See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360710740

High-efficiency hybrid trim method for CFD simulation of rigid coaxial rotor

Article in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · May 2022
DOI: 10.1177/09544100221095369

CITATION READS

1 61

5 authors, including:

Haotian Qi
Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics
5 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Haotian Qi on 06 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part G:

J Aerospace Engineering
High-efficiency hybrid trim method for 2023, Vol. 237(1) 141–155
© IMechE 2022

CFD simulation of rigid coaxial rotor Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09544100221095369
journals.sagepub.com/home/pig

Haotian Qi1,2 , Ping Wang1, Linsong Jiang1, Yang Zhang1 and

Liangquan Wang2 

Abstract
In order to solve the trim problem of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation for rigid coaxial rotor, a hybrid trim
model coupling CFD method and high-efficiency model (blade element theory) is established. In the trim process, the
Jacobian matrix is solved by the high-efficiency model, while the CFD solver is only called for rotor performances modifying
after each trimming step. The influences of pseudo time step, number of CFD revolution, and inflow model are investigated.
Validation cases of AH-1G and Harrington-1 rotors are carried out, and good agreements are obtained. Results show that
the trim efficiency can be significantly improved by saving the calculation of CFD for the Jacobian matrix. The trim accuracy
is guaranteed by the correction operation with the CFD solver at each step. Moreover, as only time-averaged rotor
performances are useful for trim, the efficiency can be further improved by adopting appropriately small pseudo time step
and CFD revolution. The hybrid trim model has high robustness. The accuracy of inflow model for the coaxial rotor affects
the convergence speed, but the final convergence can be achieved generally.

Keywords
helicopter, rigid coaxial rotor, trim method, CFD, inflow model

Date received: 25 August 2021; revised: 17 February 2022; accepted: 31 March 2022

Introduction interaction between the twin rotors has a certain influence

High-speed flight capability has been an important re-
quirement for the modern rotorcraft. Rigid coaxial rotor
compound helicopter shows substantial advantages in
high-speed flight and aerodynamic performance.1 The
representative is the X2 TechnologyTM Demonstrator
aircraft2 developed by Sikorsky Aircraft. This configu-
ration has two coaxial and contra-rotating rotors, and the
torque can be balanced. Advancing blade concept (ABC)3
is adopted to eliminate the limitation of the blade stall on
the retreating side4 in high-speed flight. At this time, the
advancing blades with higher dynamic pressure produce
more lift, while the retreating blades are offloaded. The
rolling moment of the twin rotors can be balanced with
each other. And this forms its special phenomenon, lift
offset (LOS).
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) method has been
widely used in the simulation of rotor flow field.5,6 Before
the computation for aerodynamic analysis, trim is required
to match the rotor performance with target value.7,8
Compared with the traditional single rotor, on one hand
the coaxial rotor has a higher demand of trim, for torque
balance and the special performance of LOS. On the other
hand, the trim is more difficult, as it has more control
settings than the single rotor. Meanwhile, aerodynamic
on control settings, which puts forward higher re-
quirement for the accuracy of trim model.
Newton iteration method is usually used in rotor trim.
In the traditional trim process, the solution of rotor per-
formances and Jacobian matrix are carried out by a single
aerodynamic model, such as blade element theory, vortex
method,9,10 or CFD method. The former two methods
have high efficiency but poor accuracy, especially for the
coaxial rotor. Kim11 and Ma12 et al. combined Newton
iteration method with CFD solver for single rotor. The
whole trim process was conducted using the CFD solver,
which is very time-consuming. For the coaxial rotor, this
1
Institute for Energy Research, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
2
Key Laboratory of Rotor Aerodynamics, China Aerodynamics Research
and Development Center, Mianyang, China
Corresponding authors:
Haotian Qi, Institute for Energy Research, Jiangsu University, NO.301,
Xuefu Street, Zhenjiang 212013, China.
Email: qhtwld@163.com
Liangquan Wang, Key Laboratory of Rotor Aerodynamics, China
Aerodynamics Research and Development Center, Second road street,
Mianyang 621000, China.
Email: wangliangquan@cardc.cn
142
full CFD trim method is almost unacceptable, considering
that its CFD simulation is more complex and difficult to
converge than the single rotor, due to its strong
interactions.
It can be seen from the above that, the trim method
running by a single aerodynamic model cannot balance
efficiency and accuracy at the same time. In order to
improve trim efficiency, Zhao and He13 proposed the delta
trim method for a single rotor, referring to CFD/CSD loose
coupling method. Ye et al.14 expanded the delta method to
a high-efficiency trim strategy for CFD simulation of
single rotor. Lyu et al.8 further improved the hybrid trim
method by introducing the Artificial Neural Networks
(ANN) model. These trim methods of single rotor provide
good references for coaxial rotor.
In terms of trim for coaxial rotor, the existing researches
are still very limited. Yuan et al.9 built a multi-point vortex
ring element model for the trim of rigid coaxial rotor he-
licopter. Lakshminarayan et al.15 coupled a CFD solver
with a vortex filament code for a coaxial rotor trim. The
CFD solver is used to calculate the rotor aerodynamic
performances after each update of control settings, and the
Jacobian matrix in the trim process is solved by the vortex
method to improve the efficiency. But the simulation was
based on sliding mesh, which was limited to hover state. Qi
et al.16,17 developed a trim model for coaxial rotor based on
the delta trim method in the research of aerodynamic in-
teraction. However, the detailed trim procedure for different
flight states and the influence of calculation parameters on
the trim were not given. The intermediate steps of trim
iteration are meaningless for the final calculation of aero-
dynamic analysis. So, it is necessary to study the influence
of computation parameters, to minimize the time-
consuming of CFD solver and guarantee the conver-
gence of trim at the same time.
Inspired by the previous researches, the goal of this
paper is to build a hybrid trim method for rigid coaxial rotor
in hover and forward flight. In the trim process, two kinds of
aerodynamic models are established, the high-efficiency
models based on the blade element theory and the high-
precision CFD solver. The high-efficiency models are used
for the calculation of Jacobian matrix, while the CFD solver
is only called for obtaining the rotor performances after
each trim step to make modifications. For the high-
efficiency models, the required rotor induced velocity is
achieved through different inflow models, including uni-
form inflow, blade element moment theory (BEMT) model,
Drees inflow, and so on. The CFD solver is developed
based on Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
equations. Moving overset mesh is adopted to simulates the
rotating and cyclic pitching of rotor blades. Considering
that the flow field of rigid coaxial rotor is complicated and
difficult to converge, the influences of pseudo time step and
number of CFD revolution are investigated. Meanwhile, the
trim convergence histories of different inflow models are
compared to study the robustness of the hybrid trim
method. Then, the reliability of the trim method and CFD
solver established in this paper is verified according to the
experimental data of AH-1G and Harrington-1 rotors.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)
Methodology
CFD method
The Navier–Stokes equations18 are adopted to simulate
the rotor flow field, which can be written as
ZZZ
∂
W dV þ %∂S ðF c  F v Þ  ndS ¼ 0 (1)
∂t ∂v
The equations are spatially discretized by cell-centered
finite volume method. Roe scheme19 is employed to
compute the inviscid flux terms. MUSCL reconstruction20
is applied to reconstruct variables in a control volume. The
Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model21 is used to simulate
the turbulent viscosity. The viscous flux terms are eval-
uated by second-order central difference scheme. Dual
time stepping approach is employed for temporal dis-
cretization. The implicit LUSGS22 scheme is used for the
calculation of pseudo time step.
Moving overset mesh system is employed to simulate
the rotating and cyclic pitching of rotors. The mesh
system consists of the Cartesian background mesh and
the body-fitted blade meshes as shown in Figure 1. The
exchange of flow field information between the blade and
background meshes is conducted by tri-linear in-
terpolation. The mesh near the blade tip is refined.
Background mesh in the region where lies rotors is also
refined to capture the details of rotor wake. The CFD
method based on the overset mesh has been used for the
previous researches16,17 on aerodynamics of coaxial
rotor, and the detailed introduction can be found in the
references.
High-efficiency model
Uniform inflow model for hover. Computation of induced
velocity is the key problem for the blade element theory.
One simple way is to adopt the uniform inflow model23
which was carried out based on the basic momentum
theory. The inflow ratio ðλÞ is derived according to CT, and
the iterative solution can be expressed as
!
CT
λnþ1 ¼ λþCT
(2)
2λ n
For hove, the initial iteration value is
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
CT
λ0 ¼ (3)
2
Generally, the rotor induced velocity (inflow ratio) can
converge after about four iterations. In the trim calcula-
tion, the target variables of a coaxial rotor are the total CT
and CQ. However, thrusts of the twin rotors in hover are
not necessarily the same. In order to consider the aero-
dynamic interaction, the upper and lower rotors are di-
vided to calculate their corresponding induced velocities
referring to an empirical value of rotor thrust ratio.
Qi et al. 143

Figure 1. Sketch of moving overset mesh for coaxial rotor. (a) C-O type blade mesh; (b) Overset mesh system.

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
According to the thrust distribution of a coaxial rigid rotor u0   12
u
in torque balance calculated by the CFD solver, the ratio of u λ∞ þ AAc λu
uBσClα C
λðr, λ∞ Þ ¼ u B C þ σClα θl r
t@ 16F 
the upper and lower rotor thrusts in hover can be set as 1.2 A
for current cases. 2 8F
(8)
BEMT model for hover. Another aerodynamic model  
λ∞ þ A
= !
considering the interaction of coaxial rotor has been σClα Ac

proposed by Leishman et al.24 In this model, the rotor   u

16F 2
induced velocity is discretized into finite ring elements.
The interaction is considered by calculating the wake
contraction range of the upper rotor and induced velocities Here, A represents the rotor disk area and Ac is the
at corresponding locations. The induced velocity is solved section area after contraction when the upper rotor wake
by simultaneous momentum equation and blade element reaches the lower rotor disk plane. More details about the
equation. The expression of induced velocity corre- formulas can be found in Ref. 24.
sponding to the element ring locates at r is For a single rotor in hover, when only the spiral tip
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 ffi  
vortex of the rotor is considered, the variation of the in-
σClα λ∞ σClα σClα λ∞ duced velocity in the wake area with the axial position can
λðr, λ∞ Þ ¼  þ θu r   be deduced, according to Biot–Savart law. And it can be
16F 2 8F 16F 2
written as
(4)
0 1
The upper rotor thrust and torque coefficients can be B z=R C
solved by the following equations λðzÞ ¼ @1 þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAλð0Þ (9)
2
1 þ ðz=RÞ
Z r¼1 Z 1
CTu ¼ dCTu ¼ 4 λ2u rdr (5) where z represents the axial distance between the position
r¼0 0 and the rotor disk. And R is the rotor radius. Noting the
Z r¼1 Z 1 coaxial rotor spacing as H, the flow formula can be ob-
CPu ¼ λu dCTu ¼ 4 λ3u rdr (6) tained according to the conservation of momentum.
r¼0 0
A H=R
For the lower rotor, the induced velocity is solved in ¼ 1 þ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 (10)
Ac
two regions. One is within the influence range of the upper 1 þ HR
rotor wake, and the other is outside it. The induced ve-
locity of the ring element outside the wake boundary of the
upper rotor is similar to the upper rotor, which can be
written as Uniform inflow model for forward flight. The iterative so-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi lution of the uniform inflow model23 for induced velocity
 2   in forward can be written as
σClα λ∞ σClα σClα λ∞
λðr, λ∞ Þ ¼  þ θl r   0 1
16F 2 8F 16F 2
CT ðμ2 þ2λ2 Þ
(7) Bμ tan α þ 2ðμ2 þλ2 Þ3=2 C
B C
λnþ1 ¼ B C (11)
The induced velocity of the ring element in the wake @ 1 þ CT λ2 3=2 A
2ðμ2 þλ Þ
boundary of the upper rotor can be written as n
144 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)

Figure 2. Sketch map of rotor blade element theory in forward flight. (a) Top view; (b) Side view.

where μ represents the rotor advance ratio. α indicates the Figure 3. The induced velocity distributions of the twin
angle between the free stream and the rotor disk plane. The rotors in forward flight can be expressed as
initial value of induced velocity is 2 3

μ tan α þ CT 6 WU ðr,ψÞ ¼ W U ð1 þ κXU r cos ψ þ κYU r sin ψÞ 7

λ¼ ! 4 5 (16)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (12) WL ðr,ψÞ ¼ W L ð1 þ κXL r cos ψ þ κYL r sin ψÞ
2 μ þ 2
2 CT
The harmonic term coefficients are
2 3
Figure 2 shows the sketch map of rotor blade element 4 1  cosχ U  1:8μ2U
κXU ¼  κYU ¼ 2μU
theory in forward flight, where f stands for the inflow 6 3 sinχ U 7
6 7
angle at the blade section. Ur ¼ Vr þ VX sinðψÞ, W rep- 6 7 (17)
4 4 1  cosχ L  1:8μL
2 5
resents the local induced velocity. Equations of rotor thrust κXL ¼  κYL ¼ þ2μL
and torque can be written as 3 sinχ L
2 Z Z   3 where χ indicates the wake skew angle.
Nb 2π R dL dD
6 T ¼ cos f  sin f drdψ 7  μ
6 2π 0 R0 dr dr 7 χ ¼ tan1 (18)
6 7 λ
6 Z Z   7
4 Nb 2π R dL dD 5
Q¼ sin f þ cos f rdrdψ According to the research of Valkov,26 the rotor thrusts
2π 0 R0 dr dr of the twin rotors can be obtained by blade element theory
(13) and momentum theory as shown below.
where Z Z
Nb ρ R 2π 2 Clα ðθU  fU Þ
TU ¼ UU drdψ
2 3 4π R0 0 cosðfU Þ
1   2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dL ¼ ρc Ur2 þ W 2 Clα ðθ  fÞdr  2
6 2 7
6 7 (14) 4 ’
¼ 2ρ AU VX þ VZ þ WU þ εðHÞWL WU
2
4 5
1  2 
dD ¼ ρc Ur þ W 2 Cx dr sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
2  
  2

The formulas of other rotor forces and moments can be þ A  A’U VX2 þ VZ þ WU WU 5
easily deduced similar to this.
(19)
Modified Drees inflow model for forward flight. The non-
Z Z
uniform induced velocity in the rotor disk for a single rotor Nb ρ R 2π
Clα ðθL  fL Þ
TL ¼ c UL2 drdψ
in forward flight can be approximately expressed as 4π R0 0 cosðfL Þ
a linear distribution formula
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  2
W ðr,ψÞ ¼ W ð1 þ κX r cos ψ þ κY r sin ψÞ (15) ¼ 2ρ@A’L VX2 þ VZ þ WL þ εðHÞWU WL
where W represents the average value of the induced sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
velocity of the whole rotor disk. The expressions of  
  2
harmonic term coefficients κX and κY have been given by þ A  A’L VX2 þ VZ þ WL WL A
Drees,25 which can called as Drees inflow model. The
original Drees inflow is proposed for single rotor. (20)
Valkov26 has applied it to the coaxial rotor according to the where
interaction characteristics of rotor wakes, as shown in
Qi et al. 145

Figure 3. Sketch map for wake interaction of a coaxial rotor.26 (a) Upper rotor; (b) Lower rotor.

Figure 4. Induced velocity distribution in rotor disk (μ = 0.1). (a) Upper rotor; (b) Lower rotor.

Figure 5. Induced velocity distribution in rotor disk (μ = 0.3). (a) Upper rotor; (b) Lower rotor.

" #
disk increases due to the interaction of the lower rotor.
UU ðr,ψÞ ¼ Vr þ VX sinðψÞ
(21) Correspondingly, the induced velocity of the lower rotor
UL ðr,ψÞ ¼ Vr  VX sinðψÞ
behind the rotor disk is enhanced. When μ=0.3, the
interaction of rotor wakes is much weak. The induced
Through iteratively solving of equations (19) and (20),
velocity of the upper rotor is almost the same as the
uniform induced velocity coefficients of the twin rotors
original Dress inflow solution.
WU , WL can be obtained. Then, the distribution of induced
velocity in the rotor disk can be achieved according to
equation (16). Hybrid trim model
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the induced velocity
The blade pitch of an isolated rotor for the coaxial system
distributions of a coaxial rotor at different advance ratio
can be expressed as
solved by the modified Drees inflow model. When μ=0.1,
the induced velocity of the upper rotor in the front of rotor θðψÞ ¼ θ0 þ θ1s sinðψÞ þ θ1c cosðψÞ þ / (22)
146
where ψ represents azimuth angle, θ0 is collective pitch
angle, θ1s and θ1c denote longitudinal and lateral cyclic
pitches, respectively.
The control settings (x) and target variables (y) are as
shown below
T
x ¼ ðθ0U ,θ1sU ,θ1cU ,θ0L ,θ1sL ,θ1cL Þ (23)
T
y ¼ CT ,CQ ,LOS,CMzU ,CMx ,CMzL (24)
where CT and CQ represent the total thrust and torque
coefficients of the coaxial system. CMx and CMz are the
coefficients of rotor rolling and pitching moments.
At forward flight, when the rolling moments are bal-
anced, thrusts of the upper and lower rotors are not
necessarily equal. If a separate upper (lower) rotor is used
to define the lift offset, there will be some deviations.
Considering this, average LOS is used to define the LOS
of rigid coaxial rotor, which can be expressed as
ðCMxU  CMxL Þ
LOS ¼ ¼ CTU þ CTL (25)
CT , CT
The relationship between control settings and target
variables can be expressed by
y ¼ f ðxÞ (26)
According to Newton iterative method, the above
formula can be expanded by Taylor series to the first order
and simplified. Then, the change of the control settings Δx
in iterating can be written as
Δx ¼ J 1  Δy (27)
2 3
∂CT ∂CT ∂CT ∂CT ∂CT ∂CT
6 ∂θ0U ∂θ1sU ∂θ1cU ∂θ0L ∂θ1sL ∂θ1cL 7 The above is the basic trim process for a rigid coaxial
6 7
6 7
6 ∂CQ ∂CQ ∂CQ ∂CQ ∂CQ ∂CQ 7
6 7
6 ∂θ0U ∂θ1sU ∂θ1cU ∂θ0L ∂θ1sL ∂θ1cL 7
6 7
6 ∂LOS ∂LOS ∂LOS ∂LOS ∂LOS ∂LOS 7
6 7
6 7
6 ∂θ0U ∂θ1sU ∂θ1cU ∂θ0L ∂θ1sL ∂θ1cL 7 the target variables are rotor thrust, pitching, and rolling
J ¼6
6 ∂C
7
7
6 MzU ∂CMzU ∂CMzU ∂CMzU ∂CMzU ∂CMzU 7
6 7
6 ∂θ0U ∂θ1sU ∂θ1cU ∂θ0L ∂θ1sL ∂θ1cL 7
6 7
6 ∂C ∂C ∂C ∂C ∂C ∂C 7
6 Mx Mx Mx Mx Mx Mx 7
6 7
6 ∂θ0U ∂θ1sU ∂θ1cU ∂θ0L ∂θ1sL ∂θ1cL 7
6 7
4 ∂CMzL ∂CMzL ∂CMzL ∂CMzL ∂CMzL ∂CMzL 5
∂θ0U ∂θ1sU ∂θ1cU ∂θ0L ∂θ1sL ∂θ1cL
(28)
where J represents the Jacobian matrix. The way to
achieve values of a column in the Jacobian matrix is to set
a small disturbance change of the control settings, then
solve the change values of six target variables. And the
differential is replaced by the difference, such as
∂CT =∂θ0U ≈ ΔCT =Δθ0U .
The control settings are updated by adding the variation
calculated by the difference between current performance
values and target values as follows
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)
xðnþ1Þ ¼ xðnÞ þ ΔxðnÞ (29)
1
ΔxðnÞ ¼ J ðnÞ  ½yðnÞ  ytarget  (30)
where ytarget is the target variables.
The pitch angles are updated through continuous
iterations. At each step, they are adopted into the aero-
dynamic model to judge whether the target variables are
achieved according to the convergence criterion. If so, the
trim is completed. If not, it proceeds to the next iteration.
In this paper, the convergence criterion is
jεj < 1 × 102 (31)
where ε is the iteration residual (error of y relative to
ytarget ), which can be expressed as
 T
ε ¼ εT ,εQ ,εLOS ,εMzU ,εMx ,εMzL (32)
2 ðCTU þ CTL Þ 3
εT ¼
6 CTtarget 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6   7
6 εQ ¼ CQU þ CQL × 104 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7 (33)
6 εLOS ¼ LOS  LOS Target 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 εMzU ¼ CMzU × 104 7
6 7
6 7
6 εMx ¼ CMx × 104 7
4 5
εMz ¼ CMz × 104
Here, the purpose of multiplying the residual of the
moment terms by 104 is to convert each residual term to
the same order of magnitude.
rotor in forward flight. Specially, at hover state the control
settings are only collective pitches of the upper and lower
rotors, and target variables are the total thrust and torque.
For a single rotor, there are only three control settings, and
moments.
The traditional trim method11 directly combines the
CFD solver with the Newton iterative method. In the it-
eration, each column of Jacobian matrix is calculated by
CFD. For each iteration, the CFD solver needs to be called
three times for a single rotor and six times for a rigid
coaxial rotor in forward flight. At the same time, due to the
convergence requirement of the complex interaction of
a coaxial rotor, more strict mesh size and computational
parameters for the CFD solver are required. This makes
the simulation of the coaxial rotor more time-consuming
than the single rotor. So, the efficiency of the full CFD trim
method is rather low for the rigid coaxial rotor.
Based on the delta method, the high-efficiency aero-
dynamic model established above is coupled with the CFD
solver in this paper, which forms the hybrid trim model.
The basic idea is that the trim process is carried out by the
high-efficiency model, according to the target variables
Qi et al. 147

Figure 6. Flow chart of hybrid trim method for rigid coaxial rotor.

Table 1. Parameters of Harrington-2 coaxial rotor.

Parameter Values

Rotor radius 3.18 m

Rotor cutout 0.2 R
Chord 0.4572 m
Number of blades 2
Twist None
Matip 0.5878
Rotor vertical distance 0.6096 m

and Newton iterative formula. However, due to the model Figure 7. Temporal CT of the upper rotor for different
error, the rotor performances calculated by the high- pseudo time steps.
efficiency model may have deviation with the CFD
solver adopting same pitches. Therefore, it is necessary to
utilize the CFD solver to correct the rotor performances
after each iteration. In the trim model, the CFD solver does
Table 2. Time-averaged CT of upper rotor calculated with
not directly participate in the trim iteration, and only different pseudo time steps.
performs once after each trim iteration. Thus, the effi-
ciency can be greatly improved. Ncyc CTU Relative error
For distinguish, the final target variables to be achieved
5 0.00307 6.11%
are written as ytarget . And the target variables in the
9 0.00316 3.36%
trimming of high-efficiency model are marked as ytarget e ,
15 0.00326 0.30%
which are updated with the trim iteration to drive the
update of control settings. Figure 6 illustrates the flow 20 0.00327 Reference value
148 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)

Figure 8. Influence of calculation revolution on CT in hover (CT = 0.006). (a) Convergence history; (b) Time-averaged results; (c)
Temporal CT of the upper rotor; (d) Temporal CT of the lower rotor.

Figure 9. Influence of calculation revolution on CT in forward flight (μ = 0.15, LOS = 0.1). (a) Temporal CT of the upper rotor; (b)
Temporal CT of the lower rotor.

chart of the hybrid trim method. The specific trim pro- 4. According to the rotor performances calculated by the
cedure is shown below. CFD solver, the results calculated by the high-
efficiency model are modified through setting new
1. The target variables are assigned to the temporary temporary target variables, that is
target variables that need to be trimmed by the high-
efficiency aerodynamic model, that is, ðnÞ
targetð0Þ yetargetðnþ1Þ ¼ ytargetðnÞ
e þ ytarget  yCFD (34)
ye ¼ ytarget .
targetð0Þ
2. According to ye , the trimmed pitches are ob-
tained by adopting the high-efficiency model and 5. According to the new temporary target variables
targetðnþ1Þ
Newton iterative method, which are the initial pitches ye , running the high-efficiency trim model
xð0Þ . again to obtain new pitches xðnþ1Þ .
3. The initial pitches are adopted into the CFD solver for 6. Applying the new pitches xðnþ1Þ into the CFD solver
some revolutions to obtain the rotor performances for a certain number of revolutions to achieve new
ð0Þ ðnþ1Þ
yCFD . rotor performances yCFD .
Qi et al. 149

Table 3. Trimmed collective pitches of the coaxial rotor under different setups (μ=0.15).

Trim setup θ0U (°) θ0L (°) Relative error of θ0U Relative error of θ0L

Nrev = 1, Ncyc = 9 8.202 8.333 0.630% 0.543%

Nrev = 1, Ncyc = 15 8.276 8.290 0.266% 0.024%
Nrev = 2, Ncyc = 9 8.199 8.335 0.666% 0.567%
Nrev = 2, Ncyc = 15 8.254 8.288 Reference values

coaxial rotor. The total number of mesh points is about

17.85 million.

Influence of pseudo time step and calculation

Figure 10. Trim history of cyclic pitches for different pseudo
time steps (μ = 0.15, LOS = 0.1).
7. Making a judge whether the trim convergence crite-
ðnþ1Þ
rion is satisfied, that is, jyCFD  ytarget j < ε. If yes,
the trim is completed. If no, repeating steps (4) to (6)
until the convergence.
For the initial calculation of CFD solver, a certain
number of revolutions need to be calculated to make the
rotor flow field converge. In each subsequent trim step,
since the change of pitches between two adjacent steps is
often small, the flow field is easy to converge. So, it only
needs to be calculated one or two revolutions to improve
the efficiency. The influence of CFD revolution number
for trim will be analyzed in detail in the following section
of this paper.
Results and discussion
Parameter influence on hybrid trim process
The parametric research cases are conducted with
Harrington-2 rotor.27 The blade use NACA four-digit
airfoils and is linearly tapered in thickness ratio from
27.5% at 0.2 R to 15% at R. The rotor tip Mach number is
set as 0.5878. Its parameters are given in Table 1. Each
blade mesh has 221 × 78 × 102 points in the streamwise,
normal and spanwise directions, respectively. The back-
ground mesh has 235 × 196 × 235 points in x, y and z
directions. The background mesh and blade meth are
refined to about 0.05 c near the region of rotor tip path,
according to the previous calculation experience of
revolution. When the CFD solution is conducted for
aerodynamic analysis, it is suitable to set sufficient pseudo
time step and calculation revolution, ensuring the con-
vergence of flow field. However, for the trim process, the
CFD solution of the intermediate trim steps are mean-
ingless for the final solution. Meanwhile, only the time-
averaged rotor performances are needed, rather than the
detailed flow field and unsteady rotor loads. So, it is
necessary to explore the lower bound of CFD solution
parameters specifically for trim, to improve the trim
efficiency.
Dual time stepping method is adopted in the CFD
solver. The physical time step is usually set as 720 in one
resolution16 for aerodynamic analysis after trimming.
However, in the trim process, 360 is enough for the
physical time step to achieve the time-averaged rotor
performances. At each physical time step, max sub-
iteration step is set to make the flow field converge,
which is the pseudo time step.
The simulation of Harrington-2 rotor in hove (CT =
0.006) is investigated for the effect of pseudo time step on
rotor aerodynamic performances. Figure 7 and Table 2
show the temporal and time-averaged CT of the upper rotor
for different pseudo time steps (Ncyc). Due to the strong
unsteady interaction of the coaxial rotor, numerical
fluctuation error appears when the pseudo time step is
small, which has obvious impact on the temporal thrust.
However, the change of time-averaged thrust is much
small. So, it is necessary to adopt large Ncyc when the
calculation is carried out for aerodynamic analysis, and it
is set as 20 for hover in this paper. For trimming the
averaged rotor performances are more minded. Therefore,
a smaller pseudo time step can be used to improve the
efficiency.
Figure 8 shows the influence of revolution number on
CT in hover, where CT =0.006. As seen in Figure 8(a), after
four revolutions, the time-averaged thrusts of the twin
rotors decrease slightly and tend to be stable at the eighth
revolution. This is because with the increase of revolution,
the flow field caused by rotor wakes gradually develops
downward and finally tends to converge.
As seen from Figure 8(b), results of the seventh and
eighth revolutions are close, indicating that the calculation
has reached convergence. For the upper rotor, the dif-
ference of the temporal thrust between the sixth and eighth
150 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)

Figure 11. Trim histories for different inflow models in hover (CT = 0.009). (a) Collective pitches; (b) Residuals of rotor
performances.

Figure 12. Trim histories for different inflow models in forward flight (μ = 0.15, LOS = 0.1). (a) Uniform inflow; (b) Drees model; (c)
Modified Drees model; (d) Full CFD trim method.

revolutions is small. In comparison, the thrust of the lower
rotor in the eighth revolution still shows obvious different
from the sixth revolution. This indicates that, the thrust of
the lower rotor is more difficult to converge. This is be-
cause the temporal thrust caused by the interaction from
the lower rotor reaches convergence only when the upper
rotor wake has been fully developed. In view of this, in
order to make the flow field converge, eight revolutions
are usually calculated for a coaxial rotor in hover for
detailed analysis.
Figure 9 shows the influence of revolution number on
CT of the coaxial rotor in forward flight. Results of the
fourth and fifth revolutions are pretty close, indicating that
the temporal thrusts have converged at the fourth
revolution. The forward flight state converges more easily
than the hover state. This is because the initial velocity of
the flow field in hover is zero, and the development of
rotor wakes absolutely relies on the induced flow gen-
erated by the rotor rotating. In comparison, there is
a certain initial velocity for the flow field at forward flight,
which makes the upper rotor wake moves obliquely
downward rapidly. On one hand, the rotor wake converges
more easily. On the other hand, this weakens the rotor
interaction, as the wake has a backward partial velocity.
Therefore, the CFD revolution number for detailed
analysis at forward flight is usually set as four. Consid-
ering that the CFD calculation would also be carried out in
the following iterations, for the initial trimming step the
Qi et al. 151

Figure 13. Residuals of trim process for different inflow models (μ = 0.15, LOS = 0.1). (a) Drees model; (b) Modified Drees model.

Table 4. CFD revolutions and time consumptions for different trim methods.

Initial step Iteration Solution of Jacobian Total number of CFD Total computation
Trim method (rev) steps (rev) matrix (rev) revolution (rev) time (h)

Full CFD method 3 5 5×6 38 364.8

Hybrid trim model 3 5 0 8 76.9

Figure 14. Trim history of the coaxial rotor in high-speed flight (μ = 0.4, LOS = 0.1). (a) Pitch angles; (b) Residuals.

revolution number is set as four for hover and three for
forward flight in this paper.
According to the basic shape of rotor wake, in hover
and low-speed flight the aerodynamic interactions for
coaxial rotor are much strong. There are only two pitches
in hover, while there are six in forward flight. Therefore,
low-speed flight is a typically difficult trim state for the
coaxial rotor. So, it is more meaningful to analyze the
influence of trim parameters at this state. The state of μ =
0.15 is investigated by adopting different pseudo time
steps (Ncyc) and CFD revolutions (Nrev). The target var-
iables are CT = 0.01, LOS = 0.1, and the other four target
values are all zero. Table 3 shows the trimmed collective
pitches for different setups. The results of Ncyc = 9 are
similar, and the results of Ncyc = 15 are similar. It can be
seen that the influence of pseudo time step is greater than
the CFD revolution number.
Figure 10 shows the trim history of cyclic pitches for
different Ncyc. Both of them meet the trim criterion in six
steps, showing that the pseudo time step has little effect on
the trim efficiency. The difference of θ1c is more obvious
than θ1s . θ1s corresponds to the lateral asymmetry of flow
field, which is mainly determined by the advance ratio, so
the pseudo time step has little effect on it. θ1c corresponds
to the longitudinal asymmetry. The interaction of the
coaxial rotor further causes the lateral asymmetry of flow
field. This interaction can be simulated more accurately by
adopting larger pseudo time. Therefore, the trim results of
θ1c meet more obvious differences.
In summary, although different pseudo time steps have
impact on the rotor temporal thrusts, the difference of
time-averaged values is small. Therefore, smaller pseudo
time steps can be selected to improve the efficiency. For
each trim step after the initial calculation, one revolution
152
Figure 15. Sectional Cn at different spanwise sections. (a) 0.6 R; (b) 0.75 R; (c) 0.97 R; (d) 0.99 R.
Table 5. Trimmed pitch angles for AH-1G rotor.
Pitch angles θ0 (°) θ1s (°) θ1c (°)
Flight test 6.0 5.5 1.7
Reference11 6.1 5.1 1.3
Hybrid model 6.2 4.8 1.4
of CFD solver can meet the requirement for trimming. In
this paper, the pseudo time step for trimming is set as 15 in
the state of strong aerodynamic interaction (μ < 0.2). And
at a larger advance ratio (μ ≥ 0.2), the rotor interaction is
weak, and the pseudo time step can be set as 9.
Influence of inflow model. Figure 11 compares the trim
histories of different inflow models in hover. The uniform
inflow model converges after seven steps, while the BEMT
model converges after five steps. The trimmed collective
pitches are nearly same. This shows that the trim efficiency
can be improved by using the BEMT model, as the in-
teraction of the coaxial rotor is estimated more accurately.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the inflow model effect
on the trimming of the low-speed flight. The state is μ =
0.15, CT = 0.01, LOS = 0.1. Here, Drees model means that
the original Drees model without rotor interaction is di-
rectly applied to the coaxial rotor. History of full CFD trim
method is also given for comparison. In order to ensure the
comparability of trimming, the full CFD method adopts
the same initial pitches with the modified Drees inflow.
The trimmed pitches of the four setups are almost same, as
each of them is verified by the same convergence criterion.
The Drees and the uniform inflows both converge within
eight steps. The modified Drees inflow model converges
faster, as it has higher accuracy.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)
The convergence processes of the full CFD method and
modified Drees model are similar, both within six steps.
Table 4 gives the time consumptions for the two trim
methods. The cases are carried out on a 24-core computer.
For the full CFD method, after each step, the CFD solver
needs to be called for six revolutions to solve the six
columns of the Jacobian matrix. The total number of CFD
revolution is 38. For the hybrid trim method, the time
consumption of the high-efficiency model can be ignored
compared with the CFD solver. So, the calculation amount
of CFD in each step can be saved by six revolutions. Using
the modified Drees model, only eight revolutions are
needed to complete the trim. The total time consumption
has been saved by about 78%. This illustrates that, the
hybrid trim method established in this paper can signifi-
cantly improve the trim efficiency.
Figure 14 shows the trim history of the coaxial rotor,
when μ = 0.4, CT = 0.01, LOS = 0.1. The difference of
trimmed pitches of the upper and lower rotors are small.
And the trim quickly meets the convergence criterion in
only five steps. This is because the rotor interaction is
much weak at a large advance ratio. Note that the induced
velocities calculated by the modified Dress inflow model
and the original Dress inflow model are almost same, as
mentioned above. So, there is no need to use the modified
Dress inflow model at this state.
Validation cases
AH-1G single rotor. At present, there is still limited ex-
perimental data about trim for coaxial rotor. The flight test
of AH-1G rotor 28 conducted by NASA Ames Research
Center has been widely used for the trim validation of
single rotor. The flight state is μ=0.19, Matip=0.65,
Qi et al.
Table 6. Trimmed pitch angles of Harrington-1 coaxial rotor.
Pitch angles θ0U (°) θ1sU (°)
CARMD II (μ = 0.12) 7.98 2.43
Hybrid model (μ = 0.12) 7.31 3.16
CARMD II (μ = 0.24) 10.65 5.75
Hybrid model (μ = 0.24) 10.22 5.4
Figure 16. Comparison of forward flight performances of
Harrington-1 rotor.
CT=0.00,464. Table 5 gives the trimmed pitches of this
paper, compared with the flight test and the results cal-
culated by Kim et al.11 using the full CFD trim method.
Pitches of the hybrid model are generally consistent with
the results of Kim et al., while there are some errors
compared with the flight test. This is understandable,
considering that in the flight test there were blade elastic
deformation and the interaction among the rotor, fuselage
and tail-rotor, which would affect the control pitches.
Figure 15 shows the comparison of the calculated and
flight test results, about the normal force coefficient (Cn) at
different blade sections of AH-1G rotor after trim. In this
state, AH-1G rotor has strong blade-vortex interaction,
which brings great challenge for the prediction of blade
load. As shown in the figures, the calculated values of Cn
at different spanwise positions deviate slightly from the
peak values of the flight test, but show good agreement on
the overall fluctuation.
Harrington-1 rotor. Harrington27 conducted some hovering
tests of two kinds coaxial rotor in NASA Langley full-
scale tunnel. Based on this Dingeldein29 carried out the
forward flight experiment of Harrington-1 rotor. The
experimental data is much valuable for trim and aero-
dynamic validations of coaxial rotor. The radius of
Harrington-1 rotor is 3.81 m, and each rotor is two-bladed.
The blade chord varies linearly along the spanwise di-
rection. At the root (0.13 R) the chord is 0.3 m, and at the
tip (1.0 R) it is 0.127 m. The blade adopts NACA four-
digit airfoils, and the blade thickness varies nonlinearly
along the spanwise. Detailed parameters of Harrington-1
153
θ1cU (°) θ0L (°) θ1sL (°) θ1cL (°)
1.32 8.07 2.75 1.05
2.21 7.75 3.13 2.95
0.5 10.68 5.9 0.36
1.53 10.45 5.3 1.83
rotor can be found in Ref. 27. The forward flight tests of
Harrington-1 rotor were conducted in single and coaxial
configurations. The trimmed pitches are achieved by
setting the target CT as 0.0048 referring to the experiment.
Table 6 shows the trimmed pitches of current hybrid
model and CAMRAD II calculated by Barbely et al.30 The
results are much close, but there are some differences on
θ1c for the upper and lower rotors. θ1cU and θ1cL calculated
by current model have certain difference, which is more
obviously when μ = 0.12. This is because the upper rotor
wake acts the rear region of the lower rotor disk, which
enhances the longitudinal asymmetry of the flow field. So,
different longitudinal periodic pitches are required to
ensure the balance of pitching moment. Compared with
the vorticity model of CAMRAD II, the CFD solver used
in current trim model can capture the rotor performances
influenced by the interaction more accurately. Figure 16
shows the comparison of forward flight performances of
Harrington-1 rotor in single and coaxial configurations.
The calculated results show good agreement with the
experimental data.
Conclusions
In this paper, a hybrid trim model is established for rigid
coaxial rotor in hover and forward flight. In the trim
process, the Jacobian matrix is solved by the high-
efficiency blade element theory with different inflow
models. And the CFD solver is only called for rotor
performance correction after each trim step. The influ-
ences of pseudo time step, number of CFD revolution, and
inflow model are investigated. Following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The hybrid trim model can significantly improve the
trim efficiency, since the Jacobian matrix solution at
each trim step is not solved by the CFD solver, but by
the high-efficiency model. The improvement of effi-
ciency can be better reflected when the number of
control setting is large. Such as for the rigid coaxial
rotor with six control settings in forward flight. The
final trim accuracy is guaranteed by the CFD solver, as
it is used for aerodynamic correction after each update
of control settings.
2. For CFD solutions in trimming, only time-averaged
rotor performances are useful. So, it is reasonable to
reduce the pseudo time step and the number of CFD
revolution to a certain degree, in order to further
improve the trim efficiency. At the initial trim step, the
154
revolution is suggested to be four for hover and three
for forward flight for current cases. For the following
trim steps, it can be just one, as each change of control
settings is much small, and the simulation can fast
converge. Smaller pseudo time step can be used for
trim at high advance ratio (such as μ ≥ 0.2), as the
interaction turns weak.
3. The hybrid trim model for rigid coaxial rotor has high
robustness. The accuracies of the high-efficiency
aerodynamic models are different when adopting
different inflow models. A more accurate high-
efficiency model makes the trim converge faster.
However, they all can achieve the convergence by
coupling with the CFD solver.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 12102154), the Foundation of Key
Laboratory of Rotor Aerodynamics of China Aerodynamics
Research and Development Center (No. RAL202103-2), and
High-tech Research Key laboratory of Zhenjiang (SS2018002).
ORCID iDs
Haotian Qi  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8718-0558
Liangquan Wang  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0592-1071
References
1. Yuan Y, Thomson D and Chen R. Investigation of lift offset
on flight dynamics characteristics for coaxial compound
helicopters. J Aircr 2019; 56: 2210–2222. DOI: 10.2514/1.
C035190.
2. Bagai A. Aerodynamic design of the X2 technology dem-
onstrator main rotor blade. Canada: 64th American Heli-
copter Society Annual Forum. MontréalAHS, 2008, pp.
29–44.
3. Burgess RK. The ABCÔ Rotor – A historical perspective.
Baltimore, MD: 60th American Helicopter Society Annual
Forum, 2004.
4. Ferguson K and Thomson D. Performance comparison
between a conventional helicopter and compound helicopter
configurations. P I Mech Eng G-J Aer 2015; 229:
2441–2456. DOI: 10.1177/0954410015577997.
5. Zhao QJ, Zhao GQ, Wang B, et al. Robust Navier-Stokes
method for predicting unsteady flowfield and aerodynamic
characteristics of helicopter rotor. Chin J Aeronaut 2018; 31:
214–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2017.10.005.
6. Zhang K, Zhao Q, Zhang X, et al. Analysis of rotor aero-
dynamic response during ramp collective pitch increase by
CFD method. P I Mech Eng G-J Aer 2021; 235: 994–1007.
DOI: 10.1177/0954410020965404.
7. Romani G and Casalino D. Rotorcraft blade-vortex in-
teraction noise prediction using the lattice-Boltzmann
method. Aerosp Sci Technol 2019; 88: 147–157. DOI: 10.
1016/j.ast.2019.03.029.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 237(1)
8. Lyu W, Wang S and Yang A. Some improvements of hybrid
trim method for a helicopter rotor in forward flight. Aerosp
Sci Technol 2021; 113: 106709. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.
106709.
9. Yuan Y, Chen R and Li P. Trim investigation for coaxial rigid
rotor helicopters using an improved aerodynamic in-
terference model. Aerosp Sci Technol 2019; 85: 293–304.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.11.044.
10. Chung K, Hwang C, Jeon W, et al. Numerical predictions of
rotorcraft unsteady air-loadings and BVI noise by using
a time-marching free-wake and acoustic analogy. Firenze,
Italy: 31st European Rotorcraft Forum, 2005, pp. 1071–1075.
11. Kim JW, Park SH and Yu YH. Euler and navier-stokes
simulations of helicopter rotor blade in forward flight using
an overlapped grid solver. In: AIAA Computational Fluid
Dynamics. San Antonio, 2009.
12. Ma Y, Chen M, Wang Q, et al. Main helicopter rotor
trimming using computational fluid dynamics method in
forward flight. P I Mech Eng G-J Aer 2018; 232: 169–179.
DOI: 10.1177/0954410016673394.
13. Zhao JG and He CJ. A viscous vortex particle model for rotor
wake and interference analysis. J Am Helicopter Soc 2010;
55: 12007. DOI: 10.4050/JAHS.55.012007.
14. Ye Z, Xu G, Shi Y, et al. A high-efficiency trim method for
CFD numerical calculation of helicopter rotors. Int J Aeronaut
Space 2017; 18: 186–196. DOI: 10.5139/IJASS.2017.18.2.23.
15. Lakshminarayan VK and Baeder JD. Computational in-
vestigation of microscale coaxial-rotor aerodynamics in
hover. J Aircr 2010; 47: 940–955. DOI: 10.2514/1.46530.
16. Qi H, Xu G, Lu C, et al. A study of coaxial rotor aero-
dynamic interaction mechanism in hover with high-efficient
trim model. Aerosp Sci Technol 2019; 84: 1116–1130. DOI:
10.1016/j.ast.2018.11.053.
17. Qi H, Xu G, Lu C, et al. Computational investigation on
unsteady loads of high-speed rigid coaxial rotor with high-
efficient trim model. Int J Aeronaut Space 2019; 20: 16–30,
Article. DOI: 10.1007/s42405-018-0133-0.
18. Pomin H and Wagner S. Navier-stokes analysis of helicopter
rotor aerodynamics in hover and forward flight. J Aircr
2002; 39: 813–821. DOI: 10.2514/2.3001.
19. Roe PL. Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors,
and difference schemes. J Comput Phys 1981; 43: 357–372.
DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(81)90128-5.
20. Van Leer B.. Towards the ultimate conservative difference
scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method.
J Comput Phys 1979; 32: 101–136. DOI: 10.1016/0021-
9991(79)90145-1.
21. Spalart P and Allmaras S. A one-equation turbulence model
for aerodynamic flows. In: 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit. Reno, NV: AIAA, 1992, pp. 1–22.
22. Yoon S and Jameson A. Lower-upper symmetric-gauss-
Seidel method for the Euler and Navier-stokes equations.
AIAA J 1988; 26: 1025–1026. DOI: 10.2514/3.10007.
23. Johnson W. Helicopter theory. NY, USA: Dover Pub-
lications, 1994, pp. 903–920.
24. Leishman JG and Ananthan S. An optimum coaxial rotor
system for axial flight. J Am Helicopter Soc 2008; 53:
366–381. DOI: 10.4050/JAHS.53.366.
25. Drees JM. A theory of airflow through rotors and its ap-
plication to some helicopter problems. J Helicopter Assoc
Great Britain 1949; 3: 79–104.
26. Valkov T. Aerodynamic loads computation on coaxial
hingeless helicopter rotors. In: 28th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting. Reno, NV, USA: AIAA; 1990.
 Qi et al. 155

27. Harrington RD. Full-scale-tunnel investigation of the static- c chord (m)

thrust performance of a coaxial helicopter rotor. Report no. CT= T =ρAV2 R2 rotor thrust coefficient
NACA-TN-2318. 1951. Washington, DC: Langley Aero- CQ= Q =ρAV2 R3 rotor torque coefficient
nautical Laboratory. CMx= Mx=ρAV2 R3 rotor rolling moment coefficient
28. Cross JL and Watts ME. Tip aerodynamics and acoustics
CMz= Mz=ρAV2 R3 rotor pitching moment coefficient
test: a report and data survey. Report no. NASA-RP-1179.
Cn= Fn =12 ρV 2 c blade sectional normal force
1988. Washington, DC: Moffett Field: NASA Ames Re-
search Center. coefficient
29. Dingeldein RC. Wind-tunnel studies of the performance of Cp= p  p∞ =12 ρVtip
2
pressure coefficient
multirotor configurations Report no. NACA-TN-3236, 1954. μ= V∞ =VR Ma Mach number
Washington, DC: Langley Aeronautical Laboratory. Matip rotor tip Mach number
30. Barbely N, Novak L and Komerath N. A study of coaxial R rotor radius (m)
rotor performance and flow field characteristics. San V∞ forward flight speed (m/s)
Francisco. 2016: American Helicopter Society Technical ψ azimuth angle (deg)
Meeting. Fisherman’s Wharf, pp. 1–15. θ0 collective pitch angle (deg)
θ1s longitudinal cyclic pitch angle (deg)
Appendix θ1c lateral cyclic pitch angle (deg)
V rotor angular velocity (rad/s)
Subscripts
Notation L lower rotor in coaxial system
A = πR2 rotor disk area (m2) U upper rotor in coaxial system.

View publication stats