collision
with the fuselage section.
Actuation is accomplished via the same screw as is being used for the integrated flap
track station. The motion is transferred to the linear cam on the fuselage section by
means of a link and then transferred to the sliding panel via a programming cam and
linkage to ensure the correct flap position corresponding to the extension state of the
other flap track station.
120
Rear Sliding Bolt Slot with Partially Laterally Displaced Rear Sliding Bolt
Inserted Flap Flap Vane
Figure 5.108 Inboard flap track (half and fully extended positions)
Sliding Programming Linear Transfer Screw Screw

Panel Cam Cam Link Jack
Figure 5.109 Inboard flap track actuation system
121
Figure 5.110 shows the actuation mechanism in different flap extension positions. The
figure also shows all three operation devices on the demonstrator.
Flaps Retracted
Speed Brake Control Lever
Tab Control Lever
Flap Actuation Wheel
Flaps Half Extended
Figure 5.110 Inboard flap track actuation system and demonstrator operation devices
122
Chapter 6
Structural Details and

CAD Model
6.1 Overview
The intention of the CATIA V5 CAD model as presented in this chapter is to provide
the basis for movies of the working main mechanism, and for some basic and simple
FE analyses of selected parts. For some parts there is a higher level of detail compared
to the demonstrator model, such as lightweight shear field design approaches applied
to suitable parts. Some minor modifications are carried out, such as improved moving
bottom covers. Emphasis is set on the main mechanism, however, so many parts like
rivets etc are not modeled, and neither are the tab actuation mechanism and wing
internal structure.
As opposed to the demonstrator model, two identical flap track stations are being used
in the CAD model to simulate an outboard flap configuration. The wing section and
dimensions used are similar to the B767 outboard flap region (see also figure 4.3).
The section has a span of about 6 meters, which is considered to be the minimum to
accommodate two integrated flap track stations, i.e. with this dimension the outboard
station’s actuation screw and suspension do not collide with the inboard guide
structure assembly.
From this chapter onward, only one design step will be done, i.e. no iterations are
carried out to optimize the respective design. This particularly applies to flange
dimensioning and other tasks the results of which highly depend on actual loads and
circumstances of the aircraft, factors which are not known accurately enough in this
project to make extensive optimization steps reasonable.
Figure 6.1 Wing section with flaps fully retracted and extended
123
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 present snapshots of the assembled model. Note that the main
cover’s extendable part is not featured since modeling of flexible parts creates
problems in the CAD model.
Figure 6.2 Wing section bottom view with flaps fully retracted and extended
6.2 Guide Structure Assembly

6.2.1 Mounting Plate
As with the demonstrator model the mounting plate is made up of a single part, which
also contains the programming cams as well as transformation locking cams, lever E
axis attachment sockets and distance block attachment points.
The bottom view in fig. 6.3 shows that the plate’s inboard and outboard parts are
designed as shear fields, using pockets to minimize weight; the flanges are set such
that there are no bends in the force flow wherever possible.
In the middle part no such pockets are applied, since due to the level of detail chosen
the attachment rivets and holes for the guides are not featured, but they would have a
significant effect on pocket placements.
124
Distance Block Attachment Point (Sample) Lever E Axis Attachment Socket
Figure 6.3 Mounting plate top and bottom view
6.2.2 Main Slider Roll Support and Other Structures
So far all slider contacts and guides have been designed as floating bearings. For
highly loaded parts such as the main slider, however, it does make sense to apply roll
supports as mere lubrication may not be sufficient to allow a smooth extension.
Although such roll supports are ideally applied to all sliding elements, it is done
exemplarily for the main slider only in this project. The main loads are in vertical
direction, while the slider needs guidance in the lateral direction as well, but there
much smaller loads apply.
The main slider support rolls are fixed to the inboard and outboard main slider guide
profiles by means of clamps as shown in fig. 6.4 on the next page. To ensure firm
support in all flap extension states these rolls are mounted only at the main slider
overlap area of the guide structure assembly, which can be seen in fig. 6.5. Otherwise,
when the main slider moves off such a support roll and bends due to flap load, it could
block when being retracted.
Main slider lateral guidance is accomplished by fixed and moving rolls. The fixed
rolls are attached to a U-profile which is mounted on the inboard and outboard guide
profiles and fits within the main slider profiles (see figures 6.5 and 6.6). Two
additional rolls are attached at the main slider fore end (see fig. 6.7) which provide
lateral guidance near the flaps retracted position. They also serve as an additional
blockage so that the main slider and attached flap cannot completely detach from the
wing should all other links fail. To separate the main slider from the guide structure
assembly these rolls would need to be detached first.
125
Inboard
Main Slider
Guide Profile
Main Slider
Support Roll
Support
Roll
Clamps
Figure 6.4 Mounting plate bottom view
U-Profile for
Lateral Guidance
Rolls
Main Slider
Fixed Lateral
Guidance Roll
Figure 6.5 Mounting plate top view, structures partially shown
126
Distance
Block
(Sample)
Figure 6.6 Mounting plate top view, all structures shown
Main
Flap Track
Suspension
Elements
Slider-
mounted
Lateral
Guidance Roll
Flap Main
Support
Bearing Ball
Figure 6.7 Mounting plate with main slider and appendages (flaps extended)
Mounting of the top main slider support rolls is much similar to the bottom part, but
now the clamps are at the same time the guides for the main slider control slider, as
shown on the following page. To replace any of these top support rolls the main slider
control slider needs to be removed first followed by the clamps.
This design requires another large cut in the cover, as seen in figure 6.9. The entailing
reduction of guide structure assembly bending stiffness is counteracted somewhat by
the guides mounted on the cover.
127
Inboard
Clamp and
Main Slider
Control
Slider
Guide Main Slider
Support Roll
Cover
Figure 6.8 Main slider top support roll clamp
Cut for
Main Slider
Support Rolls
Figure 6.9 Guide structure assembly top cover
Finally, the guide structure assembly contains all guides, supports and rolls needed to
accommodate all other moving parts of the mechanism.
128
Inboard Top
Mounting Plate
Counterpart
Outboard Top Main Cam

Mounting Plate
Counterpart
Main Slider
Control Slider
Guides
Auxiliary Cam
Figure 6.10 Full guide structure assembly

6.3.1 Suspension Link
As explained in chapter 5.3.2, the suspension link needs axial bearings to prevent the
whole linkage from bending. These bearings need to be securely fixed to the link also
in the axial direction and doubling them on each side represents a fail-safe approach.
The design with securing flanges as shown in fig. 6.11 below meets these
requirements, and the link itself as well is made up of a positive and a negative part
screwed together. Note the chamfer on the negative part which is considered
necessary for ensured collision avoidance with various links (compare detailed
explanations in chapter 5).
Securing Flange
Positive Link Part

Negative Link Part
Screws
Chamfer
Axial Bearing
Figure 6.11 Suspension link (exploded view)
129
6.3.2 Main Slider Angle Link
In fig. 5.18 a simple rod with ball-joint ends has been suggested for this part.
However, since it is highly loaded with a pressure force (outlined in chapter 7), it is
susceptible to bending and a moment of inertia increase should therefore be
envisaged. So almost the identical approach as with the suspension link is applied to
the main slider angle link, but here ball joints are used rather than axial bearings,
which renders doubling impossible. As explained, mainly pressure loads act on the
linkage. Since the main slider angle link is longer than the suspension link the positive
and negative parts are more susceptible to bending; this effect may be counteracted
somewhat by applying more than the two screws shown to fasten them together.
Ball
Inset (Shown as
One Part Only)
Figure 6.12 Main slider angle link (exploded view)
6.3.3 Support Angle Control Linkage Sliders
As depicted in figures 5.22 and 5.25, the support angle control linkage sliders are
somewhat complicated parts from a geometrical point of view. Nevertheless, they can
be manufactured from single raw blocks. As shown below, pockets can easily be
introduced.
Link A Attachment Socket Support Slider Angle Control Link Attachment Socket
Figure 6.13 Outboard support angle control linkage slider
There are some peculiarities with the inboard slider, however. First, a boss is added at
the socket for the support slider angle control link attachment bolt. This guides the
bolt and prevents it from snapping off with high loads.
130
Second, there is a relatively large hole behind the link A attachment socket. This is
needed for assembly of the full mechanism: the guide structure assembly would
normally be attached to the wing with all links and sliders already mounted, but the
main flap track suspension bolts still need to be handled. As the inboard slider covers
the main flap track suspension elements and their bolt sockets, it must therefore have
a hole with the dimension of a main flap track suspension bolt to handle these bolts
conveniently. Since attaching the guide structure assembly is best done with the
mechanism in the flaps fully extended position, this hole must be located accordingly
on the inboard slider, i.e. slightly behind the link A attachment socket as shown in fig.
6.14 below.
Support Slider Angle Control Main Flap Track Suspension Link A

Link Attachment Socket Bolt Access Hole Attachment Socket
Figure 6.14 Inboard support angle control linkage slider
6.3.4 Main Suspension Elements
Leaving the main suspension elements as presented in chapter 5 would lead to a

prohibitive weight. In aerospace engineering such parts are often designed using a
shear field/flange approach, and this is done too for the main suspension elements.
The white lines in fig. 6.15 below show the basic flange lines applied, particularly the
indicated main flange lines should not be bent since otherwise high stress
concentrations would occur as they represent the main load paths.
Element Cutout
Back Boundary
Main Load Paths
Figure 6.15 Outboard main suspension element basic flange lines
The flange widths are set arbitrarily, but with some optical reference to similar such
parts in actual airliners. The given main load path flange widths give the backward
position limit of the element cutout as shown above.
131
A number of additional flanges are introduced to avoid too large shear fields applied
to reduce weight at various locations. Further, a spoiler attachment element is
introduced at the element’s rear end.
Spoiler Attachment Element Suspension Link Pocket
Figure 6.16 Outboard main suspension element
The element is fixed to the main wing rear spar by an array of screws or rivets (holes
shown only for the inboard main suspension element below). High stress
concentrations are expected particularly at the cutout aft corners which are close to
the main load paths. They can be reduced by a corner radius increase at these
locations.
For the inboard main suspension element, because of design and collision constraints
as outlined in chapter 5 it is not possible to place the lower main load path in a way
that it connects the main flap track suspension point to the suspension link attachment
point. Therefore the corresponding flange is placed as much downward as possible
such that it extends from the suspension link attachment point and passes right above
the sharp curve of the element. The element cutout is placed such that this flange
remains straight right up to the wing rear spar.
Upper Main
Load Path
Lower Main
Load Path
Figure 6.17 Inboard main suspension element basic flange lines
132
Since the inboard suspension link is mounted somewhat away from the inboard
suspension element, the corresponding attachment socket features a boss up to the
needed distance.
The inboard main suspension element is wider than its outboard counterpart, so there
is enough space for two spoiler attachment elements, as shown below.
Spoiler Attachment Elements Suspension Link Attachment Boss
Figure 6.18 Inboard main suspension element (outboard and inboard view)
The structure of these suspension elements makes them suitable for thixoforming, as
this production process work particularly well for thin-walled cast parts, produces
plane surfaces and, thanks to an uniform microstructure, minimizes internal stress in
the part.
6.4 Transformation Locking Mechanism (TLM)

6.4.1 Upper Part
Chapter 5.4.2 presented the TLM layering, suggesting a very flat design of the top
part so that it fits in between the main cam and mounting plate top counterpart. It was
suggested to arrange the links C and D below lever B. A symmetrical load distribution
would be beneficial, however, and this allows for a convenient integration of bearings
(same approach as with the suspension link) as shown on the next page; cutouts and
screws need to be included to allow full motion of links C and D.
133
Link D Cutout
Link C Cutout
Figure 6.19 Lever B (exploded view)
Links C and D again follow the same design approach as the suspension link, they
both just fit into lever B.
Link D
Link C
Lever B
Figure 6.20 TLM upper part
6.4.2 Lower Part
Lever E and link G are both made of one raw block, respectively, as shown in fig.
6.21 on the following page; they are connected by the ball-joint supported link F. This
is basically the same design as has been suggested in chapter 5.
134
Lever E Link A
Link G
Link F
Figure 6.21 TLM lower part
For the CATIA assembly to work properly, link G must be constrained in a way that it
follows both the programming and transformation locking cam. For this purpose two
points are introduced at the respective bolt socket midpoints on the link. These points
are then set congruent with the cam datum lines.
Bolt Midpoints
Cam
Datum
Lines
Figure 6.22 Link G guidance in CATIA assembly
135
The fully assembled outboard TLM and support angle control linkage look as follows,
with flaps approximately 25% extended.
Figure 6.23 Full outboard TLM (top counterpart and cover removed)
6.5 Wing Bottom Covers

6.5.1 Fixed Covers
Basically, the fixed bottom covers should be as large as possible as this entails the
least negative impact on aerodynamics. Figure 6.24 below shows the main wing
structures with attached main suspension and screw suspension elements for both
stations, as well as the fixed bottom covers.
Figure 6.24 Main wing assembly with fixed parts attached
136
6.5.2 Moving Covers
Moving bottom covers disturb the airflow, so besides being as small as possible they
should be shaped in way which minimizes airflow deflection and separation. The
cover designs as can be seen for example in figure 5.88 can be improved in this
respect. Figure 6.25 below show these improved covers.
Figure 6.25 Wing bottom covers
As mentioned already, the main cover’s extendable part is not featured since
modeling of flexible parts creates problems in the CAD model. The flexible modeling
would be needed to account for the complex flap 3D rotation, especially the beta
angle. There is an angle of 23° between the main bottom cover hinge line and the
guide structure assembly hinge line, which upon extension leads to a tilt of the main
cover in the desired beta direction, as shown in figure 6.26 below. This reduces the
angle greatly by which the extendable cover would need to be twisted. The
corresponding link is not modeled, but indicated by a green dashed line.
Main
Cover
Figure 6.26 Main bottom cover tilt (view from back, flap not shown)
137
The inboard cover need not be square shaped, but a small triangle is sufficient to
avoid collision with the guide structure assembly, as shown in fig. 6.27. Again, the
corresponding link is not modeled, but indicated by a green dashed line.
Inboard
Cover
Figure 6.27 Inboard bottom cover (flaps fully extended position)
While in fig. 5.88 the second section of the outboard moving cover is only a small
triangle at the outer corner, this section can be enlarged to a more rectangular shape,
without collision, as shown below.
Outboard Cover
Section 1
Outboard Cover
Section 2
Figure 6.28 Outboard multi-section bottom cover (flaps fully extended position)
138
6.6 Flap Body
6.6.1 Rib Placement
The layout as described in chapter 5.6 is applied, apart that now two identical cuts are
needed for the two flap track stations. The rectangular ribs contain cutouts typical for
any such construction. As shown in fig. 6.29 below, some of the nose ribs are
doubled; there they are designed as flap vane receptacles.
Figure 6.29 Flap body basic layout ─ spars and ribs
6.6.2 Top Shell Stringers
The stringers must be fitted in a way so that they do not collide with the guide
structure assembly in the retracted position. As shown in fig. 6.30 below, somewhat
distorted stringers cannot be avoided to prevent collision, but the design as displayed
keeps fairly much of the standard lightweight structure. The stringers are indeed
continuous as fig. 6.31 demonstrates, which is considered to give an acceptable
overall stiffness of the flap body top shell.
Spoiler Flap Vane Actuation Rod Guide Structure Assembly Stringer (Sample)
Top Shell
Figure 6.30 Top shell stringer fitting (some parts removed)
139
Figure 6.31 Flap body basic layout ─ top shell stringers
6.6.3 Flap Vane Gap Cover
In chapter 5.8 a simple two-link approach has been suggested for the flap vane gap
cover. However, the use of programming cams gives more flexibility to avoid
collisions in the adaptation of this flap track system to other dimensions and
constraints. An approach made up of a link and a cam could be designed, or made up
of two cams as shown in fig. 6.32 below. The cams would be integrated in the inboard
and outboard boundary ribs of the flap structure; the actual cams are not modeled here
but indicated by their datum lines, and the sliding bolt locations are marked with
crosses.
Flap Vane
Gap Cover
Inboard
Boundary Rib
Cams
Figure 6.32 Flap vane gap cover ─ cam guidance approach
140
6.7 Miscellaneous Views
The following array of figures shows the main mechanism in fully retracted, half
extended and fully extended state. The amber parts are the joint balls for the flap
angle control link and main flap support, respectively. Note that the screw jack guides
(as has been shown in fig. 5.77) are not modeled.
Figure 6.33 Main mechanism
141
As a basic requirement for this project, there must be enough space behind the rear
spar for various systems and wiring. Figure 6.34 below shows there is indeed enough
such space thanks to the main and screw suspension element cutouts.
Figure 6.34 Cutouts overlay view
The flap beta rotation, as well as the flap vane lateral displacement, become
particularly visible in views from behind, as shown in fig. 6.35 below.
Figure 6.35 Flap beta rotation angle (views from behind)
142
Chapter 7
FE Analysis
This chapter will give a brief overview and rough structural analysis of some selected
parts which are considered to be stressed at a critical level. It is not the intention of
this chapter to present the results of a thorough static and dynamic analysis, since they
would largely depend on the actual airplane and a very high number of loading cases
need to be considered for certification. The loading cases considered in this chapter
are those outlined in chapter 4.2.5 on page 54.
7.1 Main Slider

7.1.1 Loads
The design is such that the main slider absorbs normal loads only: parallel loads
(mainly due to drag) are eventually directed to the screw via the main slider control
slider. This also applies to jamming loads, so main slider calculations will not take
them into account.
The loading case ‘+2.5g and tab down 30°’ is dimensioning, as it produces the highest
normal load. The corresponding basic lift and drag values are L = 81kN and D =
46.5kN, and the same safety factor considerations as outlined in chapter 4.2.5 apply
(apart of jamming), i.e. an overall factor of 2.5*0.5 = 1.25 is applied. Therefore,
L=101kN and D=58kN will be used and the normal force acting on the slider is
calculated as follows:
L N
13.7°
D
101mm
700mm
N= L*cos(13.7°) + D*sin(13.7°)
Result with L=101kN and D=58kN: N=112kN
Although not actually known in this project, the main slider and flap weights are
considered negligible for an FE analysis when compared to these high aerodynamic
loads and will therefore not be considered any further.
143
7.1.2 Modeling
The originally two main slider profiles are merged to one part. The roll bearings are
modeled as rigid line clamps; to allow such restraints to be modeled in the CATIA
analysis tool the following approach can to be followed.
Clamps can only be applied to full surfaces or edges, but the respective roll bearing
lines are located within the main slider’s top and bottom surface. So edges must be
introduced, while not altering the mechanical behavior. This can be accomplished by
applying very small pockets, as they produce the required edges but are still not taken
into account by the meshing algorithm due to their small size.
Figure 7.1 below shows the raw sketches for the pockets at the roll support bearing
locations in the flaps fully extended position.
Figure 7.1 Sketches for small edge-producing pockets
The basic dimensions having been set, the sketch sizes now need to be reduced to a
minimum as shown below.
Sketch Size Before Reduction Sketch Size After Reduction
Figure 7.2 Sketch size reduction
However, it is likely that clamps applied on such sharp notches would lead to
unrealistically high stress values in an FE analysis. Applying clamps to small surfaces
(representing a contact surface between roll bearing and main slider pressed together)
gives a more realistic behavior. Fig. 7.3 shows such an approach, with the sketch
sized unreduced.
144
Small Contact Surface
Figure 7.3 Improved pocket sketches
Applying these sketches to the main slider by means of the pocket function yields the
needed edges, as figure 7.4 below demonstrates. Clamps and force are applied to this
model, the mesh size is set to 9mm (a larger mesh creates problems at the edge
locations).
Edges
Figure 7.4 Main slider with edges
Figure 7.5 Main slider FE constraints
145
7.1.3 Results
FEM computations yield stresses close to 4000MPa, which is about ten times the
value obtained by the rough calculation in chapter 5.2.3. But these high stresses occur
only very close to the two rear roll bearings, as shown by the color distributions in the
two figures below. This corroborates the assumption that the clamp modeling distorts
reality, the more so since stress rapidly decreases in the slider z (vertical) direction.
Figure 7.6 Main slider stress
Clamp
Locations
(Roll
Bearings)
Figure 7.7 Main slider stress near the back roll bearing
To get a more realistic view the color scale maximum value is set to 1500MPa, and a
more realistic stress distribution becomes visible.
146
Figure 7.8 Main slider stress with adjusted color scale
A closer examination of the area around the bearing shows again the huge local stress
increase at the clamp location. Stresses in the flange go up to 750MPa, but only close
to the outer side; at the inner side they are about the same as the predicted 450MPa by
the rough calculation in chapter 5.2.3.
Figure 7.9 Main slider stress near the back roll bearing
Taking the mentioned modeling inaccuracies into consideration as well as that the
load applied is in effect much higher than encountered in normal flight, it can be
assumed that this first rough main slider dimensioning is correct. There are materials
which can bear these and much higher stresses; for example special tempered steels
with tensile strength values up to 2400MPa (such as 100Cr6) can be used for the main
slider. A basic safety factor of 1.1 can therefore be met. Using steel, the flap
attachment point displacement is about 20mm for this very high and unlikely load,
which is acceptable.
147
7.2 Flap Angle Control Slider
7.2.1 Loads
Due to the design approach chosen it is assumed that the main aerodynamic load is
absorbed in the main flap support only. Therefore, only flap/tab moments will be
considered in the flap angle control slider analysis. Further, only the moment
produced by the deflected tab will be used since it is much higher than the bias
aerodynamic moment with the tab not deflected. The calculation in appendices C and
D yield a moment of -10.4kNm for the tab deflected by 30°, and the same (but
positive) value for -30°.
A factor of 2.5 (due to the operation range up to 2.5g) is applied to the moment as
well. Since jamming of the flap angle control slider is possible a jamming factor of
1.7 applies, which at the same time serves as a fatigue safety factor (again introduced
as a load multiplier rather than a reduction of material constants). This is considered
acceptable since jamming is a one-off event that would entail thorough inspection and
maintenance, and adding an extra factor of 2 for fatigue would probably require a
more robust and heavy slider than really necessary. Therefore the overall factor is
2.5*1.7 = 4.25 and the moment is set to ±44.2kNm. Because of fail safe design
considerations as outlined in chapter 5.5.4, this load is applied to one slider only and
not distributed for the purpose of this calculation.
In the flaps fully extended state the flap angle control slider protrudes about 200mm
from the guide structure assembly and thus bending is the dimensioning factor, with
shear playing a subordinate role only.
200mm
200mm
319mm
C 90°
13.7°
C 54°
M
CN
ΣΜ = 0: -M - C*0.319m = 0
CP CN = C*sin(54°+13.7°)
CP = C*cos(54°+13.7°)
Results for M = ±44.2kNm:
CNormal = ±128kN
C = ±138.6kN { CParallel = ±53kN
148
7.2.2 Modeling
Similar to the main slider, the protruding of the flap angle control slider requires a
surface division and edge introduction to attach a clamp correctly. Figure 7.10 below
shows the edges as they are obtained by simply ‘fining down’ the respective surfaces
by 0.01mm.
Edges
Figure 7.10 Flap angle control slider with edges
The load is distributed to the flap angle control link attachment holes as shown in fig.
7.11.
Floating surface bearings are applied to all surfaces in contact with the guide structure
assembly (particularly the guiding band on the top side), and to the actuation bolt
socket. As otherwise constraint problems arise in the computation, an additional
floating bearing is added to the fore end face; the effect of this is minimal since
parallel forces are mainly absorbed in the actuation bolt socket.
Figure 7.11 Flap angle control slider FE constraints
149
7.2.3 Results for -30° Tab deflection
Figures 7.12 and 7.13 again show some stress concentrations due to the modeling
approach. Stresses go up to 900MPa at these locations, while the average is between
100 and 200MPa.
Figure 7.12 Flap angle control slider stress (outboard view)
Figure 7.13 Flap angle control slider stress (inboard view)
Setting the color scale maximum to 300MPa gives a more helpful picture as shown in
figures 7.14 and 7.15. While the stress values remain between a maximum easily met
by tempered steels, there is a rather uneven stress distribution near the actuation bolt
socket. This time it does not result from FE modeling inaccuracies but from the
structure of the flap angle control slider. A redesign may be considered to get a less
sharp curve at this location which may finally lead to a lighter part.
When using steel the displacement at the flap angle control link attachment point is
about 0.6mm, which is small enough to be acceptable.
150
Figure 7.14 Flap angle control slider stress (outboard view), adjusted color scale
Figure 7.15 Flap angle control slider stress (inboard view), adjusted color scale
Figure 7.16 Flap angle control slider translation vectors (outboard view)
151
7.2.4 Results for +30° Tab deflection
Very similar results are computed with the tab deflected to the other side. The
problems remain the same and so do the improvement suggestions as explained in the
preceding subchapter.
Figure 7.17 Flap angle control slider stress (outboard view), adjusted color scale
Figure 7.18 Flap angle control slider stress (inboard view), amended color scale
Figure 7.19 Flap angle control slider translation vectors (outboard view)
152
7.3 Main Suspension Elements
7.3.1 Loads
Bearing forces acting on the main suspension elements are calculated as follows:
Suspension Link
Attachment Point
516mm
756mm
Main Flap Track

Suspension Point 51° 1125mm R
13.7°
1827.5mm
734.5mm
179mm
445.5mm
B
BY=B*cos(51°)
AZ BZ=B*sin(51°)
AY BY BZ
BY
ΣFY=0: -AY+BY+D=0 BZ L
ΣFZ=0: AZ – BZ+L=0
ΣΜA=0: BY*179 + D*445.5 – BZ*734.5 + L*1827.5 = 0
Results with L=172kN / L=-69kN and D=99kN / D=-40kN: D

AY=591kN / AY=-238kN BY=492kN / BY=-198kN
AZ=436kN / AZ=-175kN BZ=608kN / BZ=-244kN }
B=782kN / B=-314kN
153
As with the flap angle control slider, factors 2.5 and 1.7 apply to account for operating
range requirements and jamming loads. Only tab deflection +30° will be considered
as this position produces the highest load magnitude. Since it is unlikely that both
suspension elements on one flap track station fail at the same time and thus fail safe
design is ensured, the flap load is distributed evenly to both stations. The overall
factor applied thus is 2.5*1.7*0.5 = 2.125. It is not evident how the suspension
elements would behave at -1.0g, so this loading case must be examined as well. The
resulting overall factor for this case is -1.0*1.7*0.5 = -0.85.
Hence, with the lift and drag values (81kN and 46.5kN, respectively) as calculated in
appendices C and D, L = 172kN/L = -69kN and D = 99kN/D = -40kN are being used
for the calculations as outlined on the preceding page (the values for -1.0g are green),
the y and z directions correspond to those introduced in chapter 4.2.1.
As a simplification the main slider angle link attachment point in assumed to be on

the line connecting the main flap track suspension and flap support bolt, in spite of the
actual design where this point is located somewhat downward.
Figure 5.21 on page 75 showed that the inboard and outboard support angle control
linkages are not exactly at the same distance from the middle reference line (which
runs through the main flap support ball joint), and neither are the two suspension
elements. This entails a slightly uneven distribution of the loads calculated above.
Still, as these are rough calculations only, the bearing forces are assumed to be evenly
distributed to both suspension elements. So the values above must be divided before
applying them to the respective FE models. Note that the actual force direction must
be reversed on the suspension elements.
Spoiler loads are not taken into account for these calculations, although they do have
an impact also for the flap fully extended position: usually they are deployed
immediately after touchdown, now in the function of speed brakes and mainly as lift
dumpers. Since at this time +1.0g automatically prevails, the safety factor obtained by
considering the loading case +2.5g is considered sufficient to account for this
configuration right after touchdown. For the aim of this project this gives the needed
results for a first assessment. However, for some detailed design tasks, mainly of the
spoiler suspension points, more accurate calculations would need to be carried out.
7.3.2 Modeling
The design as presented in the demonstrator and CAD models is such that the main
suspension elements are attached to both the main wing rear spar and main wing top
shell. Attachment to the top shell provides for increased stability in the case of very
high lateral loads not encountered during normal operations. The main flap load and
moment is absorbed in the rear spar, however. This is the reason why only the rear
spar attachment planes of the main suspension elements receive a clamp as shown in
figures 7.20 and 7.21. The bearing forces are introduced as distributed loads.
154
Figure 7.20 Outboard main suspension element
FE constraints (loads shown for +2.5g)
Figure 7.21 Inboard main suspension element

FE constraints (loads shown for +2.5g)
7.3.3 Results for +2.5g
Figure 7.22 on the next page shows that the shear field approach used for these
elements basically works and the chosen dimensions are not grossly off the mark.
aluminum has been used for these calculations, and the average stresses are within
material limits. The design and flange/field dimensions were chosen intuitively in
chapter 6, far from being optimized. The FE analysis now shows optimization
potential: with the current design of the outboard element some parts are much more
stressed than others. Weight economization is possible at various locations. No
extreme stress concentrations have been detected in the model, so the results obtained
are close to real.
155
Figure 7.22 Outboard main suspension element (outboard view)
There are some locations where the stresses are very high for aluminum, up to
715MPa, particularly at the cutout’s two aft corners. This problem could be solved by
increasing the radius at these corners.
Figure 7.23 Outboard main suspension element, cutout detail
At the spoiler attachment point vertical displacement is about 4mm when using
aluminum, which is acceptable given that the applied load is about four times as high
as encountered in normal flight.
For the inboard main suspension element the situation is somewhat different. Fig.
7.24 reveals a stress concentration up to 3700MPa near the spoiler attachment
element. Two factors contribute to this problem: on one hand, the radius at the
respective corner is too small to be meshed properly; this can be improved by
increasing the radius. On the other hand, the suspension link attachment bolt socket is
placed in a way that a load from the suspension link induces a moment into the
element.
156
Figure 7.24 Inboard main suspension element aft part
Adjusting the color scale produces a more informative stress distribution picture.
Figure 7.25 below shows that the induced torsion indeed poses a problem at the
middle flange, where stresses are very high.
A local redesign of this part of the inboard main suspension element may be
appropriate to attain a more homogenous stress distribution; particularly thickening
the flange will improve the results.
Figure 7.25 Inboard main suspension element aft part (adjusted color scale)
However, overall views of the element show the stress distributions on the other parts
to be within acceptable limits and, as intended, mainly pass through the flanges. In the
fore part around the main flap track suspension point shear field stresses are evenly
distributed.
As expected there are high stresses at the sharp curve between the fore and aft part of
the element. A slight radius increase there may reduce them, but attention must be
paid to the collision risk with the auxiliary cam link (see also fig. 5.45 on page 88).
157
Figure 7.26 Inboard main suspension element (outboard view), adjusted color scale
Figure 7.27 Inboard main suspension element (inboard view), adjusted color scale
Mainly due to torsion, displacement is up to 20mm at the inboard suspension link

attachment point, which is too high given then rather small dimensions of the element.
Replacing aluminum by steel reduces this value by about 50%. It must be noted,
though, that the two main suspension elements and suspension links are connected by
a rod (compare demonstrator model, see for example fig. 5.19 on page 74). This
reduces actual torsion and stresses as the rod has a stiffening effect.
7.3.4 Results for -1.0g
Almost exactly the same observations are made for -1.0g, although the stresses are not
of the same magnitude since the applied loads are much smaller than with +2.5g.
For the outboard main suspension element, again no critical problems are identified,
apart of the too small radius at the two cutout aft corners. For aluminum, maximum
downward displacement is about 2mm at the spoiler attachment element, which is
acceptable.
158
Figure 7.28 Outboard main suspension element (outboard view)
Figure 7.29 Outboard main suspension element, cutout detail
As with +2.5g, a stress concentration appears in the corner at the spoiler attachment
element, and the flange is particularly stressed at its inboard side as shown in fig. 7.31
on the next page. Again, torsion is responsible for this problem. Maximum downward
displacement is about 10mm at the suspension link attachment point.
159
Figure 7.30 Inboard main suspension element aft part
Figure 7.31 Inboard main suspension element aft part (adjusted color scale)
Figure 7.32 Inboard main suspension element (outboard view), adjusted color scale
160
Figure 7.33 Inboard main suspension element (inboard view), adjusted color scale
As a summarization no entirely new insights are gained from the loading case -1.0g
discussion. The same improvement and redesign suggestions apply, and the problems
as discussed for both loading cases may be solved by only one redesign approach.

7.4.1 Loads
The same considerations as with the main suspension elements apply to the support
angle control linkage, and the same loading cases are being used. Therefore, B =
782kN/B = -314kN are distributed evenly to the inboard and outboard support angle
control linkage, coming up with BPer Linkage = 391kN/BPer Linkage = -157kN.
It becomes evident that with the loading case +2.5g a high pressure force acts on the
linkages. This makes the suspension links and main slider angle links susceptible to
buckling, a loading case which poses problems for many FEM algorithms. Therefore,
buckling strength will be evaluated manually.
Although both the suspension link and main slider angle link have almost the same
cross section, the latter is more susceptible to buckling as it is longer and features ball
joints at its ends whereas there are axial bearings on the suspension link.
According to Euler, a maximum buckling load can be estimated using a simple

formula:
π2 ⋅E⋅I
FE = k ⋅
L2
where E is the material’s young modulus, I the smallest moment of inertia

perpendicular to the force axis, and L the link length. k is a factor representing the
bearing type (clamp, floating etc).
161
For a ball joint support at each end, as is the case with the main slider angle link, k =
1.0 applies. The situation is depicted in fig. 7.34 below.
Figure 7.34 Buckling with ball joint bearings
The link cross section is 80mmx24mm. So the smallest moment of inertia is
80mm ⋅ ( 24mm )
3
I= = 92160mm 4
12
A typical young modulus for tempered steels (as could be used for such highly
stressed parts) is 200kN/mm2; the link length is 346mm.
N
π 2 ⋅ 200000 2
⋅ 92160mm 4
FE = 1.0 ⋅ mm = 1520kN
3462 mm 2
This is almost four times the actual pressure load of 391kN on the link, so there is a
comfortable reserve should one of the linkages fail.
An FE model is still done mainly to investigate the -1.0g loading case effect, but also
to see how the bolt sockets perform with both loading cases.
7.4.2 Modeling
The two parts of the link are merged, as has been done with the main slider. To avoid
singularity problems in the FE calculations, one of the bolt sockets is provided with a
clamp, even though this does not represent a ball joint accurately. Therefore, only the
results at the other socket will be considered further, where the load is introduced as a
distributed bolt load.
162
Clamp
Bolt Load
Figure 7.35 Main slider angle link FE constraints
7.4.3 Results
With -1.0g stresses at the socket surface are about 300MPa, which poses no problems
for tempered steels. The high stresses are only very close to the surface and rapidly
decrease to the outside of the link, where less stressed material acts as a support for
the inside.
Figure 7.36 Main slider angle link stresses with -1.0g
With +2.5g a pressure load acts on the link, and as explained above FE results should
be viewed at with caution for such loading cases. Still, the analysis shows the socket
stresses to be up to 735MPa; this is not an unsolvable problem either for tempered
steels. Besides, since the load acts as a pressure load, the ring which forms the bolt
socket is not at risk to break due to this load.
Figure 7.37 Main slider angle link stresses with +2.5g
163
Intentionally left blank
164
Chapter 8
Conclusion
An all new flap track mechanism has been successfully developed and applied to a
realistic environment. The various constraints and problems encountered in the course
of the project have been taken into account and solved to a high degree. The main
goal of this project as described in chapter 1, i.e. to investigate whether it is at all
possible to fully integrate a flap track mechanism into the wing strake, has thus been
attained.
There are various tasks which remain to be done, but to provide meaningful results a
somewhat more concrete application than in this project needs to be specified. At least
data obtained through the preliminary design part of an aircraft’s development
process, such as approximate masses, loads, wing span and area, need to be known.
Particularly to be investigated remain weight and materials, as well as maintenance

and production expenditure. The latter should be compared to more complex Boeing
systems rather than those of Airbus, and the obvious advantages of integrated flap
tracks must be taken into account. The same applies to reliability and availability
considerations. Further, an exact jamming investigation must be done as well as an
analysis of aerodynamic efficiency, issues which have not been addressed in this
project.
The following advantages and disadvantages have been identified; where applicable
the disadvantages come with measures taken to reduce their respective negative
impact.
Advantages
- No fairing drag during cruise ─ the main goal of integrated flap tracks.
- Thanks to usage of programming cams, flap extension characteristics are

exactly as required by aerodynamics, not only approximately as with current
systems.
- Noise is reduced due to less turbulent airflow at the wing lower side.
- Flap extension not exactly in flight direction poses no problem. No wider

fairing due to off-axis track mounting is needed.
- Tab collision with fairing is not an issue anymore ─ which could prove the
combination of integrated flap tracks with adaptive wing technologies to be
very promising, even though an integrated flap track system may likely be
heavier than current systems.
165
- Although a complex mechanism, convenient maintenance and replacement is
possible as the main elements of the mechanism are quickly detachable (the
main mechanism assembly is connected to flap and main wing by only seven
bolts), which allows them to be serviced individually and reduces aircraft
turnaround time due to a quick part replacement. Also in the built-in state most
of the mechanism is easily accessible for inspection without any part removal
needed. This is a clear advantage compared to current systems where the
removal of fairings is avoided unless absolutely necessary, as mounting of
such fairings is quite laborious.
Disadvantages
- Weight ─ although not investigated closely in this project it is evident that a

flap track mounting on the main wing rear spar only and cutting the flap body
structure will lead to a heavier system. However, the latter effect has been
reduced by a more or less intact flap top structure with continuous stringers, as
well as an intact flap rear spar and a partly continuous flap front spar.
- Reliability and availability decrease with increasing complexity of a system.

Fail-safe design is essential to ensure reliability and has been applied in this
project, but more and especially moving parts lead to decreased availability.
- Manufacturing and maintenance expenditure likewise increase with

complexity. However, many parts are very simple, such as the guides which
are basically extruded profiles, and many parts are identical for the inboard
and outboard side (such as the levers and links of the transformation locking
mechanism). The complexity of the system may lead to higher maintenance
costs, but as explained above there are still several advantages with this
approach.
- With any flap track system there is a conflict of aims between cruise qualities,
i.e. attaining the least drag possible, and landing qualities where a high drag is
needed to ensure a steep descent angle. By removing extra fairing drag the
descent angle gets smaller; however, this problem could for example be solved
by deflecting the inboard tabs fully downward (thus being almost
perpendicular to the airflow and producing a high drag), and using the
outboard tabs for roll control.
- The airflow through the flap slot above the track is blocked more than with
conventional systems, where the fairing is located considerably downward in
the flap extended position, which allows at least a partial airflow around the
fairing and through the flap slot behind it. This reduces flap effectiveness
somewhat, but is counteracted by using a flap vane on the other parts of the
flap.
- Particularly the outboard moving bottom cover interferes with a smooth

airflow, which further deteriorates flap effectiveness. This effect is reduced by
using a two-section cover; further, the problem is substantial only near the
flaps fully extended position where high drag is needed anyway (see above) so
it is considered to be acceptable.
166
- The tab actuation mechanism as presented in chapters 3 and 5 creates
problems as to the material characteristics needed. The slider and tab spike
must bear very high pressures due to the spike’s short lever arm. This problem
could be solved by using an array of several such sliders per tab, weight
permitting. Another approach could be using a highly efficient Guerney flap
acting as a servo rudder for the tab. Nevertheless, the described actuation
system for transferring a rotary motion from the wing into the flap is still
applicable.
The above considerations show that a meaningful conclusion can be made only on the
basis of an overall trade-off. Particularly with flap track systems, the decision for a
specific system may seem implausible from one single discipline’s viewpoint, but an
overall view may prove it to be advantageous and optimal for a given application. The
results of this project give a good basis for further tradeoff studies.
Figure 8.1 A fully integrated flap track mechanism ─ task accomplished!
167
Appendix
Appendix A: Relevant FARs (as obtained from [14])
FAR25.697 Lift and drag devices, controls.
(a) Each lift device control must be designed so that the pilots can place the device in
any takeoff, en route, approach, or landing position established under §25.101(d). Lift
and drag devices must maintain the selected positions, except for movement produced
by an automatic positioning or load limiting device, without further attention by the
pilots.
(b) Each lift and drag device control must be designed and located to make
inadvertent operation improbable. Lift and drag devices intended for ground operation
only must have means to prevent the inadvertant operation of their controls in flight if
that operation could be hazardous.
(c) The rate of motion of the surfaces in response to the operation of the control and
the characteristics of the automatic positioning or load limiting device must give
satisfactory flight and performance characteristics under steady or changing
conditions of airspeed, engine power, and airplane attitude.
(d) The lift device control must be designed to retract the surfaces from the fully
extended position, during steady flight at maximum continuous engine power at any
speed below VF +9.0 (knots).
[Amdt. 25–23, 35 FR 5675, Apr. 8, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 25–46, 43 FR 50595,

Oct. 30, 1978; Amdt. 25–57, 49 FR 6848, Feb. 23, 1984]
FAR25.699 Lift and drag device indicator.
(a) There must be means to indicate to the pilots the position of each lift or drag
device having a separate control in the cockpit to adjust its position. In addition, an
indication of unsymmetrical operation or other malfunction in the lift or drag device
systems must be provided when such indication is necessary to enable the pilots to
prevent or counteract an unsafe flight or ground condition, considering the effects on
flight characteristics and performance.
(b) There must be means to indicate to the pilots the takeoff, en route, approach, and
landing lift device positions.
(c) If any extension of the lift and drag devices beyond the landing position is
possible, the controls must be clearly marked to identify this range of extension.
[Amdt. 25–23, 35 FR 5675, Apr. 8, 1970]
168
FAR25.701 Flap and slat interconnection.
(a) Unless the airplane has safe flight characteristics with the flaps or slats retracted
on one side and extended on the other, the motion of flaps or slats on opposite sides of
the plane of symmetry must be synchronized by a mechanical interconnection or
approved equivalent means.
(b) If a wing flap or slat interconnection or equivalent means is used, it must be

designed to account for the applicable unsymmetrical loads, including those resulting
from flight with the engines on one side of the plane of symmetry inoperative and the
remaining engines at takeoff power.
(c) For airplanes with flaps or slats that are not subjected to slipstream conditions, the
structure must be designed for the loads imposed when the wing flaps or slats on one
side are carrying the most severe load occurring in the prescribed symmetrical
conditions and those on the other side are carrying not more than 80 percent of that
load.
(d) The interconnection must be designed for the loads resulting when interconnected
flap or slat surfaces on one side of the plane of symmetry are jammed and immovable
while the surfaces on the other side are free to move and the full power of the surface
actuating system is applied.
[Amdt. 25–72, 55 FR 29777, July 20, 1990]
169
Appendix B: Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapRotation.nb’
Definitions
Norm function and COS base vectors:
norm@vector_D := Sqrt@Hvector@@1DDL ^2 + Hvector@@2DDL ^2 + Hvector@@3DDL ^2D
XVector = 81, 0, 0<
81, 0, 0<
YVector = 80, 1, 0<
80, 1, 0<
ZVector = 80, 0, 1<
80, 0, 1<
Rotation matrices:
RotationMatrixXAxis@ XAngle_D := 881, 0, 0<, 80, Cos@XAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, −Sin@XAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D<,

80, Sin@ XAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, Cos@ XAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D<<
RotationMatrixYAxis@YAngle_D := 88 Cos@YAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, 0, Sin@ YAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D<, 80, 1, 0<,
8 −Sin@ YAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, 0, Cos@ YAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D<<
RotationMatrixZAxis@ZAngle_D := 88 Cos@ZAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, −Sin@ZAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, 0<,
8 Sin@ZAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, Cos@ZAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D, 0<, 80, 0, 1<<
Swept wing back structure edge line (sweep angle 23°):
WingStructureEdgeLine = 8−Cos@23. ∗ Pi ê 180D, −Sin@23. Pi ê 180D, 0<

8−0.920505, − 0.390731, 0<
Flap vane leading edge line parallel to wing structure back edge (retracted position)
FlapVaneLine = WingStructureEdgeLine
8−0.920505, − 0.390731, 0<
Alpha Rotation
Set Alpha = extended flap angle 38.2755° (rotation axis = XVector):
AlphaAngle = 38.2755
38.2755
Beta Rotation
Calculate beta rotation axis (green dashed line to red dashed line in fig. 4.10)
FlapSurfaceBetaRotationLine = RotationMatrixXAxis@−AlphaAngleD.YVector
80., 0.785041, − 0.619443<
Calculate flap surface normal direction (uncorrected gamma rotation axis, before
Beta rotation)
170
FlapSurfaceNormalVector = Cross@FlapSurfaceBetaRotationLine, −XVectorD
80., 0.619443, 0.785041<
Calculate desired flap surface normal direction (corrected Gamma rotation axis,
after Beta rotation); norm resulting vector:
TargetedFlapSurfaceNormalVector = Cross@FlapSurfaceBetaRotationLine, WingStructureEdgeLineD

8−0.242036, 0.570201, 0.722634<
norm@TargetedFlapSurfaceNormalVectorD
0.951793
TargetedFlapSurfaceNormalVector =
1 ê norm@TargetedFlapSurfaceNormalVectorD ∗ TargetedFlapSurfaceNormalVector
8−0.254295, 0.59908, 0.759235<
norm@TargetedFlapSurfaceNormalVectorD
1.
Perform beta rotation such that desired flap surface normal direction is obtained, i.e.
set Beta=14.7318°:
BetaAngle = 14.7318
14.7318
RotationMatrixXAxis@−AlphaAngleD.HRotationMatrixYAxis@− BetaAngleD.ZVectorL
8−0.254295, 0.59908, 0.759234<
Gamma Rotation
Calculate uncorrected flap vane direction (green in fig. 4.11, before Gamma rotation)
FlapVaneLineBeforeGamma =
RotationMatrixXAxis@−AlphaAngleD.H RotationMatrixYAxis@− BetaAngleD.FlapVaneLineL
8−0.890245, − 0.451739, 0.0582737<
Calculate flap vane direction (red line in fig. 4.11, after Gamma rotation), i.e. obtain
original retracted flap vane direction with Gamma=5.137°:
FlapVaneLine
8−0.920505, − 0.390731, 0<
GammaAngle = 5.137
FlapVaneLineAfterGamma = RotationMatrixXAxis@−AlphaAngleD.
5.137
H RotationMatrixYAxis@−BetaAngleD.H RotationMatrixZAxis@−GammaAngleD.FlapVaneLineLL
8−0.920504, − 0.390733, 1.1609 × 10−6<
171
Appendix C: Flap Load Estimation
Since flap force and aerodynamic data is not freely available for actual airliners, an
approximate calculation is carried out in this project in order to obtain at least a
somewhat realistic estimate of these forces.
For all of these calculations the flap is being treated like a free wing and the tab acting
as a standard camber flap. The actual wing influence is neglected for these very rough
calculations.
Formulas used in this appendix are taken from [2] and [3]. The following steps shown
in ‘pretty print’ format are exactly the same as carried out in the Mathematica
Notebook FlapLoad.nb, which is presented in Appendix D.
Dynamic Pressure Data
A typical configuration with flaps fully extended is on final approach, where a large
airliner flies at a speed of 140knots or about 70m/s. ISA conditions are assumed.
V = 70m/s
ρ = 1.225kg/m3
Therefore, the following dynamic pressure results:

ρ
q= ⋅ V 2 = 3001.25 N / m 2
2
Flap and Tab Basic Data
The maximum tab deflection angle is set to 30°, as defined in chapter 4.2.2.
ξmax,tab = 30°
The minimum drag for a standard aerofoil is about 0.011, according to [2]. The actual
flap drag coefficient (including induced drag) will be calculated later.
CW0,flap = 0.011
Additional drag due to tab deflection is introduced. For a standard camber flap, which
the tab is considered to act as for the flap body, the following maximum additional
drag is obtained with a fully deflected tab:
ξ max,tab
ΔCCW 0,max,tab = ( 0.07 − CW 0, flap ) ⋅ = 0.0393
45
Now the different flap dimensions need to be specified. According to fig. 4.4 on page
48 they are as follows:
172
Flap span: b = 8.75m
Flap chord inboard: li = 1.815m
Flap chord inboard: lo = 0.619m
A mean flap chord results:

l = (li – lo)/2 + lo = 1.217m
The tab chord is set to 1/3 of the full flap chord, i.e.
lk = 0.405m
Relative tab chord:

λk = lk/l = 0.33
Flap taper:
λ = lo/li = 0.341
Reference flap chord:

2 1+ λ + λ2
lμ = li ⋅ ⋅
3 1+ λ
Flap surface:
S = b ⋅ l = 10.648m 2
The flap’s Oswald factor is set to a standard value (see [2] and [3]):
e = 0.7
Flap aspect ratio:

Λ = b2/S = 7.3145
For induced drag calculations the following coefficient is needed:

1
k Flap = = 0.0622
π ⋅Λ⋅e
Flap and Tab Position Samples
A set of main flap suspension coordinates for various flap extension states is now
defined in FlapLoad.nb so that it represents the characteristics as shown in fig. 4.6.
A position array is defined for the tab as well. These samples later serve as a basis for
mathematical curve fitting.
Flap and Tab Characteristics
From the flap and tab data defined above, the lift, drag and moment coefficients
produced by tab deflection can be derived. ηk is the tab deflection angle, measured in
radians; note that in flight mechanics a downward deflection is defined to be positive.
173
Calculating the lift coefficient with a deflected tab is a multiple-step process as
defined in [2] for a wing with deflected camber flap (in this case the flap with
deflected tab). First, a change of the acting angle of attack due to tab deflection must
be calculated:
Figure C.1 Theoretic flap effectiveness, from [2]
⎛ ∂α ⎞
⎜
2
⎟ =− ⋅
⎝ ∂ηk ⎠th π
( )
λk ⋅ (1 − λk ) + arcsin λk = −0.689
This is a theoretical value; the actual value is obtained through a flap effectiveness
coefficient fη:
⎛ ∂α ⎞ ⎛ ∂α ⎞
⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ ⋅ fη
⎝ ∂η k ⎠ actual ⎝ ∂η k ⎠th
fη depends on a number of variables, one of which is the tab deflection angle. Fig. C.2
below shows the correlations. In this project there is no slot between the flap and the
tab so the solid lines apply. The Mathematica Notebook FlapLoad.nb extracts and
approximates the curve for the given λk = 0.33 for further use.
Figure C.2 Flap effectiveness coefficient fη, from [2]
174
Cl is defined as follows for the flap with deflected tab:
∂Cl ⎛ ∂α ⎞
Cl = ⎜α − ηk ⎟
∂α ⎝ ∂η k ⎠
∂Cl
α is the AOA of the flap, with the flap lift coefficient derivative = Cl′
∂α
This derivative is a function of Cl(α) of the flap, which in turn greatly depends on the
aerodynamic characteristics of its aerofoil and a number of other constraints.
For a flat plate the derivative can be calculated as follows, using Λ for the dimensions
as defined for the flap at hand:
2 ⋅π ⋅ Λ
Cl′ = = 4.43
Λ+3
This gives at least a first indication for the Cl(α) function gradient near an AOA of 0°.
At higher AOA, however, this gradient decreases because of beginning stall. Figure
C.3 shows a realistic Cl(α) function taking this into account.
Figure C.3 Typical Cl(α) function
The notebook extracts this function in radians for further use.
The derivative function can be approximated by the following formula:
Cl (α + 0.1)
Cl′ (α ) ≈
α + 0.1
With the formulas as depicted above the function Cl (α ,η k ) is obtained.
Now the drag needs to be calculated. Adding induced drag to the standard minimum
drag is done using the following equation:
175
CD , Flap = CW 0, Flap + k Flap ⋅ Cl2, Flap
This formula produces an accurate drag function at small AOA, but at high AOA
where Cl decreases again the drag decreases as well, which is not very realistic.
Therefore, the notebook corrects the drag function to be steadier at high AOA.
This basic drag now needs to be combined with the drag encountered by tab
deflection.
CD = CD , Flap + ΔCW 0,max,tab ⋅ ξTab
Finally, the flap moment coefficient needs to be calculated. Its theoretic derivative is
defined as follows:
⎛ ∂CM ⎞
⎟ = −2 ⋅ λk ⋅ (1 − λk ) = −0.630
3
⎜
⎝ ∂η k ⎠th
with the actual measured moments usually being about 75% of these values (see [2]):
⎛ ∂CM ⎞ ⎛ ∂C ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 0.75 ⋅ ⎜ M ⎟ = −0.473
⎝ ∂η k ⎠ actual ⎝ ∂η k ⎠th
which yields the flap moment function:
⎛ ∂C ⎞
CM = ⎜ M ⎟ ⋅η k with η k = ξTab
⎝ ∂η k ⎠ actual
The basic flap moment is neglected in this rough estimation since normally it is much
smaller than the moment induced by tab deflection.
Flap Loads and Moment Calculation
For better data and graph handling the functions as obtained above are first adjusted
so that they represent values for flap extension percents rather than flap angles. This is
where the position samples are needed.
L = CL ⋅ q ⋅ S
D = CD ⋅ q ⋅ S
M = CM ⋅ q ⋅ S ⋅ lμ
These functions can now be used for subsequent tasks.
176
Appendix D: Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapLoad.nb’
Dynamic Pressure Data

Airspeed = 70
70
AirDensity = 1.225
1.225
DynamicPressure = AirDensity ê 2 ∗ Airspeed^2
3001.25
Flap and Tab Basic Data

XiMaxTabDegree = 30
30
cDragZeroFlap = 0.011
0.011
DeltacDragZeroTab = H0.07 − cDragZeroFlapL ∗ XiMaxTabDegree ê 45
0.0393333
SpanOutboardFlap = 8.75
8.75
FlapChordOutboard = 0.61875
0.61875
FlapChordInboard = 1.815
1.815
l = H FlapChordInboard − FlapChordOutboardL ê 2 + FlapChordOutboard
1.21688
lk = l ê 3
0.405625
LambdaK = lk ê l
0.333333
FlapTaper = FlapChordOutboard ê FlapChordInboard
0.340909
FlapReferenceChord = FlapChordInboard ∗ 2 ê 3 ∗ H1 + FlapTaper + FlapTaper^2L ê H1 + FlapTaperL
1.31487
SurfaceOutboardFlap = l ∗ SpanOutboardFlap
10.6477
FlapOswaldFactor = 0.7
0.7
FlapLambda = HSpanOutboardFlapL ^2 ê HSurfaceOutboardFlapL
7.19055
FlapK = 1 ê HPi ∗ FlapLambda ∗ FlapOswaldFactorL
0.0632397
177
Flap and Tab Position Samples
MainSuspensionBackMotionSample = 829.8, 32.4, 36.0, 39.6, 43.3, 45.92, 47.15<
829.8, 32.4, 36., 39.6, 43.3, 45.92, 47.15<
MainSuspensionBackMotionDelta =
Last@ MainSuspensionBackMotionSampleD − First@ MainSuspensionBackMotionSampleD
17.35
MainSuspensionExtensionSample =
H MainSuspensionBackMotionSample − 29.8L ê MainSuspensionBackMotionDelta ∗ 100
80., 14.9856, 35.7349, 56.4841, 77.8098, 92.9107, 100.<
FlapAOASample = 80, 3, 10, 18.5, 26, 33, 38<
80, 3, 10, 18.5, 26, 33, 38<
XiTabSample = Table@i, 8i, − XiMaxTabDegree, XiMaxTabDegree, 1<D
8−30, − 29, − 28, − 27, − 26, − 25, −24, −23, −22, − 21, − 20, − 19, − 18, − 17, −16, −15, −14,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30<
−13, − 12, − 11, − 10, − 9, − 8, −7, −6, −5, − 4, − 3, − 2, − 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
Flap and Tab Characteristics
fη curve extraction:
fEtaTabPolynom@XiTabSet_D =
Fit@880, .91<, 85, .877<, 810, .87<, 820, .64<, 830, .5<, 840, .43<, 850, .39<,
860, .365<, 870, .34<<, 81, XiTabSet, XiTabSet^2, XiTabSet^3, XiTabSet^4,
XiTabSet^5, XiTabSet^6, XiTabSet^7<, XiTabSetD
0.908086 − 0.014923 XiTabSet + 0.00403504 XiTabSet2 −
0.000486127 XiTabSet3 + 0.0000225074 XiTabSet4 − 4.98584 × 10−7 XiTabSet5 +
5.33618 × 10−9 XiTabSet6 − 2.21945 × 10−11 XiTabSet7
Plot@fEtaTabPolynom@ XiTabSampleD, 8XiTabSample, − XiMaxTabDegree, XiMaxTabDegree ∗ 2<D
2.5
1.5
0.5
-20 20 40 60
Graphics
CL Calculation:
CL'tab, theoretic:
cltabderivtheoretic = −2 ê Pi ∗ HSqrt@LambdaK ∗ H1 − LambdaKLD + ArcSin@Sqrt@ LambdaKDDL

−0.691932
178
CL'tab, realistic:
cltabderivrealistic@XiTabAngle_D := cltabderivtheoretic ∗ fEtaTabPolynom@Abs@ XiTabAngleDD

Plot@cltabderivrealistic@XiTabSampleD,
8 XiTabSample, −XiMaxTabDegree ∗ 1.5, XiMaxTabDegree ∗ 1.5<D
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
-0.45
-0.5
-0.55
-40 -20 20 40
Graphics
CL' flap without tab, AOA=0°:
clderivflapatzeroalpha = 2 ∗ Pi ∗ FlapLambda ê HFlapLambda + 3L

4.43348
CL flap without tab, standard curve extraction:
flapaloneclpoly@ FlapAngleset_D =
Fit@88−10 ∗ Pi ê 180, −0.77<, 80 ∗ Pi ê 180, 0<, 810 ∗ Pi ê 180, 0.77<, 822 ∗ Pi ê 180, 1.71<,
828 ∗ Pi ê 180, 2.05<, 833 ∗ Pi ê 180, 2.225<, 838 ∗ Pi ê 180, 2.2625<<,
81, FlapAngleset, FlapAngleset^2, FlapAngleset^3, FlapAngleset^4, FlapAngleset^5<,
FlapAnglesetD
2
−0.000287549 + 4.18141 FlapAngleset + 0.782618 FlapAngleset +
7.18921 FlapAngleset − 24.9279 FlapAngleset + 14.5857 FlapAngleset5
3 4
Plot@flapaloneclpoly@ FlapAngleD, 8FlapAngle, −10 ∗ Pi ê 180, 38 ∗ Pi ê 180<D
1.5
0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6

-0.5
Graphics
CL' flap derivative without tab calculation:
FlapCLDerivativePolynom@FlapAngleset_D =
flapaloneclpoly@ FlapAngleset + .1D ê HFlapAngleset + .1L
H− 0.000287549 + 4.18141 H0.1 + FlapAnglesetL + 0.782618 H0.1 + FlapAnglesetL2 +
1
0.1 + FlapAngleset
7.18921 H0.1 + FlapAnglesetL3 − 24.9279 H0.1 + FlapAnglesetL4 + 14.5857 H0.1 + FlapAnglesetL5L
179
Plot@FlapCLDerivativePolynom@FlapAngleD, 8FlapAngle, 0, 40 ∗ Pi ê 180<,
PlotRange → 880, 38 ∗ Pi ê 180<, 8−5, 6<<D
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

-2
-4
Graphics
cLiftFlap@FlapAngle_, XiTabAngle_D :=
FlapCLDerivativePolynom@ FlapAngle ∗ Pi ê 180D ∗
H FlapAngle ∗ Pi ê 180 − cltabderivrealistic@ XiTabAngleD ∗ XiTabAngle ∗ Pi ê 180L
cLiftFlap@38, 30D − cLiftFlap@38, 0D
0.499357
Plot@cLiftFlap@FlapAOA, −30D, 8 FlapAOA, −0, 38<D
0.5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.5
Graphics
CL function for flap combined with tab:
Plot3D@cLiftFlap@ FlapAOA, XiTabAngleD, 8FlapAOA, 0, 38<,

8 XiTabAngle, −XiMaxTabDegree, XiMaxTabDegree<D
2
1
20
0
0 0
10
20
-20
30
SurfaceGraphics
180
Plot3D@cLiftFlap@ FlapAOA, XiTabAngleD, 8FlapAOA, 0, 38<,
2
1
20
0
0 0
10
20
-20
30
SurfaceGraphics
CD Calculation:
Basic CD:
cDragFlapBasic@FlapAngle_D := cDragZeroFlap + FlapK ∗ cLiftFlap@ FlapAngle, 0D ^2

Plot@cDragFlapBasic@FlapAOAD, 8FlapAOA, 0, 38<, PlotRange −> 880, 38<, 80, 0.4<<D
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Graphics
CD Correction at high AOA:
cDragFlapBasicPolynom@FlapAngleset_D =
Fit@880, cDragFlapBasic@0D<, 85, cDragFlapBasic@5D<, 810, cDragFlapBasic@10D<,
815, cDragFlapBasic@15D<, 820, cDragFlapBasic@20D<, 838, .36<<,
81, FlapAngleset, FlapAngleset^2, FlapAngleset^3, FlapAngleset^4, FlapAngleset^5<,
FlapAnglesetD
0.011 + 0.000319146 FlapAngleset + 0.000219667 FlapAngleset2 +
0.0000248959 FlapAngleset3 − 1.2586 × 10−6 FlapAngleset4 + 1.61284 × 10−8 FlapAngleset5
Plot@cDragFlapBasicPolynom@FlapAOAD, 8FlapAOA, 0, 38<D
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Graphics
181
CD with tab deflection:
cDragFlap@FlapAngle_, XiTabAngle_D :=
cDragFlapBasicPolynom@ FlapAngleD + DeltacDragZeroTab ∗ Abs@XiTabAngleD
Plot3D@cDragFlap@ FlapAOA, XiTabAngleD, 8FlapAOA, 0, 38<,
1.5
1
0.5 20
0
0 0
10
20
-20
30
Plot3D@cDragFlap@ FlapAOA, XiTabAngleD, 8FlapAOA, 0, 38<,

SurfaceGraphics
1.5
1
0.5 20
0
0 0
10
20
-20
30
SurfaceGraphics
CM Calculation:
cMomentTabDerivativeTheoretic = −2 ∗ Sqrt@ LambdaK ∗ H1 − LambdaKL ^3D
−0.628539
cMomentTabDerivativeRealistic = 0.75 ∗ cMomentTabDerivativeTheoretic
−0.471405
cMomentFlap@XiTabAngle_D := cMomentTabDerivativeRealistic ∗ XiTabAngle ∗ Pi ê 180
Plot@cMomentFlap@XiTabAngleD, 8 XiTabAngle, −30, 30<D
0.2
0.1
-30 -20 -10 10 20 30
-0.1
-0.2
Graphics
182
Flap Loads and Moment Calculation
Function argument transfer from AOA to extension percents:
FlapAOASampleListFunction@FlapSetting_D :=
8 Extract@ MainSuspensionExtensionSample, FlapSettingD, Extract@ FlapAOASample, FlapSettingD<
FlapAOASampleList = Table@FlapAOASampleListFunction@iD, 8i, 1, 7, 1<D
880., 0<, 814.9856, 3<, 835.7349, 10<,
856.4841, 18.5<, 877.8098, 26<, 892.9107, 33<, 8100., 38<<
FlapAOApoly@ExtensionPercents_D =
Fit@FlapAOASampleList, 81, ExtensionPercents, ExtensionPercents^2, ExtensionPercents^3,
ExtensionPercents^4, ExtensionPercents^5, ExtensionPercents^6<, ExtensionPercentsD
9.81753 × 10−6 + 0.216736 ExtensionPercents − 0.00645327 ExtensionPercents2 +
0.00048324 ExtensionPercents3 − 9.50132 × 10−6 ExtensionPercents4 +
7.46911 × 10−8 ExtensionPercents5 − 1.9916 × 10−10 ExtensionPercents6
FlapAOApoly@MainSuspensionExtensionSampleD − FlapAOASample
89.81753 × 10 , 7.05473 × 10 , 4.87222 × 10 ,
−6 −6 −6
7.14121 × 10 , 9.19688 × 10 , 0.0000111921, 0.0000118946<

−6 −6
GraphicsArray@8Plot@FlapAOApoly@percD, 8perc, 0, 100<D, ListPlot@FlapAOASampleListD<,

PlotRange → 880, 100<, 80, 14<<D
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
20 40 60 80 100
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
20 40 60 80 100
GraphicsArray
Flap Lift:
FlapLift@perc_, XiTab_D := cLiftFlap@FlapAOApoly@percD, XiTabD ∗ DynamicPressure ∗
Plot3D@FlapLift@ExtensionPercents, xidegD, 8 ExtensionPercents, 0, 100<,

SurfaceOutboardFlap
8xideg, −XiMaxTabDegree, XiMaxTabDegree<D
183
75000
50000
25000 20
0
-25000
0 0
20
40
60 -20
80
100
SurfaceGraphics
FindMinimum@−FlapLift@ ExtensionPercents, 30D, 8ExtensionPercents, 80, 100<D

8−81082.6, 8ExtensionPercents → 87.3708<<
Plot@FlapLift@0, xidegD, 8xideg, −30, 30<D
20000
10000
-30 -20 -10 10 20 30
-10000
-20000
Graphics
Flap Drag:
FlapDrag@perc_, XiTab_D := cDragFlap@FlapAOApoly@percD, XiTabD ∗ DynamicPressure ∗
Plot3D@FlapDrag@ExtensionPercents, xidegD, 8 ExtensionPercents, 0, 100<,

SurfaceOutboardFlap
40000
20000 20
0
0 0
20
40
60 -20
80
100
SurfaceGraphics
FlapDrag@100, 30D
49212.7
184
Flap Resultant Force:
FlapLoadResultant@ perc_, XiTab_D :=

Sqrt@H FlapLift@ perc, XiTabDL ^2 + HFlapDrag@perc, XiTabDL ^2D
Plot3D@ FlapLoadResultant@ExtensionPercents, xidegD, 8ExtensionPercents, 0, 100<,
80000
60000
40000 20
20000
0
0 0
20
40
60 -20
80
100
SurfaceGraphics
Flap Moment:
FlapMoment@ XiTabAngle_D := cMomentFlap@XiTabAngleD ∗ DynamicPressure ∗ SurfaceOutboardFlap ∗
FlapReferenceChord
Plot@FlapMoment@ XiTabD, 8XiTab, −30, 30<D
10000
5000
-30 -20 -10 10 20 30
-5000
-10000
Graphics
Maximum Loads (Xi,tab = +30°):

FindMinimum@−FlapLoadResultant@ ExtensionPercents, 30D, 8ExtensionPercents, 80, 100<D
8−93361.3, 8ExtensionPercents → 89.5094<<
FlapLift@89.5, 30D
80981.6
FlapDrag@89.5, 30D
46457.6
Maximum Moments:
Xi,tab = +30°
FlapMoment@30D
−10371.3
Xi,tab = -30°
FlapMoment@−30D
10371.3
185
Appendix E: Main Flap Support Size Estimation
Only high-quality materials are to be considered for a highly loaded part such as the
flap main suspension joint. Quenched and tempered steels are such materials, for
example 100Cr6 the data of which is taken from [19] as follows:
100Cr6, tempered:
E100Cr6 = 208000 N/mm2

ν100Cr6 = 0.3
ρ100Cr6 = 7850kg/m3
σ100Cr6 = 2200 N/mm2
For a ball joint like the flap main support, basically two spheres press against each
other, with one of the spheres having a negative radius (i.e. a concave shape). For
such cases the maximum pressure encountered is calculated by the following formula
taken from [20]:
1
⎛ ⎛1 1⎞
2
⎞ 3
⎜ 6⋅ F ⋅⎜ + ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ r1 r2 ⎠ ⎟
pmax =⎜ 2 ⎟
⎜ π 3 ⋅ (1 − υ 2 )2 ⋅ ⎛ 1 + 1 ⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ E1 E2 ⎠ ⎠
with F being the pressure load, r1 and r2 the radius of the respective sphere (note that
one of them is negative), ν the Poisson ratio and E1 and E2 the Young’s moduli. To
simplify the calculation the same material is used for both parts.
In ball joints there is always a small radius difference between ball and inset; it should
be as small as possible since this reduces pressure. For this calculation the difference
is set to 1mm, which is a rather large play and therefore a conservative assumption.
σ max,allow
According to [20] the maximum allowable pressure is pmax, allow =
0.62
σ 100Cr 6
with σ max,allow =
S
S is a safety factor made up of the basic safety factor and another for jamming, i.e.
S = 1.1⋅1.7 = 1.87
For the force applied the considerations as outlined on page 143 apply. The force
resulting from lift and drag is
F = L2 + D 2 ≈ 116.5kN
The following appendix yields a bearing radius of about 14mm. At least doubling of
this value is needed for the inset and ring of the ball-joint bearing. Another safety
factor of 2 is appropriate to account for lower quality materials and assumption
inaccuracies. So a bearing radius of about 60mm should be used for an initial design.
186
Appendix F: Mathematica Notebook ‘FlapJointDim.nb’
Flap Support Joint Dimensioning

SafetyFactor = 1.1 ∗ 1.7
1.87
MaxMainSuspBoltLoad = 116500
116500
RadiusDelta = 1
1
E1 = 208000
208000
E2 = 208000
208000
nu = 0.3
0.3
SigmaMax = 2200
2200
SigmaVMaxAllow = SigmaMax ê SafetyFactor
1176.47
pmaxAllow = SigmaVMaxAllow ê 0.62
1897.53
SupportRadiusSolutions =
Solve@
pmaxAllow ==
HH6 ∗ MaxMainSuspBoltLoad ∗
H1 ê SupportRadius + 1 ê H−HSupportRadius + RadiusDeltaLLL ^2L ê
HPi^3 ∗ H1 − nu^2L ^2 ∗ H1 ê E1 + 1 ê E2L ^2LL ^ H1 ê 3L, SupportRadiusD
88SupportRadius → −14.9169<, 8SupportRadius → − 0.5 − 14.3996 <,
8SupportRadius → −0.5 + 14.3996 <, 8SupportRadius → 13.9169<<
SupportRadius = SupportRadius ê. SupportRadiusSolutions@@4DD
13.9169
187
Appendix G: Demonstrator Parts and Assembly Manual
Parts & Nomenclature: Flap

Flap Body (Top Side, Cover Removed) Flap Body (Lower Side)
Flap Body Nose
Flap Vane Actuation Rod
Tab
Flap Angle Control Slider Flap Angle Control Link
Outboard Tab Actuation Slider

and Inboard
Flap Vanes
Flap Vane Receptacles
(Nose Cover Removed)
Parts & Nomenclature: Wing Section

Wing Structure Section Covers (Lower Side)
Covers (Top Side)

Flap Track Suspensions (View From Inboard)
Tab Actuation Rod
Flap Track Suspensions (View From Outboard)

Tab Actuation Rod (Extendable Part)
Flap Actuation Screw & Screw Jack
188
Assembly Manual: 1/7; complete assembly time approx. 60 mins.
Insert tab actuation rod
Attach bottom covers
Insert main mechanism (in flaps fully extended state),

capture tab actuation rod
Insert main suspension bolts
Insert secondary suspension bolt…
…and secure
Assembly Manual: 2/7
Attach main screw jack link to screw jack
Attach outboard cover control links
Attach inboard cover control link
Attach main cover crank
189
Insert inboard & outboard flap vanes
Place flap vane

actuation rod links
Connect links to flap

vane by inserting bolts…
…at each of the four flap vane receptacles
Attach extendable main cover to flap body
Insert flap angle

control slider;
insert extendable
cover into main cover
Insert main flap support bolt
Attach flap vane actuation rod and

secure main flap support bolt with screw
190
Attach extendable tab actuation rod

at main mechanism
Attach and secure flap angle control link
Attach extendable
tab actuation rod
Check mechanism
by retracting flap
Insert tab actuation rib spike into slider cam

(in flaps fully extended state)
Attach tab to flap body by rod insertion
Attach moving top

cover to flap body
Attach moving top cover

control link to main mechanism
191
Attach flap body fixed top cover;

attach speed brake to main wing section by rod insertion
Attach speed brake

control lever
Finished!
192
Bibliography
[1] Rudolph, P. K., High-Lift Systems on Commercial Subsonic Airliners, NASA
Contractor Report 4746, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames
Research Center, Moffet Field, CA, USA, 1996
[2] Voit-Nitschmann, R., Einführung in die Luftfahrttechnik, Lecture Notes, Institute

for Aircraft Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 2001
[3] Voit-Nitschmann, R., Flugzeugentwurf, Lecture Notes, Institute for Aircraft

Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 2003
[4] Sigolotto, C., Auslegung von Flugzeugsystemen, Lecture Notes, Institute for
Aircraft Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany, various editions
[5] Müller, C., Flugzeuge der Welt, NZZ Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland, 1997
[6] Gunston, B., The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004
[7] The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, Orbis Publishing Ltd. and Aerospace
Publishing Ltd., 1997
[8] Niu, M.: Airframe Structural Design, Conmilit Press, Burbank, CA, USA, 1999.
[9] Rudolph, P.K.: Mechanical Design of High Lift Systems for High Aspect Ratio
Swept Wings, NASA Contractor Report 196709, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA,1998.
[10] Bellam, J.E.: Airplane Flap Supporting and Control Mechanism, The Boeing
Company, United States Patent No. 2,609,166; filed December 22, 1945 (obtained
through www.depatisnet.de)
[11] Butler, V.B., and Cook, W.H.: Airplane Flap Control Mechanism, The Boeing
Company, United Kingdom Patent No. 712,028; filed November 10, 1952 (obtained
through www.depatisnet.de)
[12] Hansen, H.: Multifunktionales Klappensystem für zukünftige Anwendungen,

Vortragsreihe 99: Start-/Landekonfigurationen, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace Airbus,
Bremen, Germany, 1999
[13] Behrens, G.: Systemkonzepte zu Mechanisierung: Hochauftriebssystem

FLAP/SLAT, Vortragsreihe 99: Start-/Landekonfigurationen, DaimlerChrysler
Aerospace Airbus, Bremen, Germany, 1999
[14] Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), Title 14: Aeronautics and
Space, Part 25 (obtained through http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov)
193
[15] Stinton, D.: Anatomy of The Aeroplane, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, United
Kingdom, 1998
[16] Stinton, D.: Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of The Aeroplane, Blackwell
Science Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1996
[17] Stinton, D.: The Design of The Aeroplane, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford,
United Kingdom
[18] Beitz, W., Grothe, K.-H.: Dubbel Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau, Springer
Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1997
[19], Paland, E.-G.: Technisches Taschenbuch, INA-Schaeffler KG, Herzogenaurach,

Germany, 2002
[20] Meier, M., Produkte-Entwicklung, Lecture Notes, Institute for Mechanical

Systems, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 2002
[21] Reissner, J., Werkstoffe, Lecture Notes, Department of Materials, ETH Zurich,
Switzerland, 2002
[22] Engmann, K., Meier, P.: Technologie des Flugzeuges, Leuchtturm Verlag/LTV
Press, Alsbach/Bergtrasse, Germany, 2000
[23] Airbus Industries: A330 Structural Repair Manual
The following websites are valuable sources of aircraft pictures:
www.airliners.net
www.myaviation.net
www.planepictures.net
www.flugzeugbilder.de
194

Integrated Trailing Edge Flap Track PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Trailing Edge Flap Track PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Trailing Edge Flap Track PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the thesis about?

What is the thesis about?

What are flap track fairings?

What are flap track fairings?

Integrated Trailing Edge Flap Track

Mechanism for Commercial Aircraft

Reference Number: IMES-ST-05-198

Advisor: Christof Ledermann

Disclaimer & Conditions

Disclaimer & Conditions V

Table of Contents VII

Latin Symbols, Abbreviations

a Sonic speed [m/s]

α Angle of attack [°]

Photo © Max Koerte

Figure 1.1 The goal of this project ― in short

Figure 1.2 Side and front view with approximate dimensions

Reference Wing Area 363.10 m2

Figure 1.4 A340-300 final approach ― landing configuration

ICAO Standard Atmosphere (from [2]):

M = 0.84, a = 291.66m / s ⇒ v = M ⋅ a = 245m / s = 476kts = 882km / h

Step 2: CL,max range, CD,max range

Drag polar (symmetric polar assumed): C D = C D 0 + k ⋅ C2L = 0.0165 + 0.0435 ⋅ C2L

which, inserted in the drag polar, yields

C D,max range = C D 0 + k ⋅ C2L,max range = 0.0165 + 0.0435 ⋅ 0.3562 = 0.022

Overall drag @ cruise:

Fairing drag @ cruise:

(Assumptions: additional economization of interference drag by removing the fairings

Overall drag @ cruise with ‘integrated’ flap tracks, i.e. no fairings:

Step 4: New CD & lift/drag ratio

Dovrl @ cruise,new 76510

Aerodynamic efficiency thus increases by about 1.5%.

Step 5: New range or fuel consumption

Rangenew C D,old 0.022

Solving yields mFuel,Used,new = 111743kg,

State of the Art

Federal and Joint Airworthiness Regulation FAR/JAR 25.701(a) require the

These two patents show an efficient combination of translating tracks and

Figure 2.1 Extract from a patent document [10] filed 1945

Figure 2.3 Cessna Grand Caravan (at St. Barts, F.W.I.)

Figure 2.6 Twin Otter flaperon tracks in flaps up position

© 2005 Carlos Aleman. All rights reserved

© 2003 Dan Valentine. All rights reserved

Figure 2.9 ATR42 landing configuration

2.2.3 The Boeing Approach

© 2005 Steven Filipowicz. All rights reserved

Figure 2.11 Boeing 767-300 taking off (at Amsterdam-Schipol, Netherlands)

Figure 2.14 Airbus A300 (at Male, Maldives)

Figure 2.15 A300 flap/slat control through shafts, from [4]

Figure 2.18 A300 flap track assembly

Figure 2.20 A340 flap track, according to [13]

Actuator Rear Link

Figure 2.22 A380-800 roll-out

© 2005 Stuart Isett. All rights reserved

Figure 2.23 A380-800 wing view

British Aerospace use an innovative flap track fairing approach on their

Figure 2.24 BAE146-200 (at Salines Intl Airport, Grenada, W.I.)

Figure 2.25 BAE146 flap track fairings

2.3.2 Non-mechanical Flap Synchronization