Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Study of Contra-Rotating Coaxial Rotors in Hover A Performance PDF
Study of Contra-Rotating Coaxial Rotors in Hover A Performance PDF
Fall 2007
This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Daytona Beach at
ERAU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Theses - Daytona Beach collection by an
authorized administrator of ERAU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact commons@erau.edu.
STUDY OF COUNTER-ROTATING COAXIAL
ROTORS IN HOVER
A PERFORMANCE MODEL BASED ON BLADE ELEMENT
THEORY INCLUDING SWIRL VELOCITY
by
Florent Lucas
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform EP32005
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
A STUDY OF COUNTER-ROTATING COAXIAL ROTORS IN HOVER
by
Florent Lucas
This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis committee chair,
Professor Charles Eastlake, Department of Aerospace Engineering, and has been approved by
the members of his thesis committee. It was submitted to the Aerospace Engineering
Department and was accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering.
THESIS COMMITTEE
1U
Dr. Frederique Drullion
Member
izjfi//) 7
Vice President for Research and Institutional Effectiveness Date
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to deeply thank the Thesis Chair, Professor Charles Eastlake, for his practical
suggestions and his priceless help all along this study. It was a pleasure to share discussions
the thesis committee members, Dr. Magdy Attia and Dr. Frederique Drullion for the support
I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to my family and my friends for their
iii
ABSTRACT
Year: 2007
The purpose of this study is to create a simple model to evaluate the performance of a
counter-rotating coaxial rotor system. As it is based on the blade element theory, it could be
used as a design tool where the engineer can modify all parameters - rotor radius, blade pitch
distribution, tip velocity, rotor spacing, number of blades, blade chord, and airfoil's shape
through its lift coefficient versus angle of attack slope. Different blade pitch distributions are
tried and are assessed based on the power required to hover at the same weight. Also, the
impact of the swirl velocity induced by the upper rotor is included and discussed. In order to
verify the credibility of the model, results are compared to what was obtained from other
researches. The main result is to compare performance of the current AH-64 Apache single
IV
" When will man cease to crawl in the depths to live in the azure and quiet of the sky? "
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
List of figures vii
List of tables viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 About coaxial rotor helicopters 1
1.2 A few steps of history 2
1.3 20th century and current state 3
1.4 Literature survey 4
1.5 Scope of this thesis 5
2 Model developed ~..7
2.1 Blade element theory for a single rotor 7
2.2 Description of coaxial rotor environment 11
2.3 Induced velocity at lower rotor including swirl velocity: 14
2.4 Model function 20
3 Results 24
3.1 Comparison to existing literature 24
3.1.1 Contribution of swirl in the wake 24
3.1.2 A coaxial rotor system or two isolated rotors 24
3.1.3 Rotor spacing, pitch increment and thrust ratio 27
3.2 Effect of pitch distribution 29
3.2.1 Untwisted blade 30
3.2.2 Linearly twisted blade 31
3.2.3 Enhanced blade twist 32
3.3 Comparison to a single rotor 34
4 Special case of ducted rotor 41
4.1 Simple coaxial configuration 42
4.2 In skewed-duct coaxial configuration 42
4.3 In straight-duct coaxial configuration 43
5 Conclusion 44
5.1 Concluding remarks 44
5.2 Recommendation for future work 45
References 46
Appendices 47
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
LIST OF TABLES
viii
1 INTRODUCTION
The most common configuration of a helicopter is to have a main single rotor to create the lift
and a small tail rotor whose purpose is to balance the torque created by the main rotor.
Consequently, the machine can be directionally stabilized and the pilot has control over the
yaw angle of the aircraft. Having two counter-rotating rotors is another solution to
directionally stabilizing a helicopter and it provides the advantage of not having a tail rotor
since the torque reaction from the two rotors can cancel each other. Indeed, a tail rotor uses
power without providing lift. Moreover, it is the source of many accidents which could
happen because the pilot hits something when hovering close to ground, because someone
walks by the tail without seeing it or also because an enemy shoots the tail itself. The loss of
1
1,2 A few steps of history
This chapter does not have the purpose of offering an exhaustive history of helicopter but
Although his design never took life and apparently could not
. NI 'i . • *>>S , ! f?vy."»sW'!li
work, he surely had sensed what the future would offer to
»,*{«•*>»-».* v*» w?
Figure 1: Da Vinci rotor design
In his book "The God Machine", James R. Chiles [1] describes early inventors' work and
intellectuals' contribution. The word 'helicopter' is adapted from the French hehcopiere,
coined by Gustave de Ponton d'Amecourt in 1861. It is linked to the Greek words hehx/helik-
(EXiKctc;) = "spiral" or "turning" and pteron (nxepov) = "wing". D'Amecourt's efforts were
backed up by the famous Jules Verne through, for example, "Robur the conqueror" in which
the main character, captain of the Albatross, states: "With her, I am master of the seventh part
of the world".
Figure 2; J. Verne's Albatross & first aluminum counter-rotating coaxial rotor {d'Amecourt)
2
However, it seems that the first helicopter design that actually
that the Chinese invention was a toy and actually did not store
the hands to generate lift and then released into free flight. The
two French inventors sent in the air their device on April 26th 1784, before the "Academie
Royale des sciences". The energy to turn rotor was stored in a bone bent by strings rolled
The sky is today dominated by single rotor helicopters. However, certain companies like
Kamov Design bureau have made the choice of coaxial systems which led to the Ka-32 or Ka-
50 (Figure 3), for example. Other, like Sikorsky, have shown their interest in this technology
through the ABS helicopter of the 1960s or today the X2 demonstrator, Figure 3.
In the 50's Gyrodyne (USA) developed the XRON, Figure 3, a one seat coaxial helicopter
that received in 1961 the Grand Prize for the most manoeuvrable helicopter at the
Also, at a lot smaller scale (for now) Gen Corporation in Japan developed a personal coaxial
30 to 60 min and a maximum speed of 100 km/h (60mph). This machine, Figure 3, is sold for
3
From left to right, top to bottom Gen corporation helicopter, Ka-SO, X2, XRON
Colin P. Coleman [2], wrote in 1997 a paper titled "A Survey of Theoretical and
Experimental Coaxial Rotor Aerodynamic Research" which has been useful in understanding
what performance to expect from counter-rotating rotors. This paper sorts work done on
coaxial rotors by country. Many methods are described for predicting performance of counter-
rotating rotors but to the best of the author's knowledge, the work being presented in this
thesis is the first public study that shows a simple model using blade element theory in
4
combination with momentum theory. The following paragraph describes discussions and
Effect of swirl velocity in the wake of a rotor has been discussed by Wayne Johnson [3] and
can be used as a tool of comparison for the current model. His formula was used in the model
developed in this thesis. J. Gordon Leishman [4] offers a simple way to evaluate counter-
rotating coaxial rotor performance but it is based on momentum theory only. Many
discussions refer to Dingeldein [5] and Harrington [6] who in the early fifties conducted
experiments in the NASA Langley facilities and obtained practical results to compare to.
However, they do not show any theoretical approach. Coleman refers to M.J. Andrew [8]
about his work on the rotor spacing. Finally, Japanese researchers [9] show an interesting
method to calculate coaxial systems performance but it is again based on momentum theory
The purpose of this study is to create a simple model to evaluate the performance of a coaxial
rotor system. As it is based on the blade element theory, it can be used as a design tool where
the engineer can modify all parameters - rotor radius, blade pitch distribution, tip velocity,
rotor spacing, number of blades, blade chord, and airfoil's shape through its lift coefficient
versus angle of attack derivative. Different blade pitch distributions are tried and are assessed
based on the power required to hover at the same weight. Also, the impact of the swirl
velocity induced by the upper rotor is included and discussed. In order to verify the credibility
of the model, results will be compared to what was obtained from other researches.
The coaxial rotor model is compared to a single rotor configuration and two isolated counter-
rotating rotors. In addition, performance is analysed based upon some design parameters
changes like the rotor diameter and tip speed. Those results serve to improve the
5
Many researches have been conducted on coaxial rotor systems but no model was found to be
based on the blade element theory. The idea came from the fact that an Excel spreadsheet
calculating single rotor performance was developed and carefully checked in the AE433 class,
Daytona Beach. This spreadsheet is only for a single rotor but with coaxial counter-rotating
rotors becoming more popular, the need for an expanded model appeared.
6
2 MODEL DEVELOPED
The performance model developed is based on blade element theory combined with
momentum theory. A model already existed for single rotors that was developed for use in the
checked by Professor Charles Eastlake through many years of use in class. The objective is to
add a second rotor to the proven spreadsheet, and then try to adjust the model of the lower
rotor to account for the interaction effect of the flow induced by the upper rotor. In other
words, the idea was to extend this model to a coaxial rotor system, accounting for the axial
but also swirl velocity induced by the upper rotor. The study focuses only on hovering
performance.
Figure 4 shows variables used to describe a blade element as it is used in the model.
<-'' \ \
' \ \ \
'
' \
\ \
\ I
/*
i
\\ \\
\ \
**
*
i \^—"N. >
) i ay;
\ / /
y 7
\- / / '/ R
\y / //
/ A
7
The main advantage of the blade element method is that someone designing a rotor can
modify the pitch distribution of the blades in addition to other parameters such as rotor
diameter, tip speed, etc. Modifying the pitch distribution can allow to obtain a constant or
almost constant induced velocity on both rotors, at least on the outer part which is
predominant in the performance. This situation provides better results in term of power
y and R are shown in figure 4. The model considers 10 points equally separated along a
blade from r = 0 to r = \ and the local pitch angle can be defined as a function of r or
modified by hand for each of those locations. However, adding complexity to the design of
Also, the model allows choosing the chord length which is an important parameter of the rotor
solidity.
Figures 5 and 6 should help to understand the process of performance calculation for a single
Q. 1
iVr
e
\
y^^.'-'y J^^—""~
vi
/ - ' \ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^
&~-" ' , i
Q,y
, ' • ' '
8
As the study is about hover flight, the knowledge of the rotor tip speed or the rotor speed of
rotation, as well, provides the local Mach number. The geometry of the blade being defined at
dCi i
various r locations, the local lift coefficient versus angle of attack derivative, a = ——, can be
da
f
V.^
obtained which leads to the calculation of advance angle,^ = tan" shown figure 5.
Then the induced velocity can be deduced as well as the angle of attack, a=9-(f>, and
eventually the thrust and torque coefficients. Those are the purpose of the study. The thrust
derivative — - is similar to the lift and is therefore a function of a and a defined above.
dr
The torque derivative — - has two components, one due to the parasite drag related to a
dr
and the other one due to the induced drag related to the amount of thrust and (/>.
Values of — - and — - for each location are integrated along the blade to produce C7 and
dr dr
CQ to evaluate the rotor performance. CT provides the rotor thrust obtained and CQ provides
the torque required to turn the rotor which is translated into horse power (HP). One should
note that part of tip performance is taken out. This is taken into account by using the
traditional Prandtl's tip loss factor due to the vortex at the tip of the blades. Because of this
vortex, a small portion of the outer part does not produce lift and, therefore, also does not
produce induced drag. However, it still produces profile drag. The amount taken out is a
B is the proportion of blade length that produces lift so the integration is performed from
9
Baseline Incremental
0 (deg)
t 8 (deg) 6 (rad) M a (per rad) 4 (rad) v,(ft/s) a (rad) a (deg) c„ dCT/df dCVdr dCq/dr
00 150 2417 0 3040 0 000 5 73 UNDEF 0 — — — 0 0 0
01 14 1 2417 0 2883 0 065 5 73 02173 15 77 0 0710 4 07 0O086 1 888E-04 4 015E-07 4 103E-06
02 132 2417 0 2726 0 130 5 73 0 1776 25 79 0 0949 544 0 0119 1010E-03 4 406E-06 3 588E-05
03 123 2417 0 2569 0 195 5 73 0 1523 33 16 01046 5 99 0 0137 2 504E-03 1 72OE-05 1 144E-04
04 114 2417 0 2412 0 260 5 73 0 1337 38 82 0 1075 6 16 0 0143 4 574E-03 4 260E-05 2 446E-04
05 105 2417 0 2254 0 325 5 73 0 1190 43 19 0 1065 6 10 0 0141 7 079E-03 8192E-05 4 212E-04
06 96 2417 0 2097 0 390 5 73 0 1068 46 52 0 1029 5 90 0 0134 9 856E-03 1 342E-04 6 3I6E-04
07 87 2417 0 1940 0 455 5 73 0 0963 48 96 0 0977 5 60 0 0124 ! 273E-02 1 969E-04 8 586E-04
08 78 2417 0 1783 0 520 6 00 00884 5137 0 0899 5 15 00110 1 602E-02 2 620E-04 1 134E-03
09 69 2417 01626 0 585 6 50 0 0821 53 66 0 0805 461 0 0097 1 967E-02 3 279E-04 1 454E-03
10 60 2417 0 1469 0 650 7 00 0 0759 55 13 0 0710 4 07 00086 2 306E-02 4 014E-04 1 751E-03
Thrust/Powe r Calculations
B 0 9674 Note Incremental 8 is 2 417 degrees to
\*~ T/uo bss 8 517E-03 produce hover T = W= 176501b
(ACT)^,loss 7 344E-04
cT 7 782E-03
T(\b) 17651
CQO 1 268E-04
\ M ) I 'no loss 5 773E-04
(ACQAIPIW 5 714E-05
C« 5 202E-04
CQ 6 470E-04
HP induced 1557 4
fatal HP
Est Hp hover 1937 0
Hover % pow, 69 6
o
Figure 6: Example of single rotor spreadsheet
In a coaxial rotor system case, the air velocity induced by the upper rotor influences the lower
The air velocity induced by a rotor can be divided in two parts, an axial velocity and a
rotational component. Axial velocity is labelled V, and rotational velocity also called swirl
velocity is labelled u .
The downwash created by the rotation of the rotor undergoes a contraction as velocity
increases. Indeed, for hovering flight, it is shown by momentum theory that the velocity in the
far wake is twice the induced velocity. Therefore, the air mass flow being constant below the
rotor, the cross section of the downwash decreases. The narrow throat in the downwash
m- p-V • A = constant
VX=2V,
therefore,
A
A rotor
Because of this effect, only part of the lower rotor will be immersed in the flow created by the
upper rotor.
An important assumption is that the "vena contracta" is reached at a distance equal to the
rotor diameter below the upper rotor. The second major assumption is that the variation of the
11
The following figure shows a model based on these assumptions:
R
Roton-
. ->
streamtube' D
We want to obtain an equation providing the radius of the streamtube r with respect to the
At z = 2 • R, we have
R' = J * -
V 2
R'*0.7R
A/? R'-R
r= z + DR = z+R
2R 2-R
r =•
-0.3-.ft •z + R
2-#
r = R\l-0.\5-
R
12
The part of the lower rotor exposed to the downwash will be effectively in climb. However, a
typical spacing distance between two coaxial rotors is from 10% to 20% of the rotor radius.
The lower rotor is so close to the upper rotor that the "entire" part of the lower rotor will be
analized as if it was in climb. This is related to Prandtl's tip loss and discussed in the
following paragraph. Furthermore, this climb velocity will be the velocity induced by the
upper rotor times a factor greater than one because the velocity increases as the streamtube
narrows.
The increase in velocity is inversely proportional to the variation in area. The air velocity goes
dis tan ce
2-V -V
V = '• '-z + V,
2R
V = V 1 + 0.5-
R
It is also assumed that the upper rotor is not influenced by the velocity induced by lower rotor.
This means that any extra air flow required by the lower rotor is considered to be pulled in
horizontally through the vertical gasp between the rotors. This assumption will lead to
13
2.3 Induced velocity at lower rotor including swirl velocity:
This section describe the calculation of induced velocity at the lower rotor for the part which
f VrC+V.
' ' t
(/> = t a n
Q-y + u2 j
Q- y + u2
Where,
14
U = J{n-y + u2)2+(Vc+V,)2
u = {Q-y + u2)
cos^
Upper rotor R
\
i
/ 7
lower rotor /
/
/
i
i
i
i
i
l
Let's call C, the contraction ratio of the streamtube between lower and upper rotors as
described figure 9. What happens at the location "y" for the upper rotor contracts inward as it
flows down and this is used to calculate what happens at the location "£ • y" for the lower
one.
u2 is the swirl velocity at lower rotor. It can be deduced from swirl velocity «, at upper rotor.
lower rotor. For that reason we locate our study at location C, • y for the lower rotor and we
Because of this method, the integration along the blade stops at^ .ft. However, it does not
actually affect the result. The reason is that for a ratio of (spacing between rotors / diameter of
15
rotor) less than or equal to 0.1, the edge of the downwash from upper rotor would hit the
lower rotor within the region of the blade tip that is taken out of calculation because of the
U _Q-g-y + u2_ u2
£ -r + -
QR QR QR
Using angular momentum conservation, where "p" stands for a percentage of the blades
radius,
urr2 =*V22
2
U]{pR) =u2 -{p-C-Rf
"i
c
W, is defined in Reference 3 and it should be noted that it does not depend on the pitch of
blades.
2Vh-Q.-y
ux =Vh
(n-yf+vh2
• 2
Consequently, u2=-^-
C, (n-y) +vh
u2 _ Vh 2-Q.-y
hn
*~ehR~~f'{{n.yf + Vh2)-Q.-R
u2 _ Vh 2-r
Simplifying, using, y = r-R, — = -,- ({a.yf + y2)
Finally,
U A Vh2 2-r
QR C r (n-R)2+Vf
2
16
T
Vh, induced velocity for hovering, is calculated with momentum theory: Vh = I
]
upper
2p-A
A guess has to be made for thrust provided by upper rotor in order to solve for . Then
Q- R
iterations are made until the guess meets the calculated value. In other words, the ratio of
(thrust provided by upper rotor / overall thrust) is assumed in order to be able to calculate Vh.
Then, the sequence of calculation is repeated until hover at equal rotor torque is obtained and
this solution provides the thrust generated by each rotor. Consequently this gives the thrust
ratio. If the assumed ratio and the calculated one do not match the initial guess has to be
changed and the process redone. This can be automated with a code and such was done with a
macro linked to the Excel sheet ("automatic calculation code" in appendices p59).
In order to derive an expression for V, at the blade element of the "climbing" lower rotor, we
sic*
can equate two different expressions for the differential thrust coefficient — - of a blade
dr
element.
-pU2-(c-dy)-C,
dCT =
p-(nR2){QRJ
f ~ \ f V
U dy_
Simplifying, dCT -
K-R) QRJ R
U
Finally, using the previously defined expression of
Qft
1 ( c ^ v dr
dCT = —
T
2 \n-Rj '• V &R
V„
For N blades, dCr = — • C, C-r + dr
7 2 /. U J r2-(Q-R)2+Vh2 j
17
N-c is the solidity of the rotor
a=
n-R
V +V
Q-R
VyVc =U-sm(/)
sin^ «<j>
QR
Therefore,
X
<t> =
y
h 2-r
£-r +
{C r -{tl-R)2 + Vh'
2
Then,
dCT = a a 9- C-r +
y
h 2-r
I- C-r +
fvy 2-r
dr
z
\ W r .(Q-R)2
2
+ V2
UJ r .(Q-R)2+V2
2
d^iOo+Oj+r-0^
The other expression for differential thrust coefficient using momentum conservation for an
18
So equating those two expressions for dCT we have,
r 2
era C-r +
v\z 2-r
-X' £-r + V 2-r
=4 Vc + K ( v \ C-r
2 2
JL
r2-{Cl-Rf+Vh* 2 J K$J r -(n-Rf + Vh ) n-R \n-Rj
f VC+VY V,
a-a 9-' C-r+'V? 4-r 1 K Ar
-X- 1+- V? =4-
2 U r2-(n-rf+Vh2 £{C) (r>.(n-R)2+Vh2)
2 2 2
QKCJ r -(n-R) +V ) n-R xn-Rj
A B
Then,
aa •e-A-i^(vc+v,)B-7^(vc-v,
V
2
+v )=o
8 8Q/? " " (n-R)
(„ cT-a-n-R \
V2 + V Vc+' •B +—-n-R-{Vc-B-9-A-n-R) =Q
I l 8 8
Vc aa-n-R-Bs 2-(9-A-n-R-VcB)
V,= + -1+ 1+-
4-Vr. a-a-Q-R-B2
+ VC-B +
a-a-n-R 16
Remembering that Vc is the axial component of the velocity induced by the upper rotor in the
plane of the lower one, we now have a formula for the induced velocity at the lower rotor of a
coaxial system including swirl from the upper one. Vc is a function of the rotor radius. The
contraction of the downwash from upper ratio has to be included in the application of this
equation.
19
The following paragraph show how the induced velocity is incorporated into the process of
calculate the advance angle <t>. Following this result, the angle of attack can be calculated
Finally drag, thrust and torque can be calculated as is described in more detail on the
following pages. Figure 10 is the data input sheet, Figure 11 displays the spreadsheet used and
Name of helicopter |
This spreadsheet is a model to calculate performance of coaxial rotor considering that only the lower rotor depends on the other
swirl velocity induced by the upper rotor is included
Characteristics of helicopter
If (lb) 17650
Engine HP 2784
20
CQ
SO
CM
Ov
HO
O
ro
co so
SO rN
CO
OO » t CO
OO
CO
r-~
co
co so r*
o 3 o CO o o CO CO
en
o **- O O
o SO
*>1
CM
W) m
CO
wo W-i
C N ir> CMS
CO
CO
co O co C£>
S
CM
"5 co -3- OO
C3
m
s OO
CO WO
NO
CO
o CT*
OO sO W0 v-i -BJ.
«*
rO
..S3
so wo "«** •nf >*3" •**• "•a- -**< •X? m W") uo ** •-a- -3- •z? "^ -sr •B9- CO
co S O C9 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
co co CO
Y *¥ C O C O
«? Uj UJ £O
£a- so U5 ih U3 LU U3 UJ UJ ui ti
w^ m <o
ti UJ UJ 1-6 U3
i
CM NO J--. 1 CO CM NO
sO in CM
r~ wo -er m "«*•
r O O O g;
•cj-
&
•«a-
o
NO
rO CM
NO
OO
r^ m en
m wn N O
OO
NO o
r- ON
CO
CO O
-a - * • CO t—
CM
O"
CO m tao c o
CM rc> co
™ ri~> wo
' vi V)
— C") 1j- Mn M3 r- OO ™* CM
— -t*-
r-- O O O* —*
•o
* r~ NO *r% v^ >n •«*- -«(• -* -«*- "* NO so wn V-i wo wo "«*• -* - * -ct-
so CO CO CO CO C O C O CO C O CO CO CO CO c eo CO SO O
"^ ub ulj
1
%
T3
SO CO
SO
r~ V" *
) CO
cu UJ
•*r S O f^-l
to C O C O CM
OO NO
OO m
w-i oo-
th. 03
—.
U)
cr-
NO
^I*-
"~™
L6 Cl) UJ
OS
o
—
CM
s£3
CM
•*!*•
SO
-<*•
m
i CO
ih U4 UJ
CM N O W l i>-
CO
o r-
_ CM
CO
—
OO
ON
CO -* o>
r-
CN]
OO
'!*- r-
uh £-6 U3
r-
CM
-* ON OO
wn
*~*"~*
dj
•m
Os
tm
f--i
ui
CM
fi
en
m
1
1 <*** enm r*i (*> cn CM CM CM CM
CO
•«* m
m m CO CO m r^j CM
CO CO O CO C O C O C O C 3 CO
C O CO CO CO
^ co CO cp
U3 U3 U.S ui •k UJ U3 U*3 CiJ U3 U3 [4J
<o- C.3„)
O CO
so t*- S O C O «5j-
W LU IXJ UJ UJ
W") p~- O O m t o ub "~V~ C O ON OO CM t * La
so CM CM
;
CO
j.%,i
ON
w~j t*- rn r^. «%• CM O N QO CO OO CO en W-)
rM Co^ oo
f-~ r-
»^> C3^ k r-~ C O Oa*N~ SC OM
•*&
M •««s- N O -S3" C O CM -<f wo en * * • SO CO
CM r*~, w-t CM CO ~™ f— O O Os —-
j —. r- ""•
— "" — -«r
wo co
C M so
C7^
CO s fa NO NO
I*-. o>
r- CO O
a^ NO
r~
•el- W*^
<J ; CO
CM ON OO
c- j CO co- CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO u CO CO CO
!
£3 so
co co
co- C O CO
eo CO
CO CO
o
CO CO CO
s
CO
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO CO CO
1 1 CO CO CO CO CO
"5
'So WO -tr C O O O OO r~- cr> ON CO w^ CO r~ M- m CO *ry m
Sw
T3 oo O S r%) rr~i m r^. m r*~ O O r*~, sO CM sO co CO
o *3- NO OO so •Kj- m rn
cr-
CM v-j CO en
r~
CM CM CM
« r~ «-T!
«3
• * * • •«*-
8 a
J!
3
-a
<o T3 r-
^j-
„„.,„
o oo
««0
r<>
OO CO
CO SO NO
sO CM OO
r~
NO
C3 5 ™
CM
OO
WO
-
CO
* • V~t wo so
fO
_ CO
_-
-Hf
y>
<JS oo CM 4~vS r-
o cr- ~- SoO wo CO fO O r~- CO
•**•
r- sO WO r~~ "ef m
co r
• ^
CO CO CS CO co CO CO CO CO CO
o co
CO o C3 o E2 CO
a CD CO SO CO CO CO
« co C5 CO CO CO so CO CO CO
1 u,
wO NO -3- C O rM CM ~- rS O N UJ f~ w-t CM OO
^» r- wn r
^" oo r-~
i.».
Q-* © - CM CM tjr> NO CO •^f r-~ O O Q m CM OO en ON sO en rM CO o-
S
w-> ••a-
CS cO
so • * * • •«#•
CM
CM
r r\
w->
r^i
M=>
r^ r i
r*-
m
r- r— r-
r-'i m Cl~l
-is- -* *""!CC MO
C O CO
<-M
CO CO CO CO
™ c>
CO CO CO
"€Jk
§
(_ u, wo r-4 CO OO NO ON
1 2*i T3 Ui
Q
CM
CO
CM
oO
CM
CM
O
OO
OO
CO
OO
CO
o~-
NO
CO
sO
CO
S CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO C?N t-ry
en *o r~-
CM
rM
OO
wo
OO
CO
OO
g
OO
WO
os r-
r— r-~
CM
o CO CO CO c?
f ~%. ^ C5 SO CO CO CO
»~
^ST ^S3
2 eo so r- <o vr» Vi w-i o* n->
«n c- CO MO OO OO WO SO OO •«!»• m r-
r-~ r- r^ o© oc O N C O CI 1CS r- <5 r- r- r- »o wo ON CO CO wo c—•
\o
o- wo to in
</*! try
**-» NO SO VO so •3 w-> w?-i W O Vi so MP NO NO so
<3 «
CO -•3- r- w> CTv w N O C O • « * - r- en CM •rf s O O O
CO •o S O NO s O c-i r-~ m O O c-» OO CM CM c~ C M t*; C M OO rO
5 ^ r*»
GO
CO
eo
co co- CO
rN * N rO m
CO CO
•*r v-j
CO CO •**
C O CO CO
CO CO
o CO so
CM
CO
CM
CO
CO CO
CO CO CO «#• -*$•
CO
lO
so
*w-
C3 *—.
eo: r^ CO
m ro CO
Ngj V O NO s O S O S O so NO sO NO so
§ SP wo
s£s
SO
Np vO M O NO NO SO NO sO NO SO W~i »o wo V O wn so wn SO wo wn
£ 3 -Kf "T -*J- •«*•
-*r «f s s ^
^
•«*•
•a- -s- -3- -3-
-
lea-
~~**- •
—**•— —
• * * • " * • •««• - * • * • * •
O so CO CS co CO O o o co CO
*"•'"* "
•*•*__ "™* ™ -
1*5 1*
Ji OO OO OO OO
> * •
CM
NO
Os
OO wo ICl
OO CO
ON s> ON OS
en
t$»
CM ™ ^o
o r- SO oo
1 * SO NO
l l •*«
S 8
to w~> wo w ^
OO **o ,_
0* CO t ^ r^i sO OO CO OO lO ON ON ON OO MD oo
- CO CO o C3 CO CO CO CO CO CO V CO CTs.
CO ON OO
1 CO CM -3- oo ^
CO C5 CO CO N© CO
CO CO CO »
CO
3
s
Figure 11: Coaxial rotor blade element spreadsheet
21
Thrust/Powe • Calculations Thrust/Power Calculations
8 0 9699 B 0.9758
\^ T/nolosi 7.264E-03 \*~* T/rto loss 4.702E-03
(ACT)up!oiji 4 728E-04 (AC r)tfp(oss 9.929E-0S
CT 6 791E-03 cT 4.603E-03
r (ib) 10520 T (lb) 7130 T total 17650
CQO 1.068E-04 ^"QO 8.466E-05
l^Qf/no less 4.440E-04 (^Ql/no loss 4.454E-04
("CgJaploss 3 034E-05 ( " C Qi)tip loss 9.558E-06
CQ> 4.136E-04 CQI 4.358E-04
CQ 5.205E-04 CQ 5.205E-04 equal torque? YES
///> induced 699.0 //F induced 736.5 T ratio u/1 0 596
Total HP 879.6 Total HP 879.6
mi 1759.1
corresponding to the blade location. The pitch angle 0 is equal to the pitch distribution of the
blades (column 2) plus the increment 9imremmi (column 3) which represents a collective pitch
dCL
change. The Mach number M is used to calculate a compressibility correction to a =
da
present case it was considered that aJD = 5.73 as a constant, also a commonly used
assumption.
Consequently the local induced velocity can be calculated with the relation tan^ = V,
r-QR
22
sin <f>« <j> and cos^ « 1 then Vl = r • nR • </>
A widely used polynomial curve-fit is used for Cd of the NACA 0012 airfoil:
Cd =0.0107-(0.151-a) + (1.72-a2)
'•a
dr 2
OCgQ a
= r3-Cd-
dr ~2
dCQl dCT
• m• r
dr dr
Calculation of u, A and B were described previously and are demonstrated in Figure 11.
Calculations at the lower rotor are only a little different. The local induced velocity is
calculated first in order to calculate the advance angle. They are both dependent on velocity
As shown by Figure 12, differentials of coefficients are then integrated along blades using the
trapezoidal rule and recorded into the table accounting for the Prandtl tip loss.
Since the study is about the hover case, the torque or power required for each rotor should be
identical. A cell shows if the condition is met by displaying "YES" or "NO". The "T total"
cell is the sum of thrusts provided by each rotor to make sure that the hover condition of
thrust equals weight is achieved. The Apache helicopter used as an example weighs 17560 lb.
Finally a cell shows the thrust ratio and another one the total power required.
23
3 RESULTS
In Reference 3, Wayne Johnson states that "there is about a 1% increase in the total rotor
The current model consider a coaxial system based on the McDonnell Douglas AH-64
Apache, 22 foot rotor radius, spacing of 2.2 feet, a tip speed of 665.5 ft/s and the same linear
pitch distribution, to hover weight of 17650 lbs. This analytical model shows that the
consideration of swirl in the wake requires 1.4% increase of total power as referenced in
Table 1.
HP required
model to hover increase
without
swirl 1953.1
with swirl 1980.5 1.4%
There is a small degree of simplification in the calculation since the formula, as described
previously, does not take into consideration the blade pitch. However, this result matches
Leishman [4] introduces a discussion based on Dingeldein 15] and Harrington [6] results
where he compares performance of a coaxial rotor with two isolated rotors. Leishman
mentions an increase in induced power for the coaxial case at equal torque compared to two
isolated rotors. This is given as 16% found experimentally and 22% theoretically.
24
However, not enough detailed dimensional data was found to verify this in the
aforementioned NACA Technical Notes to reproduce the results exactly with this analytical
model.
The current model shows for R = 24ft an increase of 34.6% in induced power corresponding
to an increase of 21.9% in total power. These numbers vary with parameters such as rotor
RPM and rotor diameter but are moderately higher than Leishman conclusion. We do not
The discrepancy might be explained by several different reasons. The comparison between the
two cases may not be done in the same manner. Indeed, Dingeldein compares a coaxial
system where each rotor has the same solidity but not the same diameter. Moreover, his rotors
are in tandem configuration which implies that there is probably interaction between them. In
h nh
ty
ft
COE Coaxial
ixial
n h n
U V Two isolated
vj
Tandem
25
Also it was assumed in the current model that the upper rotor is not influenced by the flow
induced by the lower rotor. However, if the upper rotor was considered to be in climb due to
inflow induced by the lower rotor, even at a small rate, its induced power would be reduced.
In another case, Harrington [6] does a study comparable to the current model and states that
"It appears that [...] the profile torque coefficient CQo at CT = 0 of the coaxial arrangement
was twice that measured separately for either of the single rotors". This means that there is
neither an increase nor a decrease in total profile torque by merging the two isolated rotors
into a coaxial configuration. In comparison, the current model shows that the profile torque
coefficient of the coaxial arrangement is twice that calculated for only one single rotor with a
Therefore, it is concluded that the two studies are illustrating general trends that are very
similar.
A comparison was made for different rotor radii between a coaxial configuration and two
isolated ones and the difference in total power required relative to two isolated rotors is
compiled in the table 2. Again rotors are identical; blades are untapered with a linear pitch
distribution. There are four blades per rotor. Solidity is 0.0928 for each rotor.
It can be observed that the difference in total power required decreases as the rotor radius
increases. However, when R = 32ft, the increase required (for the coaxial system) in induced
power is 32.7% which shows that it stays nearly constant with the radius variation. The
following graphic, Figure 14, shows the difference of power required for different radius. It is
26
also noticeable that the total power required decreases as the rotor radius increases but it is to
ponder with structural analysis, increase in weight, specification for the room available, etc,
Although it is more efficient to have two isolated rotors, it requires more room than a coaxial
ZSO0-
•
!
2000 - * „ ^ - ^
38
<£
« *
1500 •
—•—forcoaxaal
i - for 2 single
1000 -
500 •
0
3 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
radius if! ft
Rotor sparing
In his survey, Coleman [2] refers to an optimization study done by Andrew [7] in England.
This study reveals that "the greatest gains were made up to H/D = 0.05; thereafter, no
The current model was tested for H/D = 0.05 and H/D = 0.1 having all other parameters
identical. Results do show that H/D = 0.05 produces better performance than the other.
However, no attempt was made to create a decision making tool on the spacing between
27
rotors though the analysis did confirm that the influence on the upper rotor by the lower rotor
Nagashima [8] in those words: "Perhaps surprising is the extent to which the lower rotor
The current analysis was not intended to optimize rotor spacing, so all subsequent calculation
Pitch difference
Coleman, still referring to the research in Japan, writes that "they determined that
0.316), so long as stall was not present". This statement refers to optimum performance but it
should be noted that it does not mean torque-balanced. Thus, some other means of directional
For the current model, each rotor has the blade pitch adjusted until both rotors require the
same torque. It is a requirement in the model that was chosen because counteracting torque is
the main purpose of a coaxial rotor system. It was found that the collective pitch increment
required is a function of different parameters such as tip speed and rotor radius. Results drawn
from calculation indicate that the increment angle varies between 1.15° and 1.3° for linearly
twisted blades. The following table show pitch difference (9,ower -9wptr) required for various
28
This shows values close to Coleman's reference and strongly suggests that a torque balance
Thrust ratio
Finally, each rotor provides a share of the overall thrust and all calculation made with this
T
model show that the ratio stays very close to — = 0.6 . Again, this would probably
upper tower
change with a model including the influence of the lower rotor on the upper rotor. Those
Pitch distribution of a blade corresponds to an important phase of rotor design. While the
twist of a blade is designed to give more performance or efficiency from the rotor, it also
In order to have an idea of the gain in performance, calculation were conducted for a coaxial
configuration with a radius of 22 ft, a tip speed of 665 ft/s and 4 blades with a chord of 1.75ft,
Three different configuration were tested, an untwisted design, a linear twist design with
90 =15° and 0^, - -9° and finally a hand adjusted design with blade pitch at each radial
location modified to produce a constant induced velocity on the outer part of the rotor. This
last design happens to be close to a second order polynomial pitch distribution though there is
Table 4 shows the difference in performance for each configuration and the results are
29
Table 4: Relation between performance and blade pitch distribution
HP required
Configuratiofi to hover
Untwisted 2068.8
Linear Twist 1966.8
Custom Twist 1938.7
The following graphs (Figures 35 to 20) show the pitch distribution and the induced velocity
There is no need to plot an untwisted pitch distribution. However it is important to notice that
The effect of swirl velocity induced by upper rotor is observable at the inner part of the lower
rotor. As discussed earlier it does not have significant contribution to the overall performance.
30
3.2,2 Linearly twisted blade
Pitch distribution shown takes into consideration the difference in pitch between upper and
pitch distribution
18
16 • -m
•M
14
» » *~
^^^L^r*
12-
f 10 ™
— ^^^^_^^ ^^^
*
I J — — -
6 —
_
2
0 0 02 04 08 OS 1 Q 12
r
Figure 17 shows that a linear twist distribution creates a more desirable, because it is closer to
31
3.2.3 Enhanced blade twist
This graphic corresponds to the actual configuration or blades to hover with a radius of 22
pitch distribution
The pitch at the inner part of the blades is not modified since is has only little contribution to
45 „ _ „ „
- I
40
35 - _
30 -
?5
I
5
20 - „—• w- — — m «- ~m —m
15 ^
J*-''
10 •
/ r
1 /
5
00 02 04 06 08 1 0 12
f
j __#__ v t upp&r •» Vi Sower j
32
The modified twist allows obtaining a constant induced velocity distribution on the outer 60%
of each rotor. Last figure demonstrate the possibilitytoapproximate this design by a quadratic
equation.
pitch distribution
25 ,
20
^ O v . R? = 0 9994
15 -
!
y * 18 512xJ 41 054x * 28 692 ^ ^ ^ J s ^
RJ = 0 3993 ^"^5S»~»_
10 - —
s-
00 02 04 06 08 1 0 1 2
T
Table 5 indicates the increase of power required for each case, relatively to the enhanced
configuration.
Table 5: Increase of power required for various blade twist
Increase in
Configuration power required
Untwisted 6.71%
Linear Twist 1.45%
Customed Twist ...
Table 5 confirms that the blade pitch distribution has an impact on performance.
Nevertheless, this comparison also proves to be useful in a design process. Showing that the
increase in power required is not very large, when going from a custom twist to a linear twist,
could help a decision maker to choose whether it is worth increasing the cost of
33
3.3 Comparison to a single rotor
One should remember that this comparison considers the main rotor only. Therefore, the
power required calculated does not take into consideration the powertodrive the tail rotor in
the case of the single rotor. This is generally an additional 10 to 15% HP of the main rotor
horse power.
Another potential precision issue, as stated previously, is that the upper rotor in the coaxial
configuration was considered to be in free air whereas it is probably in climb in the stream
35CQ
3000
2300 •
2000 -
1S00
1000 -
500 -
10 20 30 40 50 60
Radius (ft)
This first graph compares the power required to hover as a function of the rotor radius for four
different types of rotor configuration. Those are a coaxial system with four blades per rotor
34
and another one with two blades per rotor. Blades chord remains the same, as well as pitch
distribution. Also, two single rotors were analysed, one with eight blades and the other with
four. Since other parameters are the same, the solidities are comparable: a total of 8 blades in
2500 • --- --
2000- .. . * \ ^ ^ * «• ...
*-~~~~-~-~^_2^
^"~~-~-— —*' m
| 1500 -
1000 -
500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
tip speeil in ft/sec
Those two graphs show that the solidity of a rotor system seems to be a major factor in
performance, as theory would lead us to expect. Indeed, a single rotor provides results quite
close to the coaxial rotors at equivalent solidity. The reason for the difference between each
model may be the the lower rotor influence on the upper rotor, as stated above figure 21.
However, if, in the coaxial system, the upper rotor was considered to be in climb, the induced
torque would be less and the system would consequently be more efficient. This last
35
statement would give results more consistent with paragraph 3.1.2 of the present study and
From a designer's point of view, Figures 21 and 22 offer interesting value. Solidity of the
rotor is apparently a key for performance trend. Other parameters such as vibration and
weight would come into the equation. Nevertheless, being at the same solidity or not, it
appears that a coaxial rotor configuration provides a better solution for performance.
Analysis
The two figures (21 & 22) show that having a coaxial system with four blade rotors allows us
to lower the power required in hover by lowering the speed of rotation. This action has the
downside effect of requiring a greater pitch angle and therefore a bigger angle of attack. A
local blade element would stall and not offer the calculated performance for large angles,
Fortunately, the optimum velocity found theoretically never requires a large angle of attack
and therefore lies into the feasibility range. For example, a 24 foot radius rotor with a tip
speed of 400 ft/s and 4 blades in a coaxial configuration requires a maximum local angle of
attack of 13.86 degrees at 30% of radius. However this configuration asks for more power
than the similar one with a tip speed of 500 ft/s which implies a maximum angle of attack of
10.17 degrees at 30% again. This angle falls into the linear part of the CL versus AOA curve
If we consider another design parameter, the rotor radius, it is noticeable that a single rotor
provides better performance for only very large radius. It is not likely that such large rotor
would be built for manufacturing and weight reasons. Consequently the coaxial configuration
36
Best performance scenario
For a better understanding of the results, calculation are based on an actual helicopter, the
The Apache currently has a single rotor and available data are that the radius is 24 ft, each
four blades are twisted as follow, 90 = 15° and 0Msl = -9°, chord is 1.75 ft (this is kept for all
The single rotor model calculates a power required for the main rotor of the Apache of 1903
horse power (Appendices) in order to hover. This number would be lower if the radius of the
rotor was larger but it can be assumed that other parameters led to this design choice. OrTe of
them could be the room taken by the rotor. Also, the longer the radius, the more the blades
would bend or flap in flight which can affect performance, which is not considered in this
model. On the other hand more blades could have been added to increase solidity as the
Going from the actual Apache design, what coaxial rotor design could improve performance?
Considering two four bladed rotors with a spacing of 10% of the radius or 5% of the diameter
and keeping same parameters for blade chord and CLa, other parameters such as blade pitch
distribution, rotor radius and tip speed can be modified to look for better performance.
As previous figures demonstrate, any decrease in rotor radius will increase power required. A
first analysis shows that a coaxial system, as described above with a linear twist and a 24 ft
radius but a tip speed of 535 ft/s (Figure 23), would require only 1764.6 HP (Figure 24).
37
Name of helicopter | modified npaene
lyuumeu Apache j
This spreadsheet is a model to calculate
date performance
performance <of eoawal rotor considering that only the lower rotor depends on the other
mx\ velocity induced By the upper rotor is included
Characteristic* of helicopt
W (lb) 7650
17650
Engine MP 2784
Figure 23: Design parameters of modified Apache with linearly twisted blades
While modifying these parameters, the designer should pay attention to the local angle of
From another designer's point of view, the power required can be given less importance than
the rotor radius. If the rotor radius is set to 21.5 ft and the tip speed to 575 ft/s the model gives
a power required of 1946 HP. The maximum local angle of attack would be 6.24° which still
38
leaves some room for the collective pitch. This configuration saves 5 feet or 1.524 meters on
For a radius of 22 ft and a tip speed of 550 ft/s the power required would be 1903 HP like for
Changing the pitch distribution to 9lvm =-11° (keeping the same pitch angle at blade root)
for this configuration shows that less power would required to hover, 1890 HP, however the
Using a hand modified blade pitch distribution, a tip speed of 525 ft/s and a rotor radius equal
to 24 ft, the coaxial rotor model calculates a power required of 1725 HP, Figure 25^'and
appendices, with a maximum local angle of attack of 8,68°. This is a significant power
reduction and illustrates that this blade element model has promise as a rotor design tool.
CT versus CQ graph
It appears that these graphs are often used to illustrate rotor performance. However, this tool
was not used in the present study because of a lack of information to compare to. One such
39
Mutual influence between rotors
The following result seems to contradict the assumption that the influence created on the
upper rotor by the lower one would reduce the power required. If the upper rotor is considered
to be fully influenced by the streamtube induced by the lower rotor then the power required to
This calculation set was run in the same conditions as the optimum configuration except that
the upper rotor was considered "climbing" in the flow induced by the lower rotor. The only
purpose of this exercise was to obtain an approximate value of the effect of rotor
interdependencies. Therefore, it was simply considered that the streamtube of the airflow
induced by a rotor follows the same trend above and below the rotor. In other words it is
The significance of this discussion is that if the effect of the lower rotor on the upper rotor
would bring the coaxial model values closer to the single rotor ones. This would lead us to
conclude that a coaxial rotors system can be modelled as a single rotor of equivalent solidity.
Nevertheless, it should be remembered that for a single rotor 10% to 15% of power would be
required for the tail rotor. The study of the extent of this effect could be a topic for another
research,
40
4 SPECIAL CASE OF DUCTED ROTOR
This investigation was prompted in part by request to have ERAU assist with the design of a
ducted, coaxial rotor vehicle with a payload-carrying compartment in the center of the rotor.
This project did not ever actually take place but the interesting question of how to analyse the
rotor remained.
In order to have a definite answer three different models, Figure 27, were compared: the
previous coaxial model and two ducted coaxial models with a cabin in the middle. The first
duct is skewed in order to match the shape of a rotor downwash stream tube and the second
^ Cabin \
I
i
r
i
I 1]
coaxial Coaxial in straight duct Coaxial in skewed duct
Blade tips would be very close to the outer part of the duct and consequently there is no tip
loss. Moreover, the coefficient C!a is different since the aspect ratio of blades is considered as
Other characteristics that were used for these calculations are: the chord was set to be one
foot, the outer rotor diameter is 19 ft and the cabin diameter is 5 ft. Furthermore, blades were
assumed to be untwisted. The weight to hover is 30001b. The power available is unknown and
41
4.1 Simple coaxial configuration
This model is the one discussed previously. It is considering no influence of the lower rotor
This configuration assumes a solid duct has the shape of the downwash streamtube of the
upper rotor. Then, the area of the duct dictates the velocity and pressure distribution between
rotors, In this case there is no uncertainty about the influence of the lower rotor on the upper
42
4.3 In straight-duct coaxial configuration
Here again the area of the duct determines the velocity and pressure distribution along duct,
As the cross section area is constant, the velocity of the air between the two rotors is constant.
There may be a slight variation because of the boundary layer, like on the walls of a wind
tunnel, but it is neglected in the current model. Therefore, it is not surprising to observe that
each rotor produces the same thrust. The small difference if noticeable is due to the swirl
velocity.
It would be premature to conclude that an in-duct coaxial rotor system has lower performance
than a coaxial system in free air, Indeed, flow around the lip of the inlet duct creates surface
pressure which is below freestream static pressure. Consequently, this creates a pressure force
on the inlet duct which has a component in the same direction as the rotor thrust and because
the rotor is in hover there is no external aerodynamic drag on the duct itself. It is not included
in this analysis and might change the conclusions. A study of the importance of this extra
43
5 CONCLUSION
A model was built using Excel to evaluate performance of counter-rotating coaxial rotors.
This model is based on blade element theory combined with momentum theory and, therefore,
can be used as a blade design tool. It was demonstrated that untwisted blades, like in the
single rotor case, are less efficient than linearly twisted blades. Hand modified blade pitch
distribution can be even more efficient but choosing to do so might complicate the blade
manufacturing process.
• Coaxial rotor system is more efficient than a single rotor if the number of blade
• At identical power, the diameter of the rotor can be reduced for the coaxial
• The optimum rotational velocity is less for the coaxial system and this is due to
power than a single rotor, but this trend reverses if blade radius gets larger.
It was also noticed that if a coaxial system is in a duct, the power required increases slightly
but one should keep in mind that the inlet lip of the duct itself would provide thrust which is
44
5.2 Recommendation for future work
Some other research could contribute to improving this model. First, it would be interesting to
have a better description of the flow between rotors and to know the importance of the
influence of the lower rotor on the upper rotor. This might help gain precision in the model.
Also, it would be beneficial to have a better knowledge of the streamtube shape between the
two rotors and to create a model that allows a larger rotor spacing variation. The inner part of
the lower rotor would be influenced by the flow induced by the upper rotor, the outer part of
the lower rotor would be in free air and finally rules would have to be set for the part hit by
vortices. Work has been done already in those areas and an additional reference [9] is added
toward that purpose. However, the purpose of the current model is to stay a simple
preliminary design tool, so these details were intentionally not pursued at this time.
45
REFERENCES
1. James R. Chiles, "The God Machine"
"From Boomerangs to Black Hawks - The story of the helicopter",
Bantam Books, November 2007
9. Yihua Cao, "A new method for predicting rotor wake geometries and downwash
velocity field",
Associate Professor at the Institute of Aircraft Design, Beijing University of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, China,
MCB University Press, 1999
46
APPENDICES
- AH-64 Apache
- Coaxial model without swirl (in two rotor diameter and rotational velocity
configurations)
47
Baseline Incremental
r 6(ie%) 0 (deg) 0(rad) W a (perrad) 4 (rad) v {ft s) a (rad) a (deg) cd dCyfdr dC^/ir dr<j/df
00 150 1986 0 2965 0 000 5 73 UNDEF 0 ... .„
... 0 0 0
01 14 1 1986 0 2807 0 065 5 74 02128 15 45 00680 3 89 0 0084 1811E-04 3 891E-07 3 854E-06
02 132 1986 0 2650 0 130 5 78 0 1744 25 32 0 0907 5 20 00111 9 729E-04 4 140E-06 3 393E-05
03 123 1986 0 2493 0 195 5 84 0 1499 32 65 00994 5 70 0 0127 2 427E-03 1591E-05 1 091 E-04
04 114 1986 0 2336 0 260 5 93 0 1322 38 38 0 1015 5 81 00131 4 472E-03 3 887L-05 2 364E-04
05 10 5 1986 0 2179 0 325 6 06 0 1183 42 96 00996 5 71 0 0127 7 002E-03 7 380E-05 4 143E-04
06 96 1986 0 2022 0 390 6 22 0 1070 46 62 00952 5 45 00119 9 897E-03 1 194E-04 6 356E-04
07 87 1986 0 1865 0 4S5 6 43 0 0975 49 53 00890 5 10 0 0109 I 303E-02 1 734E-04 8 890E-04
08 78 1986 0 1708 0 520 6 71 0 0891 5177 00817 4 68 0 0098 1 627E-02 2 338E-04 1 160E-03
09 69 1986 0 1551 0 585 7 06 00817 5341 0 0733 4 20 0 0089 1 948E-02 3 004E-04 1 433E-03
10 60 1986 0 1394 0 650 7 54 0 0750 54 47 0O643 3 69 0 0081 2 252E-02 3 762E-04 1 690E-03
Thrust/Power Calculations
B 0 9674 Note Incremental 0 is 1 9856 degrees to
CC-rUte* 8 500F-03 produce hover T = W = 17650 lb
(ACjXjpiosj 7 179E-04
CT 7 782E-03
FWbwer conditoiE
nib) 17650
CQO 1 148E-04
VM)t)no bss 5 761 E-04
(^CQ,) opta 5 508E-05
CQ, 5 210E-04
CQ 6 358E-04
HP induced H59 8
Total HP iWMM
Est Hp hover 1903 6
Haver % pow 68 4
oo
AH-64 Apache
49
Coaxial model without swirl (configuration 1)
Name of helicopter
Thu> spreadsheet is a model to calculate performance of coaxial rolor considering that only the lower rotor depends on the other
swirl velocity induced by the upper rolor is included
Characteristics of helicopter
W (lb) 17650
bngme HI' 2784
50
SO i n t o •g- ^* •» •sf •^r •* t r~ i n in •^r "it • * ««• -* N* *t
© © © 9 9 o o o o o © O o o o O o o o o
ty
o o
to m to to
S O CN
so
<M Os rsi en
r-~
o
w
ON
ON
W w lit
o
r-j
0"*
"—
{~»
0 o
o
m
r-
m
to
• *
r~
in
k
O o
lis us
r~ o
fn
CN|
cn
US US
m IN
oo ' I t
cn O
US US US
so i^ 3n- Os ON O 0
o
OS ON O
o
*-<
fci US t o
fN
CN r~
os m
—
m »n oo ™i
CN
~~ SO
~~ CN • » i n in "3-
*— ~" CN ^ t U " i in so
r-~ so m i n i n *n -* •* • * i t r» so NO »n i n i n i t I t ^t it
© o o © O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o
di U tQ LO UJ
S O u-» "a- O < N
m f~ i n o **
Ti- a s ©
PJ w Ul US l i
so
SO o
rn oo r-
i n -* NO
0 0 I N t-. i n i n
4 o o
us
so
lis ttJ
oo
in 00 o
ON r-~ o
m t o a s US US
Os o O S O S NO
o cn CN
US us
—
in
so
CN o o
in
T5 vs t-~ —» .~. r~
en rsi —. CN • * !>. — — I N r^ m I N OS (N r~
"*• — '-' <N m
o r— in so O oo oo —
t
r-~
o
oo
t
oo
^t
oo oe (~- in
r~~
-*
r-
NO
r*~ r*~
OS
oo
OS
r~ t-.
in 't
r-~
^t in
r-~
NO
r-* oe
o I o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o o
O o
o
o
O i
O
o
o o o
o o o
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o
o o o o o o O o o o o o O o o o o o o o
s>
SO
CN • < * i n O S r~ IN SO r~N IN •* OS rrs oo t - cn NO
"O
* so O S C3S r~ •* o NO Csl r-~ T3
; oo in o IN IN CN o
» so m
s^. ! m cn en en m m r s o —w ~«
<S
CN fN
^-< *8*^ .-. IN IN rsi IN IN
.-«
t~-
-™-
O ON
<~- Is NO
•t
en en en f M O N s O 0 0
OO 0 0 m o m so oo
so s O so S O i n •a- m
o
rn
H
w 2
'NT CN o
r*^ i n O S
M m m
o ON m C-~ N 3 - OO
o 0 0 so CN oo cn
•* cn cn cn CN CN
I
o o O o O O O o o o i
o a o o o o o o o o
3 o O O o o o N -* o o o 5S o o o o o o o o o o
I
U-,
in Os so o oo O S m r s i i0 n0 N * U) o oo OS CN oo in m CN —
o
00
CN
o O so c-~ o
IN. oo OS 0 0
so ? «3
D m o CN
!-» in
™
CN
~ o ON
o
OO
o
CN t N m m rn m m m rn o o O o O o o o o o
*" •^k
§
m IN m oo 00 in
IN o so so o rn
US so i n so i n in in r~ 0s o so CN in OS
G3
r~ CM o ON 00 NO >n i n ON SO t-~ IN m Os o oo m i t
a3
"«- 2 o O o o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o >
o
o [N SO os CN
2; in r - !-. OO OO
"5"
9
t3
sw m 1 * OO i t m SO rsi rn r- » « m ' t 00 • * m in r^- — SO
r^ r-- t~ oo os O IN "=r t~- o "sn i~<
,> r-~ r*~ oo o O IN «3- SO O "3-
O. in in sn sn sn sO SO so s O r-- r-^ Q- i n i n »n i n i n S O SO SO NO i-~ r -
53
—
-^3*
<3i o
— ^
O o
rN "~* *
o O o— *o—*o o'—' o o
1sj ^ 00
oo Os Os
o © OO a© 0 0 0 0 oo
O S Os Os 0s a
00
OS
oo
OS
00
os 0s
00
C 00
-
so so S O so NO NO NO SO sO NO NO su a «—>
m n m —cn• cn -™*
m m m rn m
S 3 g TO ™* cn
M
~~ o~- o -~' ^.
C-l IN *™i
(S I N rs| rsi rsi <N <N IN
?>
<7 — _. "T "T *T "7 _. -7 -7 *T o o o o " o~* '~"
o *~*
o o o
b
5 * c
•ss --«
^
SS
,~v
00
^
K
-^
on o m in
m en "=r i n so r - o m "it sn oo OS CN «3*
ly TS «* en IN O ON 99 t>
ON
N0
sO
lu "O in 2;
IN
m CN O
so
oo
ON O "^
ON
r^ so
c§^
O B
in in in in
©
oo in IN Os
oo
o rn • < * i n NO r^ oo O s o ON ON OS oo
1
M Os
s^ o OS OS
in
00
oo ON
v o o o o o o o o o *«. S3 o r*^ NO
o—* *»
O CN
o O o o O o
o
o 1o o °
D J
Coaxial model with swirl (configuration 1)
Characteristics oi helicopter
If (lb) 17650
Lngine HP 2784
This result shows only a 0.96% difference induced by the swirl velocity.
52
CN o rS *n w^ sO 0
(N
CN
V© m
Wl o O r*> 0
SO
r0* S
O
©s
• « ^
O
n a* r*s
<•*•>
O O 0 0 O O
o o o
o m ^J. oo r s a; m rn r-
o t£* r» oo m 0 f-
< o Ov
«* FN
rs
os?c 0
O r~.
0 0
00
'*
©^
o •«*• c*
o o o O o « o-^ o 0 0 0 0
£ o o
"*"* Wl
^> oo
«n 00
"5 o s NO
o
oo in
T
'sr
0
m
rs
;© o o o at O O 0 0 0 0 K. 0 O O O 0 0
*? O O
di w Sx3 ti U3 11) waJ MJ
w tu W (^ W m a j £i} it LU
r^ o <*t ©•*
m r- s©
r S 13*
Q*.
r S *n
rsj
rN
*£> SO r- 0 0
m <-n 0
rs! t S 0
0 00
M3 s©
XJ
O O- f-i -:}•
CN
s © r~
-tf
©N O
r- O
• *
©s
0 0 ©v
s<» -=f QS, ->r
«9- r n —
r s — so
sri
CS
i o o O o O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O
-©
o
di
f*"> 0 0
-f
1X1 cu rii
Uj
oo rn oo o *G
CN o w~» r*-
UJ U J
©N 0
s©
0 0 fNi
U J UJ
CN r s
m
p» *n
m
©N
W~l
W^
t
-0
0 O
Ul U J
m
W~l 0
m
U4 W
tn
©s
fsj
•"3-
a* iii U4 tu di di
0
i~4
V© ©s • ! } " t r
r-4 m
—
r S — [—
r * *n v~i
m fSj *n m r~
—CN •* r» "" ™* rsi
~ ©s rsj •**•
_- ~* r s m
V
• $ •
O
**• m© rn r»n m m
0
r^-i ( N r s j
0 0 0 O
•tj-
0
m m <-n m f*i m m
0
Tfr
0 0 O 0 0
o o o o 0 0
-CS
o
W
Os
ih ub UJ di
so
UJ lil
0
LU u'i LQ
OS ( N CN ^fc.O th di
00
W Ui W W £& DJ th di
©v ^j- m m rn
V I a- r - o
f") fN 2 t o r - * * • 00 ©1** *n
rs
0 0 V ) so 0 r -
r s r~ S p o sO
•^f
m ©N m O O ^ 0 ©s V I v© CO
vi •«$. —.
so F-- 0 0
*"" s© *** m •o r - ©>
"" *-* —*~© "* r s i m
m r-
o •sT 0 0 Orsi 0 0 O
vo 0 00 •Sf
O
s©
r*
00 —
j r- 00 r- r- J s © ©s i> 00
£ \_ o 0o0 o o o o
O o o o o o
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O C 0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
© o o O o o o O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0
to
1 sa r- "So
o
— m
r~- sO
xj-
as
-3-
av r- • < * •
00
—.O
r - rSi r~~
in 00
T3 "* 0s©
•«**
r^ ©v
vO 0
(^1 0
rs
CO a* V I CN
0 CO V Q f n
w rs m r^ m r ^ w rn rsj rs) ™. m rs rs
a
©
e ' ' 0 ™ fS rsi
—
. w— ™-
e
Z3
a r s r*s r-. oo r - r - m — (N ™. v^ r s -* 0 0 VI m 0 ©v r s
J
•T3
f-
o o
oo 0 0
. 3 - sO « 3 sD vC o
o
^oO o o
^
0
r - CN
•*t
O
ft
O m
0
1 O
vo
O
0
0
C
rs
O
s©
0
rn m
0 0
v©
O
00 "-a-
r n 0r n rs rs
O O
-© o o o O o o 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0
« « 0
U_
m t*- 00 »n ^n O ol»N en 00 O sO ©* £XJ s© 0 V© f*s V I 0 f- m rs
o
NO So SO ^e> rsi sO m O 00 ^« Q O rsi0 0 s© m 0^•«}- Os 00
o
sn rS ™
r s S"N
r- —
*n **
f*1
f*
r*~t
0O
m
©s CN r -
cn ("*-[
m
iz< m
O (^
O _ *0"* 0 —
O •O O—*™0
O
O
0
0
> -».
H
\0 oo 00
f"""" 2 D
w r - v > •rt oo
r - *3- r s O
•©
r- so
cn r s j
i 0
0 m
rsj V,
5
t-i-S r s v©
v©
xz ©v 0
w O 0 0 O O *s\ vO a© ©v
•%.
2 o o O O
o
o O 0 0 0 O
*~*1 0 00 CN
-" m r- oo
> O »•
TIT
C8
^P3
m •sJ- m vO rs» t~ m ON i n *sf vo r s m ©v r n ©N
t-.
n- r - <** eo
r- CO o o rsj m
^. t~v O «r
10 r - r~- r- 0 0 CN O r s ) M- sO 0 --a-
a. in M~! m w-^ vri >£> s© ^© 0 h~ r*. ct. »*-i i n ITi i n tfl v© N© vo s O r - r-
o 53
O
O
«s© O «O o
•«
m o V~i O t n Of O f*5 fN •#> so ©s m v© 0 **•
m rs O i n rsj 0 0 y~* ©v O VO 00 OO "-3-
S o o rs m m •sf Wl s © ^ O O ^
M <s m m «a- in V ! S©
o o o O o O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0
"*a *w f~
•«-
o r*1 NQ OO
SO O
•<(*• r» O ?n ^ rn 00 m 00 s 0s *=f- 0 sn O sn
o
** rsi
rs
a*
orsi O r^ NO «r r ^ ** OOO s m
00
O
•© T
r*4 rsj
OS
m
•rf
r-s? rsj
©v
CN m 0so0 rn r- rsj
so rs
so
O
<33 o o o O o O O O 0 O O ^5 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O
l ,—s 13 ^^
0 0 oo oo OO 0 0 OO B0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ss 00 00 oo OO 0 0 0 0 so 0 0 0 0
s
s: 00 00
s; WJ V© v© so s£S *o s O s© v© s © s© O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O
CM r s j rsj f N ^
r - j r-4 r - i fs* fst m rn Ci m rn rn **t m m rn0
1 -^ c3
R rl fN ( N rsj f-4 r s j r-J rsj c s
cs O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O
T T "7 -p -7 -p •7 *7 •7 -p •7 1 <& Sf O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O
^ —s 0 0 0
sn ^ j . r S
^c VO 00 ©s
0
0
m r~
rsi
O
sTt v©
0
**• 0O0 0
©v
"->
—
rS
O
v>
m
o s© 0 rsi C"1 V~!
m
a- 00 N© s© r- Os O —
'g- m rs 0 c* oc [-, r*» vo
I* 1«
B
I fc. o rsf
o o o
1^1
o o
so 00 0 0 & h. 0
00
0
©v
in
m
<n
©s
tn
r s ©^ r> OO
00
18
S3 O 0 0 O 0
I 0
0 0 O 0
T
O
v>
0
s©
O O 0 <=
1 3
53
Coaxial model without swirl (configuration)
Name of helicopter
This spreadsheet is a model to calculate performance of coatial rotor considering that only the lower rotor depends on the other
swirl velocity induced by the upper rolor is included
Characteristics of helicopter
W (lb) 17650
Engine HP 2784
54
Coaxial model with swirl (configuration 2)
Charaetenslics of helicopter
JHIb) I76S0
Engine HP 2784
55
Coaxial System with untwisted blades
Name of helicopter
This spreadsheet is a model to calculate performance ot coaxtal rotor considering that only the lower rotor depends on the other
swul velocity induced by the upper rotor is included
Characteristics of helicopter
If (lb) 17650
hngme HP 27S4
56
Coaxial optimum solution
Name of helicopter
This spreadsheet is a model to calculate performance of coaxtal rotor considering that only the lower rotor depends on the other
swirl velocity induced by Ihe upper rolor is included
Characteristics of helicopter
tf (lb) 17650
/ ngim HP 2784
57
estimated T
ratio 0 591 used for calculation of swirl velocity
vh (ft/s) 34 81
Upper Rotor Baseline incremental
r 8 (deg) & (deg) 0 (rad) M a (perrad) c* (rad) v,(Ws) a (rad) a (deg) c„ dC r /d! dC,ydr *Vdr u(swu-!)(ft/s A B
00 18 2.7258 0 3617 OOOO 5 73 UNDEF 0 ._ ... ... 0 0 0 0 0 0000 3 0928
0 1 18 2 7258 0 3617 0 047 5 74 0 2601 13 66 0 1016 5 82 001312 2 706F-04 6 090E-07 7 039E-06 32 07 0 2647 16392
02 18 2 7258 0 3617 0 094 5 76 0 2186 22 96 0 1431 820 0 02432 1 529E-03 9031F-06 6 687E-05 20 80 0 2871 12073
03 16 5 2 7258 0 3356 0 141 5 79 0 1841 29 00 0 1514 868 0 02727 3 662E-03 3 4I8E-05 2 023E-04 14 67 0 3559 10975
04 14 9 2 7258 0 3076 6 188 5 83 0 1587 33 34 0 1489 8 53 0 02634 6 451E-Q3 7 827E-05 4 096E-04 1123 0 4393 10560
05 13 2 7258 0 2745 0 235 5 90 0 1371 35 99 0 1374 7 87 0 02241 9398E-03 1 301 E-04 6 442E-04 907 0 5288 10362
06 10 95 2 7258 0 2387 0 282 5 97 0 1181 37 19 0 1206 6 91 0 01752 1 204E-02 1 756E-04 8 528E-04 7 60 0 6212 10253
07 935 2 7258 0 2108 0 329 6 07 0 1038 38 13 0 1070 6 13 0 01424 1 477E-02 2 267E-04 1 073E-03 6 54 0 7154 10186
08 78 2 7258 0 1837 0 376 6 18 0 0911 38 28 0 0926 5 30 0 01)46 1701 £-02 2 724E-04 I 240E-03 5 73 0 8107 10143
09 66 2 7258 0 1628 0 423 632 00S14 38 48 0 0813 4 66 0 00980 1 934E-02 3 315E-04 I 417E-03 5 10 0 9066 10113
10 56 2 7258 0 1453 0 470 649 0 0735 38 61 0 0718 4 11 0 00872 2 163E-02 4 049E-04 I 591E-03 4 60 10031 10092
Us
Coaxial system with a spacing of 10% of diameter
Characteristics of helicopter
W (lb) 17650
fnglne HP 2784
59
r- *$• "* r^ NO in r - i f^
*n 00 S3 r( NSv , NO
oo O OO NO
WN.
o ©
O
•**• S-NNJ
o o O O »
O
©
o r- jq a* 00 Ov
«n or*~i m o 00
r s NO -sT O ©
< o© r s c^ • N * - NO r-v 00 C>N ©
o O © O CJ o o o O
"
fe vO eo ^j. r - r* oo
x
•5 o
©
1-1-1
m
©
™
vO
sO
r s ^t- f^
rS *# o 00 r-~. NO ^r
«*
23
fN OO r s "™ c? © vn ON ©
•a
—* ~a ON
r~ rs
ON
r0
__ <-n w~, r- oO in in r*> - 3 " p~
ON *™
rs "*"**~ — —
r-
©
vO *N •a- •Q- ^ f
Vt w^ - 3 -
O
• * NO o «n sn V". i n •^ •*3- TT -^r
^ o o *? o o o o © £ © © C3 © © © © © © ©
u} di U J U ) W di di di t ^ di di rdir i LU t i OJ UJ di Uj di di
> o m
»n I•*
oo sO
r^i *n -o r - o
• * * •
A
r~-
f-sj
rs C?
O
oo
o (O0N "s © r-.
OO r~-
r- ©
r~- ' t f a*
©
m >n
ON
^
ON
©
NO
rs
m —
r- r-
r~
©
oo s£? r ~
**> m m
™" VO fN r - i
m
—.~" m
TJ
"™ m "*™ -3- rs h- ™
— rs m
"#• - T
O
r ^ rn ro
O
r*", fSj rs rs r - i *!? i n •* m© rn (~n t-n m rs rs
i>* o o O O o o o •© fc. o © © © (© o o © ©
-a UJ i£ W >ij W LU W di di ih •H UJ U3 0 J LU di CU di LLJ di UJ
o NO O NO T om oo T © oo • " * © i> NO VO oo
aS 3 m OO o- Ov r- r"-* rn vO rs -30 oo rn © r s oo
-rs r- c> NO
m *t3 ON © NO • ^ •
— rs
*™ 00 rsj m NO
oo —~ *~* ~" rS
CT* fNON m *<n#• t - •*!• _ —
ON
>
1
u~.
.—s
sS r~ OO O O 0 0 r^ r- N^-
O "tt 00 © m -cr Xt -4-
-»•
•73
*3
©
©
© o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
©
O
©
©
a
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
© ©
©
© ©
© © © © ss ©
U.
© m r> ve- •»«•
o> o Hi rN -O •*?• o f- © «t rs
s— rs
NO
^ "* •#
©
VO 0 0
o f-O S> ©
rn ON
CS
oo
*.
rs
rA f^5
as
ON
o^ m o
•«r T
^* **
ON
f
-N5-
a
7-
©
r s r^ oo
©
NO
© © © © ©
rs
© ©
o
H
-a -5 rs QN O^ vrt © rs r— \ZZ
1
t*%
rs —
« O •33. D ©
©
NO -3-
-3- ON
ON
o
& oo VO
NO
©
© « © o © ©
2: ros O o O O © o © m r~ 0 0 © — rs
SH "? o o o o rs rs rs rs
f ~^ © O O O © ?.
^— — V
1 m fN oO N o -T om r s O"
"« m OS •^F in rNiC> rn
rt~n~ *# r~.
E-. o r~- S r~ r* t-*- oo ON
oN © in r- —
I^3
m m Vi Wl NO vO NO sO vO r» o_ w-. u-.
s3
w-i m <n vO NO vo NO r~-
*g
©
©
iqp
S3
ON CN OO oo
r^- i - O rNi
o^
00
VI
r- r~- NO
r^
*& ON J-,
oo r*-s
©
ON
NO • ^ r
-si- © NNO
© oo r-» v-t
r s r-~ r o os
© © «3* •NTf o 5
© CP rs m *T -sf
o o o o o o C C3 O © © ©^ © © © © © © © ©
»
rs
r-
wi cn PNS o<2
«n m O
rsi r-s! r - j
cs
•*
ON r~~
r~ NO ^ y
C?
m S 1 m oo r s
0> r - VO -3- r ^
rs r s rs rs
Ti ©
©
rN
-X?ON r n r~-
oo NO • n r n
o& o © o o o O o C3 O © © <3i © © © © © © © © © © ©
*3 — 2c — .
"So *n Kft <n «n in >n mi i n i n
a so —*—
f*»
r^
«5f
—
r, - r - —
*rr • 3 - - t r •*r
r~ •«-
r^ . «-
r—
«- t—
t ^ r~ f^ —,—. ™
i> w
</N
r*-, m
V"!
i-n r n
*s*
-* •* ©•^t ro
00 m
m m rn
•«9- <**1
s 3 <n s 3 0 0 OO oo 0 0 0 0 030 o o
oo O o
O CS o o o ———*«~ _ J ™
s ^ —*—
• —"—_
O
£:
© GO t n © 00 in © oo *n
1 Hf -3-
rs m •* sO oo ON
NO
©
©
©
vO
©
©
rs © © r-
N O
m rs rs m
—.o ^s- NNO
"5 -§ J2 ON O0 S-* N© % 3 vO r- O0 0^ ©
•si- <-s ©
eg* — ™ Z ON 00 r~ SO v o
is
r s a© r~ t-- r S
oo ON ©
u t^
o
© ©
J-sJ m
O O o
vO
C2 o
** © ON
ON
ON NO
ON ON
vO
O N
So ON
© © © © ©
1 © CO © ©
3
60
CT versus Co graph
This graph was actually not used in this study but it was noticed to be a common tool of
Characteristics o f helicopter
W (lb) 17650
Lngine HP 2784
CTvsCG
0015T -
0.010
6
| 0.005
O.000
0.000 0,002
CQ
61
Automatic calculation code
This code had for purpose to make calculations faster but was not considered as a deliverable.
Public T ratio, Weight, Diff, Inc temp, Inc m m , Inc max, Inc A, Inc B A3 Variant
Sub boundaries()
If Diff < 0 Then
Inc_B = Inc_temp
Else
Inc_A = Inc_temp
End If
End Sub
63