ME 4241 Aircraft Performance, Stability and Control

2014/2015

Kenneth Goh Zhong Jing

Chia Wah Tat Louis
Koh He Xiang
Law Yi Zhuan

A0097821X
A0092203U
A0097859B
A0097725R

10 March 2014

Department of Mechanical Engineering

National University of Singapore
Introduction

Pam Am Flight 759, operated by a Boeing 727-235, a regularly scheduled

passenger flight from Miami to San Diego with en route stops in New Orleans and
Las Vegas began its take off from runway 10 at the New Orleanss international
airport in Kenner. During the time of take-off, National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) not only reported that that wind conditions were gusty, variable
and swirling, but also widespread of shower over the east end of the airport on
the aircrafts intended take off path. Findings by NTSB attributed the cause of the
rapid descent of the plane during take-off to microburst induced wind shear due
to the severe weather. A few years later, researchers from University of Dayton
Research institute (UDRI) performed a more detailed analysis and concluded that
rainfall had played a part in addition to the microburst. This consequently
resulted in the aircraft striking the trees about 2376 feet at the end of runway 10
and crashed [1]. Microburst-induced wind shear which imposed a downdraft and
a decreasing headwind rendered the pilots inability to react during the
circumstance, leading to their failure to bring the plane under control. Further
analysis of data a few years after the accident accompanied by several
evidences substantiating the presence of heavy rainfall at the time of the
accident, had shown to also cause roughening of the wing surface analogous to
ice or frosts, imposing a detrimental effect on the aerodynamic forces generated
by the aircraft such as reduction in lift and increase in drag that aggravated the
situation.
Despite microburst being concluded by NTSB as the primary factor contributing
to the crash of the aircraft based on this case study, this report aims to perform a
detailed study of the effect of microburst-induced wind shear and heavy rainfall
as the secondary factor on aircraft stability and control, from the time of lift off
until the aircraft impacted the ground.
Wind Shear/Microburst Analysis
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was the body
responsible for performing analysis on surface and low-level wind, and their
involvement in the accident.
Analysis of the satellite data, weather radar data and precipitation patterns
showed a VIP level 3 (:STRONG) echo directly over the airport at the time of the
accident. The shape and action of this echo was similar to those observed in
association with microburst. Based on the available data, the NOAA concluded
that Flight 759 flew through the centre of a convectively generated downdraft
shortly after lift-off. An analysis of the aircrafts flight data recorder strongly
supports the conclusion that the downdraft was a weak to moderate microburst.
A separate analysis conducted and funded by Pan Am also strongly supports the
existence of a microburst in the vicinity of the airport at the time of the accident.
Airplane Performance Analysis
The NOAA and Pan Am wind analyses indicated that Flight 759 flew through a
microburst and encountered, in rapid succession, an increasing headwind, a
downdraft, and then an increasing tailwind. To analyse the effects of these

rapidly changing wind or the flight path of an airplane, the following forces which
acts on the airplane must be considered: lift, drag, weight, and thrust. In a
dynamic situation, changes in the lift and the drag are most significant because
they depend at any instant on the airplane's relative wind vector.
When the airplane flies into a vertical wind, the angular change in the direction
of the total wind vector, with respect to the airplane's path relative to the
ground, changes the angle of attack which causes a change in both lift and drag.
If the vertical wind's direction is downward, angle of attack is reduced and the lift
and drag will decrease causing the airplane to accelerate downward. The basic
stability of the airplane will cause it to pitch up initially; however, the ultimate
effect on the airplane's flight path will be an increase in the descent rate relative
to the ground. When an airplane flies into an area where the direction of the
horizontal wind changes abruptly, the indicated airspeed will change. The
change is equivalent to the abrupt change in the relative wind. Both lift and drag
will also change abruptly and thus produce an imbalance in the forces acting
along the airplane's longitudinal and vertical axes. If the airplane flies into an
increasing headwind, the relative wind will increase. The indicated airspeed, lift,
and drag will increase; the airplane's nose will pitch up; and the vertical speed
will change in the positive direction. If the airplane flies into a decreasing
headwind, the effect will be the opposite. The indicated airspeed will decrease,
lift will decrease, the airplane's nose will pitch down, and the vertical speed will
change in the negative direction.
Rainfall Analysis
Previous studies conducted both numerically and experimentally concluded that
rain effect causes significant aerodynamic penalties on the aircraft. A loss of lift,
increase in drag and a decrease in the stall angle can be observed. Three main
reasons for the aerodynamic efficiency degradation have been postulated,
namely the loss of boundary layer air momentum, the roughening of airfoil
surface, and the decrease in airfoil momentum.
When rain droplets impinge on the airfoil, splashback of the droplets into the
airflow field would occur. The cloud of droplets (also known as ejecta fog)
produced by the rain impact would be reaccelerated to the local flow velocity,
and hence de-energizes the boundary layer, resulting in the loss of boundary
layer air momentum [2]. Numerical simulation by Valentine and Decker [3] on
the rain effect on airfoil in 1995 reported the presence of ejecta fog in their
simulations and concluded that the splashback effect results in a decrease in
stall angle.
In addition, according to Wan et al. [4] , the roughening of airfoil surface is due to
a fraction of raindrop that is not splashed back which remains on the upper airfoil
surface as a layer of thin water film on the airfoil. This runback water layer tends
to accumulate in regions of flow separation, which alters the shape of the
airfoil[2]. This inadvertently results in a loss of lift and an increase in drag. In
addition, under the rain conditions experienced by Flight 759, the water layer on
the wing surface would also enhance flow separation and reduce the stall angle.

Under such conditions, while the aircraft is in a high lift configuration for take-off,
a reduction in stall angle may inadvertently trigger an aerodynamic stall
scenario.
Lastly, rain impacting the airfoil surface will result in momentum transfer from
the rain droplets to the airfoil. However, this effect is considered to be less
significant than the other effects for rainfall rates below 500 mm/h [2]. At the
time of take-off, the meteorological data indicated a rainfall rate of 144 mm/h
near the departure end of the runway [5]. Hence, the effect of momentum
transfer can be deemed to be insignificant for the rainfall rate given at the time
of the tragedy.

Suggestions
Microburst-induced wind shear and rain are two weather conditions that usually
occur. There have been many air accidents involving microburst-induced wind
shear and it is necessary to be able to detect such weather conditions as it is
very dangerous to airplanes.
After Pan Am flight 759 and another similar air crash, Delta Airlines flight 191, it
is mandatory for all commercial aircraft to have an airborne wind shear detection
and alert system [6]. This will allow the pilots to know the precise location and
the conditions of the atmosphere along the flight path of the airplane. With this
data, the pilot can make necessary amendments to his flight path after seeking
for approval. This detection and alert system is also more efficient than the
previous method of obtaining data from the radar located in the vicinity of the
airport to alerting the air traffic controller and then to inform the pilot as there
will be lag time involved. With on-board system, the pilots can make critical
decisions quickly.
In the event of a severe thunderstorm, the pilot has to make a decision whether
to land the plane or move to another suitable airport by calculating the fuel left.
Such weather usually combine strong winds with heavy rain, making it difficult
for the pilot to control the plane, keeping in mind that the tarmac may be wet
and slippery.
Conclusion
With modern equipment that are available in the airports and on-board planes,
relevant data are made available to the pilots quicker to make better decisions.
Also, sufficient training for the pilots to ensure their procedures are correct is
also necessary. All these will make air travel safer.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

Dietenberger, M.A., P.A. Haines, and J.K. Luers, Reconstruction of Pan Am

Orleans accident. Journal of Aircraft, 1985. 22(8): p. 719-728.
MARCHMAN, I., JF, E.A. Robertson, and H.T. Emsley, Rain effects at low
Reynolds number. Journal of aircraft, 1987. 24(9): p. 638-644.
Valentine, J. and R. Decker, A Lagrangian-Eulerian scheme for flow around
an airfoil in rain. International journal of multiphase flow, 1995. 21(4): p.
639-648.
Wan, T. and C.-J. Chou. Reinvestigation of high lift airfoil under the
influence of heavy rain effects. in Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace
Science Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition. 2012.
National Transportation Safety Board, Aircraft Accident Report - Pan
American World Airways, Inc, Clipper 759, Boeing 727-235, N4737, New
Orleans International Airport, Kenner, Louisiana, July 9 1982. 1983.
NASA. Making the Skies Safe from Windshear. 1992 [cited 2015 9 March];
Available from:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Windshear.html.