A flat spring for the main landing gear of a light aircraft failed after safe execution of a hard landing. The spring material was identified by chemical analysis to be 6150 steel. The fracture was found to have occurred near the end of the spring that was inserted through a support member about 25 mm thick and attached to the fuselage by a single bolt. Brinelling (plastic flow and indentation due to excessive localized contact pressure) was observed on the upper surface of the spring where the forward and rear edges of the spring contacted the support member. It was indicated by chevron marks that brittle fracture had started beneath the brinelled area at the forward edge of the upper surface of the spring. The origin of the brittle fracture was found to be a small fatigue crack that had been present for a considerable period of time before final fracture occurred. Fracture of the landing-gear spring was concluded to have been caused by a fatigue crack that resulted from excessive brinelling at the support point. Regular visual examinations to detect evidence of brinelling and wear at the support in aircraft with this configuration of landing-gear spring were recommended.

Examination of a cracked nose landing gear cylinder made of AISI 4340 Cr-Mo-Ni alloy steel proved that the part started to fail on the inside diam. When the nucleus of the stress-corrosion crack was studied in detail, iron oxide was found on the fracture surface. A 6500x micrograph revealed this area also displayed an intergranular texture. One of a group of small grinding cracks on the ID of the cylinder nucleated the failure. Other evidence indicated the cracks developed when the cylinder was ground during overhaul.

Ground maintenance personnel discovered hydraulic fluid leaking from two small cracks in a main landing gear cylinder made from AISI 4340 Cr-Mo-Ni alloy steel. Failure of the part had initiated on the ID of the cylinder. Numerous cracks were found under the chromium plate. A 6500x electron fractograph showed cracking was predominantly intergranular with hairline indications. Leaking had occurred only 43 h after overhaul of the part. Total service time on the part was 9488 h. It was concluded that cracking on the ID was caused by hydrogen embrittlement which occurred during or after overhaul. The specific source of hydrogen which produced failure was not ascertainable.

A nose landing gear cylinder made from AISI 4340 Ni-Cr-Mo alloy steel was found cracked and leaking, causing partial depressurization. Investigation revealed the crack to be a stress-corrosion type, judging by the 6500x electron fractograph. It had started in a region of concentrated, large non-metallic inclusions near the chromium-plated ID of the cylinder. Also, there were breaks in the chromium plate and pits in the underlying base metal. The cylinder had been in service for 18,017 h, and 5948 h had passed since the first and only overhaul. Substandard plating of the ID at this time ultimately resulted in pitting of the metal. The combination of surface pitting and stress concentration at the nearby inclusions resulted in stress-corrosion cracking.

The torque-arm assembly (aluminum alloy 7075-T73) for an aircraft nose landing gear failed after 22,779 simulated flights. The part, made from an aluminum alloy 7075-T73 forging, had an expected life of 100,000 simulated flights. Initial study of the fracture surfaces indicated that the primary fracture initiated from multiple origins on both sides of a lubrication hole that extended from the outer surface to the bore of a lug in two cadmium-plated flanged bushings made of copper alloy C63000 (aluminum bronze) that were press-fitted into each bored hole in the lug. Sectioning and 2x metallographic analysis showed small fatigue-type cracks in the hole adjacent to the origin of primary fracture. Hardness and electrical conductivity were typical for aluminum alloy 7075. This evidence supported the conclusion that the arm failed in fatigue cracking that initiated on each side of the lubrication hole since no material defects were found at the failure origin. Recommendations included redesign of the lubrication hole, shot peeing of the faces of the lug for added resistance to fatigue failure, and changing of the forging material to aluminum alloy 7175-T736 for its higher mechanical properties.

Initial investigation showed that a landing gear failure was the result of a hard landing with no evidence of contributory factors. The objective of reexamination was to determine whether there was any evidence of metallurgical failure. The landing gear was primarily an AISI type 6150 Cr-V steel flat spring attached at the top end to the fuselage and at the bottom end to the axle. Failure occurred at the clamping point near the top end of this spring. The failure showed evidence of severe brinelling at one corner in the clamping area. The fracture surfaces were clean, fresh, and indicative of a shock type of failure pattern. Closer examination, however, showed a fatigue crack at one corner. At this point, there was definite evidence of progression and oxidation. It was concluded that the corner in question was subjected to repeated brinelling resulting from normal landing loads, probably accentuated by looseness in the clamping device. The resulting residual tensile stress lowered the effective fatigue strength at that point against drag and side loads.

One main undercarriage axle made of high strength alloy steel was subjected to simulated fatigue test for 6000 h of service. After only 300 h it broke in two along the sharp radius. The fracture revealed a coarse, irregular, and brittle surface before final fracture by thick angular shear lip zone. The presence of micropores in the cleavage facets as well as at the grain boundaries and hairline type crack indications under SEM examination were all suggestive of hydrogen embrittlement. On the basis of investigation results and observations, it was concluded that the transverse breakage of the axle had occurred intergranularly in a brittle manner, possibly, initiated by a shallow zone of fatigue along the sharp radius acting as stress riser.

Despite extensive aircraft landing gear design analyses and tests performed by designers and manufacturers, and the large number of trouble-free landings, aircraft users have experienced problems with and failures of landing gear components. Different data banks and over 200 failure analysis reports were surveyed to provide an overview of structural landing gear component failures as experienced by the Canadian Forces over the last 20 years on more than 20 aircraft types, and to assess trends in failure mechanisms and causes. Case histories were selected to illustrate typical problems, troublesome failure mechanisms, the role of high strength aluminum alloys and steels, and situations where fracture mechanics analyses provided insight into the failures. The two main failure mechanisms were: fatigue occurring mainly in steel components, and corrosion related problems with aluminum alloys. Very few overload failures were noted. A number of causes were identified: design deficiencies and manufacturing defects leading mainly to fatigue failures, and poor materials selection and improper maintenance as the principal causes of corrosion-related failures. The survey showed that a proper understanding of the failure mechanisms and causes, by thorough failure analysis, provides valuable feedback information to designers, operators and maintenance personnel for appropriate corrective actions to be taken.

In a spring leg of a main landing gear, large brittle fracture zones indicated a predominately cleavage pattern with some ductile dimples, and a tiny fatigue segment disclosed fine striations. Factors influencing failure were surface decarburization, notch sensitivity of the modified SAE 6150 spring steel, Canada's cold weather which may have had an embrittling effect on the steel, and cumulative fatigue damage from severe landing loads during service life. Replacement with heavier-duty spring legs will probably not eliminate this type of failure, but their use has reduced the number of failures substantially. Precautionary measures recommended to preclude accidents include removal of decarburization, proper operation of main landing gears, and adequate magnetic particle inspection of the legs at the beginning and end of the ski season to detect any fatigue cracks that might develop in attachment holes.

The truck beam of the left main landing gear (MGL) of a Boeing 707 airplane collapsed on the ground just after the aircraft was unloaded and refueled. The investigation revealed that failure was caused by the propagation of an intergranular crack originating from the bottom of the pit. The crack reached the critical size and caused failure by stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) under static loading conditions in service. The failed beam was protected by a well adhering paint system. However, the presence of adequate amounts of corrosion preventive compound films (CPC) on the surfaces of the failed beam could not be conclusively established because of the long term service exposure and presence of lubricants.

The right landing gear on a twin-turboprop transport aircraft collapsed during landing. Preliminary examination indicated that the failure occurred at a steel-to-aluminum (7014) pinned drag-strut connection due to fracture of the lower set of drag-strut attachment lugs at the lower end of the oleo cylinder housing. Two lug fractures that were determined to be the primary fractures were analyzed. Results of various examinations indicated that stress-corrosion cracking associated with the origins of the principal fractures in the connection was the cause of failure. It was recommended that the design be modified to avoid dissimilar metal combinations of high corrosion potential.

A piece of wheel flange separated from the main landing gear wheel of a C130 aircraft as it taxied on a runway. The wheel was a 2014-T61 aluminum alloy forging and had been in service nearly 20 years. Fractographic evidence indicated that the initial crack growth was caused by high-cycle fatigue. The crack grew to approximately 8 in. in length before final catastrophic fracture. Fatigue analyses accurately predicted the cyclic life demonstrated by the failed wheel since its last inspection, assuming an initial crack length of 13 to 25 mm (0.5 to 1.0 in.). It was recommended that the inspection interval be reduced to one-third of its original duration for the current level of inspection reliability, or that inspection procedures be improved in order that cracks substantially smaller than 13 mm (0.5 in.) can be reliably detected.

Examination of several fighter aircraft main landing gear legs revealed unusual cracking in the hard chromium plating that covered the sliding section of the inner strut. The cracking was associated with cracks in the 35 NCD 16 steel beneath the plating. A detailed investigation revealed that the cracking was caused by the combination of incorrect grinding procedure, the presence of hydrogen, and fatigue. The grinding damage generated tensile stresses in the steel, which caused intergranular cracking during the plating cycle. The intergranular cracks were initiation sites for fatigue crack growth during service. It was recommended that the damaged undercarriage struts be withdrawn from service pending further analysis and development of a repair technique.

A crack was detected in one arm of the right-hand horizontal brace of the nose landing gear shock strut from a large military aircraft. The shock strut was manufactured from a 7049 aluminum alloy forging in the shape of a delta. A laboratory investigation was conducted to determine the cause of failure. It was concluded that the arm failed because of the presence of an initial defect that led to the initiation of fatigue cracking. The fatigue cracking grew in service until the part failed by overload. The initial defect was probably caused during manufacture. Fleet-wide inspection of the struts was recommended.