NASA-CR-203092

_ _

The Attributes
of a Variable-Diameter
System
Applied
to Civil Tiltrotor

NASA

University
Consortium
NCC2-5174

Rotor
Aircraft

Grant

by

The

Scott
Brender
Graduate
Student
University
of Texas
at Austin

Hans Mark
Professor
Department

of

Aerospace
Engineering
and Engineering
The University
of Texas
at Austin

Mechanics

and

Advanced

Tiltrotor
NASA

Frank
Aguilera
Transport
Technology
Ames
Research
Center

Project

Office

The Attributes

of a Variable-Diameter
Rotor
to Civil Tiltrotor Aircraft

System

Applied

by

Scott
Brender
Graduate
Student
The

University

of Texas

at Austin

Hans Mark
Professor
Department

of Aerospace
Engineering
and Engineering
The University
of Texas
at Austin

Mechanics

and

Advanced

Frank
Aguilera
Tiltrotor
Technology
NASA
Ames
Research

Project
Center

Office

The attributes of a variable-diameter

rotor concept applied to civil tiltrotor aircraft are
investigated
using the V/STOL
Aircraft Sizing and Performance
Computer
Program
(VASCOMP).
To begin, civil tiltrotor viability issues that motivate
advanced
rotor
designs
are discussed.
Current
work on the variable-diameter
rotor and a theoretical
basis for the advantages
of the rotor system are presented.
The size and performance
of variable-diameter
and conventional
tiltrotor designs for the same baseline
mission
are then calculated
using a modified,
NASA
Ames version
of VASCOMP.
The
aircraft
are compared
based
on gross
weight,
fuel required,
engine
size and
autorotative
performance
for various hover disk loading values.
Conclusions
about
the viability of the resulting designs
are presented
and a program
for further variablediameter rotor research is recommended.

ii

Table

Abstract

of Contents

....................................................................................

ii

.o

Table

of Contents

List of Tables

..............................................................................

List of Figures

.........................................................................

vi

............................................................................

Introduction

vii

.........................................................

1.1

Civil Tiltrotor

1.2

The Motivation

1.3

Civil Tiltrotor

Background

.................................................

for a Civil Tiltrotor ........................................

2
3

Viability

Issues ..............................................

Standards ...........................................

1.3.1

Meeting

Safety

1.3.2

Meeting

Environmental

1.3.3

Economic

1.3.4

Key Technologies

The

Variable-Diameter

2.1

Variable-Geometry

2.2

Possible

Viability

Standards

...................................................
for Tiltrotor

Rotor

Viability

Concept

Background

Vaxiable-Diameter

.................................

..........................

10
11
14

...........................

16

...........................................

18

Designs

111

.......................................

20

2.3

Recent

Variable-Diameter

2.4

Variable-Diameter

of

Advantages

Research

Rotor Complexity

a Variable-Diameter

................................

25

......................................

27

Rotor

29

System

..............

3.1

Introduction

...................................................................

29

3.2

Advantages

in Hover

30

3.3

Induced

.......................................................

30

3.2.2

Figure of Merit .......................................................

36

3.2.3

Rotor-Airfi'ame

40

3.2.4

Summary

Advantages

Power

Interactions

of Hover

During

Rotor Propulsive

3.3.2

Gust Response

Benefits

Efficiency

........................................

Capability

Blade-Vortex

3.5.3

Internal Noise .........................................................

VASCOMP

55
55

Noise .................................................

3.5.2

and

46

.........................................

Harmonic

Size

46

........................................

3.5.1

Aircraft

46

.......................................................

Autorotation
and Internal

.........................................

Cruise ..................................................

3.3.1

External

4.1

........................................................

3.2.1

Improved

Rotor

Noise

70

......................................................

Interaction

Performance

70

............................................

Comparison

Setup

71
72

..............

...................................................................

73
74

4.1.1

VASCOMP

Sizing ...................................................

74

4.1.2

VASCOMP

Weight

76

Estimation

iv

.....................................

4.1.3

VASCOMP

Aerodynamics

4.1.4

VASCOMP

Propulsion

4.1.5

VASCOMP

Conversion

4.2

Comparison

..............................................
and Download

...........................

......................................................

4.2.1

Common

4.2.2

Variable-Diameter

4.2.3

Conventional

Results

Approach

..........................................

VASCOMP

Inputs

Tiltrotor

Tiltrotor

VASCOMP

Model ...................

Model

........................

..........................................................

5.1

Baseline

5.2

Comparison

Conclusions

Aircraft Comparisons

and

6.1

Conclusions

6.2

Recommended

Bibliography

Over a Range

Recommendations

Disk Loading ......................

...............................

...................................................................
Research

....................................................

..............................................................................

82

84
86
89

91

.............................................

of Hover

80

83

.......................................
VASCOMP

79

91
97

107
107
110

113

List

5.1

Baseline

5.2

Conceptual

Conventional
Design

of Tables

and Variable-Diameter

Dimension

Information

vi

Design

Summary

......................................

............

92
100

List

of Figures

Total

Trip Time

vs. Design

1.2

CTR

Productivity

Index

1.3

CTR Baseline

1.4

Cabin

2.1

The Variable-Diameter

2.2

Disk Loading

2.3

Variable-Diameter

Rotor Blade ....................................................

20

2.4

Variable-Diameter

Rotor Hub .....................................................

22

2.5

Simple

2.6

Wind

2.7

VDTR

3.1

Momentum

3.2

Conventional

3.3

Variable-Diameter

3.4

Forces

Acting

3.5

Figure

of Merit

3.6

Download

vs. C r for a V-22

3.7

Beneficial

Interference

3.8

Forces

3.9

Rotor

Mission

Noise

Levels

Tunnel

Profile

.......................................

Cruise

Aircraft

Tiltrotor
Cruise

Theory

Concept

of Various

Tiltrotor

Figure

Response

of Merit

to a 30 fps Wind

.............................................

Tip Clearance

vs. Propulsive

Tiltrotor

Effects

on Airfoils

in the Cruise

Drag

Factor

Flight

vii

40
43

.................

Mode ...........................

...............................................

36

37

...............................

Shaft Spacing

26

35

............................................

for Low Rotor

23

34

......................................
Trend

18

31

.......................................

Hover

Efficiency

...................

Gust ....................

Tip Clearance

During

16

...............................

.............................................

on an Airfoil

14

..................................

Volume

Tiltrotor

Compressibility

Rotor

Aircraft

12
13

........................................

Speed

for VDTR

Control

.............................

..........................................

of the Variable-Diameter

vs. Conventional

Speed

....................................................

of Various

Results

Acting

Speed

vs. Design

vs. Design

Model

Cruise

12

1.1

45
48
5O

3.10 ripvs. Cr/(r for a ConstantTip Speed...........................................

52

3.11 ripvs. Cr/t_atConstantThrust...................................................

52

3.12 ForcesActing on anAirfoil DuringAutorotation..............................

56

3.13 Deadman'sCurvefor a Typical Rotorcraft.....................................

58

3.14 BladeTwist Comparisons........................................................

59

3.15 ForcesDuringAutorotationin theDecelerationRegion.......................

60

3.16 The AerodynamicRegionsof a RotorDuring Autorotation..................

61

3.17 TheAutorotativeThrust

....

62

Rotor .....

62

3.18

Autorotative

3.19

Power

3.20

Momentum

Thrust

Required

Boundary

Boundary

Curve

Theory

of an Isolated

for Helicopter

Control

Conversion

of an, Isolated

4.1

VASCOMP

4.2

Diameter

4.3

Nacelle

5.1

Conventional

5.2

Variable-Diameter

5.3

VASCOMP

Calculated

Gross

5.4

VASCOMP

Calculated

Wing Weight

5.5

VASCOMP

Calculated

Wing

5.6

VASCOMP

Calculated

Fuel Weight

5.7

VASCOMP

Calculated

Engine

5.8

VASCOMP

Calculated

Acoustic

vs. Nacelle

Tilt vs. Forward

Rotor

Flight

.....................

...................................

...............................................

Speed ...................................................

Baseline
Rotor

Profile

Rotor

Flight ........................

for Forward

Acceleration

Tilt Schedule

Variable-Diameter

Forward

Volume

Conventional

Aircraft

Baseline

Weights

Aircraft

Weight

..................................

Weights

............................

vs. Disk Loading

.......................

.............................................

Drag ................................................
..............................................

Weight

...........................................

Treatment

,oo

VlU

Weight .............................

64
65
85
87
88
93
93
101
102
103
104
105
105

Chapter

Introduction

Tiltrotor
tiltrotor

aircraft

(CTR)

more

have the potential

could

convenient

relieve

and

accessible

research

has been on going

systems

and light weight

feasible.

Additionally,

will be available
CTR

design

industry

transportation,
levels,
costs

safety
could

industry

tiltrotor
diameter

issues

and

vertical

of the technical

could

be solved

in flight

propeller-like

rotor

control

tiltrotor

experience
of

technologies

any

technically
of Defense,

to facilitate

the

government

required

and

for a viable

aircraft

currently

used

are involved

in their

viability.

External

flight

passenger

modes,

solutions

problems
using

so that a large
is used

from

of the aircraft.

by

as advanced

a reality.

unique

provide

tiltrotor

a civil

efforts

air travel

While

for the Department

and remaining

several

program

designed

the joint

different

the success

make

involving

are

affect

now

such

A civil

making

world.

technologies

operational

these aircraft

while

the

to provide

tiltrotors

research

Many

future

the infrastructure

in forward

recent

a tiltrotor

A program

soon make

around

structures

the V-22,

civil air transportation.

at airports

to passengers

composite

process.

Because

congestion

for decades,

in the near

to develop

CTR could

growing

to revolutionize

It is imperative
to identified

that arise

variable-diameter

helicopter-size

in cruise.

from

The
1

rotor
low

disk

comfort
that

problems

is used
loading

civil
noise

operating

a government

and

in these areas.

the requirements
rotors.

and

for

These
in hover
in hover

of a large
rotors
and
and

civil

change
a smaller
low

tip

speedsin cruisemadepossibleby the diameterchangecould eliminatemany of the

undesirableconventionaltiltrotor attributes.Of course,theseadvantages
do not come
without a price. The diameterchangemechanismaddsweight andcomplexityto the
rotor systemwhich mustbe weightedagainstpotentialbenefits.
The purpose of this study is to assessthe impact variable-diametertiltrotor
aircraftcould makeon civil tiltrotor viability. The approachtakenis to comparethe
performanceadvantagesandweightpenaltiesof conceptualtiltrotor aircraft equipped
with variable-diameterrotors as calculatedby the V/STOL Aircraft Sizing and
PerformanceComputerProgram(VASCOMP). The issueof variable-diameterrotor
complexity is alsodiscussedbriefly, however,a truereliability analysismust await the
designof actualrotor hardwareandis beyondthe scopeof this study. To begin the
analysis,the key issuesaffectingcivil tiltrotor viability arediscussedto establishthe
need for an advancedrotor design. In Chapter2 the variable-diameterconcept is
introduced. The complexityof the extensionandretractionmechanismis discussed
briefly andmuchof the currentresearchon the conceptis presented. A theoretical
justification for the advantages
of the rotor systemin hover, cruise, autorotationand
noisearepresentedin Chapter3. In Chapter4 the detailsof the VASCOMPcodeand
theVASCOMPinputsparticularto this casearediscussed. Theresultsof the aircraft
sizing arepresentedin Chapter5. Finally, in Chapter6, conclusionsof this study and
recommendations
for futureareasof researcharepresented.

1.1

Civil

Tiltrotor

In recognition
sponsored

several

Background

of the potential
studies

to investigate

benefits
CTR
2

of a CTR,
development.

government
The first

agencies

have

in depth

study

wasconductedfor theNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration(NASA) andthe

FederalAviation Administration(FAA) by the Boeing AirplaneCompany[1,2]. This
two phasestudy was key in identifying configurations and mission profiles for a
marketresponsiveaircraft. Shortly thereafter,a High-SpeedRotorcraftTechnology
TaskForcewasappointedby NASA to further studytheconcept[3]. This committee,
consistingof severalseniormembersof theaerospace
industry,identified technologies
neededtoensurethesafety,economicviability andcommunityacceptance
of tiltrotors.
The most comprehensivestudy to date was conductedby the Civil Tiltrotor
DevelopmentAdvisoryCommittee(CTRDAC)which was formed by the Secretaryof
Transportationasdirectedby theU.S.Congress[4]. The CTRDAC waschargedwith
severaltaskswhich includedexaminingthecosts, technicalfeasibility, andeconomic
viability of CTR aircraft, determiningresearch and development and regulatory
changesneededto integratethe CTR into the national transportationsystem and
decidinghow funding for
industry.

Each

of these

from a transportation

1.2

studies

system

The

Motivation

Perhaps

the single

travel more convenient.

making

development
concluded

made

for

[4].

on the taxiway

possible

could

that society

stands

spent traveling

by government
to benefit

and

substantially

aircraft.

Tiltrotor

of a civil tiltrotor

forms

typically

be reduced

be divided

benefit

With contemporary

Time

should

by tiltrotor

a Civil

most important

trips of less than 700 miles

time on the ground

waiting

CTR

of commercial

spend

fifty

to and from

by a vertical

will be to make
aviation,

percent

flight

passengers

of their

an airport,
capability.

air

total travel

checking

in, and

For ranges

of

lessthan600 miles, tiltrotors could actuallyleadto shortertravel times than modem

jetliners, sinceat this distance,traveltime is dominatedby accessand egresstime
ratherthancruisespeed[ 1]. Helicoptersalreadyhavethis capability,but, for ranges
over a few hundredmiles, their advantageduring take-off and landing is offset by
limited forward speedandpoor efficiency. In addition, helicopterhigh-speedflight
involvesvibration levels thatreducecomponentreliability andaircraft safety. Unlike
thehelicopter,the tiltrotor convertsto an airplaneconfigurationduring forward flight
andwill havea cruiseperformancecomparableto a modernturboprop.
Tiltrotors arealsoa low costsolutionto growingcongestionproblemsat airports
around the world. Airlines in the United Statesreport that delays already cost
themselvesand their passengersmore than $3 billion dollars annually [4].

If the

demandfor air travel continuesto outpacethe national gross domesticproduct as

predictedby the FederalAviation Administration,congestioncould reachcrisis levels.
Many of the delaysexperiencedtoday stem from the high demandfor short-haul
flights. For example,in the northeasternUnited States,where averagedelays are
amongthe longest, nearly sixty percentof flights originate from fewer than 500
nauticalmilesaway[2]. For a low cost, tiltrotors could divert muchof this traffic to
free uprunwaysfor longerrangejets. The estimatedcost for CTR developmentand
productionincluding20 vertiportsis lessthanthe cost of evenonemajorhub airport
[2]. Predictedannualtime savingsareon theorderof 125,000hours which translates
into a $375million savingsin passenger
delayandaircraft operatingcosts[4].
A CTR couldalsoexpandtheavailabilityof air transportation.In manysparsely
populatedareasof the United Statesand aroundthe world, no short-haulcoverage
exists. In theseregions, for much less than what a small regional airportcosts, a
vertiportcould providetiltrotor feeder,transferand line-haulservices. Thesebenefits
4

are particularly
conventional

aircraft

Since
probably

strong

the United

aircraft

designing

Japan

The Japanese

EUROFAR

surely

1.3

Civil

The

aircraft

French,

Tiltrotor

manufactures

and operators.

Issues

alone

Since

Profits

development,
acceptance.
will follow

The question

environmental

Viability

a CTR

sales

countries
needs

of their large
are designing

aerospace

for

certification

not capitalize

on the

to

are each

German
final

impact

are expected

and the Europeans

and

would

a substantial

of CTR

the EUROFAR
does

will require

to predict.

meets

make

of European

English

in the U.S.

to society

decision

infrastructure

technology,

to meet the transportation

The

for

for air travel.

and could

a consortium

infrastructure

industry
by

potential

the

market,

will.

A production

passenger

years

the Ishida tiltwing

If industry

advantages

infrastructure

in dltrotor

than fifty percent

and

the current

demand

have

tiltrotor.

[4].

others

difficult

the world

has set a goal of developing

year 2009

where

passenger

for many

their own civil VTOL

consortium

that

leads

In fact, more
[4].

as China

to meet

competition

markets

populations.
the

States

exports.

be in foreign

such

is inadequate

be without

on U.S.

in countries

standards.

some

expectation

these

aircraft

will

be

This

study

successful

ride

viability
quality
Certainly

to motivate
of a transfer

are so unique,

influenced

certification

of aircraft

passenger

are not sufficient

standards,

focuses

on aircraft

aircraft

development.

by

on whether

standards,

federal

must

costs

several

related

feel

between

and revenues
factors

are

including

acceptance,

issues

an aircraft
safety

production.

of wealth

community

depends

passengers

CTR

and

assuming

that

can be produced

standards

comfortable

and
and

local
safe

in

tiltrotors.
and

To many

unless

CTR

passengers,

comfort

they feel safe in tiltrotors,

must

also

certification

demonstrate

by the Federal

the

they

Aviation

since

fu'm certification

Finally,

a CTR

must

demonstrate

intended

for use

aircraft

noise

1.3.1

Meeting

been

is the
within

need

Safety

by the C'IRDAC

of safety

found

single

aircraft,

fails,

is distributed
the aircraft
engine's

that found

regulations

aircraft.
for

some

environmental
standards

than being

power

in modern

that

eventual

forethought,
aircraft.

regulations.

since

confined

the

Of

tiltrotor

to airports

is

where

controlled

through

the loss of one engine

will likely

would

a coupled
6

This

it has

the same
in both

most,

if

implies

that

inoperative

modes.

In a cruise

fixed-wing

causes

operate

and one engine

be possible

an interconnected

as in the V-22.

twin-engine

tiltrotors

power-off

landing

to both propellers

Since

to match

and helicopters.

as well as level flight

rotors

will have

aircraft,

that they will have to incorporate

turboprops

a controlled

exist for tiltrotor

a CTR

[3, 4].

it follows

of making

to both
wings

regulations

airliners

of modem

from vertical

If one engine

through

mode,

features

FAA

and others

in today's

must be capable

landings

power

only interim

and a helicopter

not all, of the safety

(OEI)

on jet

Standards

assumed

the aircraft

convenience,

do not yet exist for tiltrotor

noise

areas rather

to travel

safety

to meet

local

than

is tolerated.

currently

fixed-wing

to meet

important

This requires

standards

an ability

populated

Although

levels

to meet

Administration.

before,

concern

be more

will continue

ability

as stated

particular

may

actually
aircraft.

drive

configuration,
provide

if single
shaft

a safer

moment

that

the sharing

In a conventional

roll and yaw

engine

situation

runs
of a
than

fixed-wing

that can only be

balancedby theaircraft control surfacesabovesomeminimum control airspeed. If

bothrotorsin a CTR wereinterconnected,the loss of one enginewould not causean
unbalancein the forces on the aircraft, and therewould not be a minimum control
speedotherthanthe stall speed.
If oneenginefails during a verticalflight modesuchas conversion, takeoffor
landing,thepilot couldmaneuverthe aircraftoveror aroundobstaclesbeforeselecting
a suitablelanding site as long as the remainingenginehas sufficient power. The
drawbackto this scenariois that it requiresthe enginesto be designedto produce
nearlytwice their normaloperatingpower. Oversizingthe enginesaddsweight and
reducesfuel economy.The sizeof theenginescanbe reducedby takingadvantageof
the ability of turbineenginesproduceshort burstsof power well abovetheir normal
ratedpower. However, the extentof enginedamagewhen using this contingency
power is unknownandenginesmust normally be replaced-an extremelyexpensive
practicefor largeaircraft. Somestudiessuggestthatto meetOEI requirementsof CTR
aircraft,new enginesshouldbe developedthatarecapableof 25 percentcontingency
power without damage[5].

Thesecontingencyratings are higher than found in

modern engines and would, therefore, add considerable cost to the aircraft
development.
A totalpowerfailure is muchlesslikely thana single enginefailure, however,a
contingencyplan is still needed.For fixed-wingaircraft, a multipleenginefailure is a
very serioussituationandgenerallythe onlyoptionfor the pilot is to attemptto glide to
a safelandingarea. For a total power failure in a fixed-wing commuteraircraft, the
FederalAviationRegulation(FAR) Part 23.143only requiresthatthe aircraft remain
controllableandmaneuverable
duringthedescentsothatthereis a chanceof finding a
suitablelanding area[6]. In helicopters,a completeengine failure is less serious
7

becauseof the ability to autorotatetherotors. During autorotation,

forward

speed

and

"windmilling"

rate of descent

the rotors.

and maintain

a constant

cushion

landing.

the

controllable

This thrust

In

A rotorcraft

be stable

in autorotation

in an upflow

can be sufficient

rate of descent

from which

addition

and maneuverable

Category

results

(gross

weight

above

to balance

that

rotary

landing,
20,000

from half the maximum

that can

generate

FAR

glide

regulation

by

Aircraft

[7].

by

of gravity

can be executed

wing

aircraft

29.175

speed

to

remain

also requires

lb and 10 or more
range

of

thrust

the forces

a flare maneuver

to requiring

in a power-off

a combination

that

passengers)

must

to the never

exceed

speed.
Currently,
Criteria

tiltrotor

aircraft

for Powered-Lift

are interim,
of likely
flight,
Without

power

standards.

certification

interim

available

as long

convert

standards

a higher

option

will only

capability

defined.

flight

in the helicopter

Part XX.34

essentially

mode

should

have

if the

a glide

attempt
aircraft

these regulations

failure

requirements
little difficulty

landing

altitude.

may

landing.

does

have

in forward

as the

FARs.

meeting

these

will be high because

is not

There

a power-out
in fact

Airworthiness

they are the best indicator

rate of a tiltrotor

sufficient

and

Although

a total power
same

However,
has

For
the

is that the descent

be available

The requirements

available.

stall speed.

the Interim

a CTR is certified,

flight the tiltrotor

as the aircraft

to a vertical

before

have

The only concern

has

Category

standards

in forward

the wing

under

Transport

and may be expanded

CTR

the

fall

the only
also

option

be time

Of course,

a power-off

to
this

landing

configuration.
for a vertical

of Interim

flight

mode

Airworthiness

power

Criteria

out situation

states

are not clearly

the following:

The aircraft motions during and following

a sudden critical propulsions
system
failure that is not shown to be extremely
improbable
shall be such that the aircraft
8

can be maintainedwithin the circumscribingflight envelopeandreturnedto the

authorizedflight envelopewithout requiringexceptionalpilot skill. It shall be
possibleto establisha safefailure stateandproceedto a landing [7].
In the FARs "extremelyimprobable"is generallytakento meanthat less than 10.9
occurrencesareexpectedperflight hour. Whenoneconsidersthatthe flight hours of
an entirefleet of multi-enginehelicoptersfor the U.S. military is lessthan 10
hours,

it is easy

improbable.
other

Certainly

mulit-engine

the rotor

Since

of these
vertical

also

has

that

after

a critical

engine

the aircraft

authorized

flight envelope

and be adequately

flight

[7].

the conclusion
failure

Unless
ability

is that a CTR must

at any point

addition,

it must
some

envelope"

in the flight

be possible

unconventional

to reach a steady

and "safe

failure

When

method

autorotative

state" requirements

CH-53s

where

are more

that

and a total power

not

shown

and maneuverable

all of these

requirements

failure

of emergency

hover,

state will be necessary

to fulfill

of these regulations.

failure

is

standards

it

extremely

within

the
the

after a total power

and cruise.

state" and proceed

generation

to fail.

are considered,

conversion

power

the

throughout

controllable

and maneuverable

to

to total power

to be

and maneuverable

including

a "safe

is

than

as likely

apply

and

all power

reliable

and at least

of part XX.34

be controllable

to reach

CH-47s,

instance

of a CTR

controllable

envelope

to be extremely

in part XX. 143 of the interim

failure

be safely

CH-46s,

complex

the standards
Further,

be shown

used on a CTR

envelope

improbable,

circumscribing

"must

cannot

at least one

train is more

the flight

mode.

been

engines

but still possible,

flight

failure

fleet of UH-60s,

there

the drive

flight is within

in a vertical

states

engine

Even if advanced

aircraft,

improbable,

failures

in the entire

helicopters

was lost.

engines

very

to see that a multiple

9 flight

In

to a landing.
is designed,

the controllability

the

Besidessometype of power failure, anothersafetyconcernfor a CTR is the

hazardpresentedby the high-speeddownwashof many tiltrotor designs. The wind
gustsproducedby a hoveringCTR could blow debris presentinga dangerto ground
personnelandotheraircraft. The FAA may requiredemonstratedsafeoperationsnear
thegroundto protectthe safetyof personnelandequipment.

1.3.2

Meeting

Another

Environmental

viability

CTRDAC

concluded

be slightly

greater

turboprop

[4].

largely

offset

and ground

have

signature

use

of

that

development

program

to meet

of this

remainder

airports.

convenient
located

ridership

of community
to achieve

by improving

by

noise

acceptance,

a 12 dB reduction

managing

CTR

10

airlines,

has

and

to a CTR

these

as 30 percent

levels.

departure

noise

acceptance

locations,

initiated

must

crowded

The CTR

to community

be

delays

the CTR

In

in V-22 noise

2000

could

obstacle

standards.

as much

NASA

would

air traffic

to less than optimal

approach

rotor noise characteristics.

with

centers.

is not a barrier

fall by

aircraft

increases

potential

set noise

was limited
could

slight

scheduled

population

governments

to ensure

tiltrotor

than other

The

737 or the Saab

associated

A more serious

within

construction

goal

that these

around

areas local

the likelihood

recognized

standards.

from CTR

such as the Boeing

use and emissions

vertiports

If vertiport

and emissions

aircraft
also

meet environmental

energy

must be minimized

half

consumption

they

To be more

and residential

estimated

increase

However,
by reduced

of vertiports.
been

that energy

is that a CTR

than conventional

noise.

the

business

requirement

transportation

is external

Standards

it has
[4].

To

a research
NASA
paths

and
plans

and

the

1.3.3

Economic

Once

Viability

safety

maximize

and

economic

noise

viability.

development,

production

price

new

of any

safety

and noise

payload,

range

the aircraft

costs.

commercial
to offer
travel

and speed.

Revenues

will depend

over

a range
[1].

balance

on tiltrotor

and mission

concluded

For this mission,

between
average

index

study

defined

indicates
This

that tiltrotor

index

normalized

Index

is just

the

discussed
efficiency,
of

for minimizing
CTR

experience
speed

for airspeeds

economics

able

Figure

above

operating

to carry

36-45

success

in the

the most

of around

has

350 knots

1.1 shows

appears

that the total

for a trip less than

350 mph

(304

kt).

Also

as

(Empty

productivity

the mission

by mission

on

and comfort

commercial

profile

and cost.

PayloadProductivity

of CTR

largely

previously

time of 1 hour and 20 minutes)

significantly

costs

on the aircraft

that a large

a cruise

productivity
ground

to meet

on the convenience

of at least 500 nmi would

does not decrease

a productivity

size

the

to

of air travel.

the past decade

aircraft

be optimized

in turn depend

will also depend

forms

can

include

be required

costs

time (includes

400 miles

costs

Operating

market

good

These

that might

to other available

design

to be considered

operation.

I of the Boeing

over

a CTR

standards.

well defined

Phase

passengers

and

conducted

lead to a fairly

are met,

Factors

technologies

relative

Research

standards

Weight

Block

+ Fuel Weight)-

is maximized
effectiveness,

cost represented

Range

in the range
or payload

by empty

11

weight

(1.1)
Block

Time

of 360 to 380

multiplied

by

plus fuel weight.

knots

block

[8].

speed,

5.0

4.0

Total

3.0

Trip
Time
(hr)

2.0

Note:
1.0

Assumes

and

lO0

Productivity

is shown

1.1:

For

Vertiport

Time

300

Cruise

Total Trip Time

as a function

Used
Lost

200

Design

Figure

1:20

Access/Egress

Speed

speed

500

(mph)

vs. Design

of cruise

400

Cruise

Speed

in Figure

[3]

1.2.

80

GO

.B
>

4O
U_
.-,
.._
O
L.

20

350

li

370

390

410

Design

Figure

1.2:

CTR Productivity

Cruise

Index

12

Speed

vs. Design

I
430

I
450

(kt)

Cruise

Speed

[3]

A tiltrotor missionprofile usedin manystudiesby NASA

Figure

1.3.

The cruise

costs for a baseline

speed

tiltrotor

of 350

aircraft

Long-

knots

was

found

(2S R nmi
Longange rnin)
C, ul se

|
IL

:ttP._O.lSgconverlJon

t.3mio

Seat.aMBn_
OGE

_k_m,.

I.O_Min.
n
L<_._

Tim., --

--_lS'. _:0. |S

,_,0

The

mission

included

fixed-wing

transport

1.3: CTR

the fuel
aircraft.

--------n

required

baseline

(%

/_

.....

[
I
[

Baseline

reserves
This

conwlrlion

8rock rlmo Brig Full --------------"__

Figure

oQ_,_mo

l*O..S)..lln. I moverOGE
:
I ,.o_.m.
___._J
I

6oo ,m
sn. A+ _m_+
,rg,_,

OGE

,,_}

Ida

_O
14_,.

:-""

! /

n_nl_
)

operating

o-),,,o

7
[

direct

in

Long-Range
Cruise
lit
Fi nil
AI ti tude
and Wei gilt
t - 45 rain 99t4 0est
Range

R unge Cr ui
350
ktl

Oesc;ent _ W Sell Level

1""

to minimize

is shown

[9].

t.3

and industry

Ruorves
19412 U.S.

STA ATE4 C]r_

Mission

Profile

by federal

mission

- Zlm

aviation

is used

regulations

for all aircraft

for

sizing

in

this thesis.
Passenger
problems
acoustic

acceptance

in this area are the

treatment

will be subjected
turboprop

the fuselage,

obviously
internal

noise

Figure

high since the large,

noise

in the V-22.

are the amount

and number

lightly-loaded

of cabin
of blades.
rotors

gust

acoustic

for tiltrotors,

treatment,

Tiltrotor

that

cabin

passengers

to in jetliners

that a desirable
aspects

Potential

Without

are accustomed

[5] shows
Design

viability.

response.

characteristics

are more
13

to CTR

and

ride than they

1.4 from reference

than found

tip speed

important

gust response

to a less comfortable

aircraft.

internal

high

and improved

78 dB is far lower
affect

is also

noise

level of

can be adjusted
rotor

clearance

gust response

is likely

responsive

to wind

gusts

or

to
from

to be

than the

smaller

and more heavily-loaded

confirmed

by XV-15

turbulence
cruise,

was

active

flight

recorded

controls

propellers

tests where

[10].

of turboprops.

a higher

This characteristic

than normal

If a CTR rotor

design

longitudinal

leads

may have to be used to provide

to low

passengers

blade

has been
response

to

loading

in

with a smooth

ride.

IO0

90

I"0.............
(as

80
D

o,lm

aS^

70

de.)

0"

Reommende(]

ii

IJ

ch._).
(?o as^)

60
ltelicopters

lloto_nry
alrrltt

Figure

1.3.4

Key

Due
of the

needed

1.4:

used

range

Fixed

Cabin

for

to the civil noise,

Noise

Medium/Long

wing

Tiltrotor

on

current

of Various

Aircraft

Viability

considerations

military

Additional

ru.ge

aircraft

Levels

safety and economic

for the civil mission.

and

research

research

just mentioned,
tiltrotor

is required

aircraft

to develop

many
are

not

technology

by the CTR.
Areas

identified
CTR

Short

wing

Technologies

technologies

adequate

Commuter

of research

necessary,

by the C'q'RDAC

development

program.

or

at least

and the Committee

These

for High

committees

14

desirable

for
Speed

concluded

tiltrotor
Rotorcraft
research

viability

were

to guide

the

pertaining

to

meeting

federal

technology

and flight

technologies
include
or

and local regulatory

identified

developing

exceed

technology

designs

current

design

Technologies
operating

costs

represent

a barrier

associated

fixed-wing
contingency
were

to enhance

were

also

Structural

from

rotor hover

noise reduction

helicopter

efficiency

and

awareness

While

and cruise

forms

efficiency

suppression
also

that meet

developing

engine

response.

requirement

for whirl

and lowering
may

Included
drag.
to improve

to reduce
flutter

not

the vulnerability

airframe

recommended

as enhancing

systems

technologies

of transportation.
and reducing

Other

monitoring

to reduce

deemed

15

landing

performance
later

critical
These

and emergency

these

were

Other

rotor

requirements.

usage

they are necessary

conventional

with the high wing-stiffness

flight

a CTR by improving

the market,

was

and

noise

standards.

power-out

OEI

health

Low

safety

standards

ice protection,

and vibration

federal

to meet

pilot situational

critical.

top the list.

for controlled

power

benefit

reduction

to meet

recommended.

to entering

to competition

needed

and

as the most

noise

with a capability

that would

list are improving

quality.

for external
those

areas of research

and cockpit

internal

are

for higher

suggested

of a CTR

patterns

standards

stability.

the

in this
Cabin
ride
weight

Chapter

The Variable-Diameter

The

variable-diameter

advantages
modes.

over
These

are presented
given

tiltrotor

conventional
benefits

have

here briefly

in Chapter

been

Rotor

(VDTR)

tiltrotor

designs

suggested

to introduce

shown

VDTR

diameter

Fig.

the

hover

by Fradenburgh

the concepts.

2.1

has
and

numerous
cruise

and Matuska

A more

detailed

flight

[11],

and

explanation

is

3.

Figure

large

in

in both

Many

Concept

rotor.

2.1:

__

The Variable-Diameter

advantages

stem from

Disk loading

trends

Tiltrotor

Concept

the low disk loading

for various
16

aircraft

[11]

that is possible

are shown

in Figure

with a
2.2.

Low disk loading tiltrotor designswill sharemany of the advantagesof helicopters

duringvertical flight includinglow powerrequirements,low downwashvelocitiesand
goodautorotativeperformance.Eachof thesecharacteristicsimprovestiltrotor safety.
Becauseof a lower hoverpowerrequirement,a VDTR will requiresmallerenginesto
satisfy OEI operationalrequirements. This would eliminatethe need to develop
engineswith high contingencypowerlevels. Lower downwashvelocitieswill reduce
dangersto ground crew and other aircraft in landing areas. Low disk loading
combinedwith highinertia rotors will reducethe autorotativerateof descentandlead
to moreeffectiveflare
to helicopters.
hover.

A large

A benefit

interaction

(BVI)

tiltrotor

noise.

profiles

to reduce

The
speeds
drag

made

rotor does

during

noise

power

blade

conventional

tiltrotor

speed

from

during

loading

during

efficiency.
aircraft

speed

leads to a reduction

transmission

adds

tip speeds.

For

weight
vibration

avoids

the VDTR,

these
tip speed

cruise.

and

vortex

source

steeper

a two-speed

of

takeoff

in engine

penalties
reduction
17

factors

levels

while

using

during

forward

flight

Reducing

depends

reduction

only

while

lower,

by

engine
using

As a result

is limited

on

tip

contribute
propulsive

efficiency

even

rotor

of

to the transmission.

tip speed

low

compressibility

transmission.

and complexity
problems,

Both

tip speed

the

reduce

acceptable

must reduce

the design

The VDTR

during

in blade

from

tip speeds

For

or using

20 percent.

tip speeds

significant

faster

are derived

Low

RPM

and other

permit

cruise

engine

of these penalties

similar

is a reduction

be the most

also

by the small diameter.

propulsive

reducing

can

capability

departures.

of the VDTR

to higher

a high rotor

loading

which

requirements

during

an autorotation

not require

and low disk

descent

to rotor

either

two-speed

noise

possible

significantly
efficiency,

diameter

Lower

lead

to give the VDTR

of low tip speed

advantages

and

maneuvers

more

the rotor

to about
efficient
diameter

change
higher

that is possible.
blade

large rotor

loading

Other

important

and reduced

tip distance

advantages

internal

cabin noise

are reduced
levels

gust response

due

due to

to low tip speeds

and

from the fuselage.

100'
Disk loading
relative to
conventional

Far

10

helicopters
,

/_It

Wing

2.5 L

Compound
1"5= I-lelicop_

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Design cruise speed (knots)

Figure

2.1

2.2:

Disk Loading

Variable-Geometry

A variable-diameter
variable
aircraft

geometry
flying

today.

Cruise

Speed

of Various

Aircraft

Background

rotor

aircraft

vs. Design

is not such

components

Notable

examples

a radical

are widely

used

are the variable

18

idea

when

in many
sweep

one

considers

military
wings

that

and civilian

of the General

Dynamics

F-111

fighter-bomber

such as the Boeing

747.

and the high lift devices

In the F- 111 a variable

wing

take

off and landing

performance

of the aircraft

and

range

and payload.

A 56 degree

sweep

allows

2.5 while

still being

able to land at only

overcame

stability

and center

of mass and that plagued

problems

associated

concept

of sweeping

point.

Even

proven

to be one of the most

the Boeing
reduce

drag

Krueger
and

with

747,

each wing
the added

several

in forward

flaps inboard

adopt

assemblies
relative

feature

with three
to one

complexity

sections

another

Telescoping
its use

Rotor

application,
problems
helicopter,
used

the

rotors
Aircraft

for stowed

rotor

with

the advantage

a jackscrew

aerodynamically

of

devices

the

stopping

rotor

angles.

tube.

Wind

was

was

a rotor

during

to

19

outer

tests and

with the
a common
has

in the Air Force.

On

are

used

on

These

the wing

to

include

slats that lie flat when

retracted

Outboard

of the

together
both

and

flight

blade
actuator

the

increased

performance.
late

and tested

1960's

the stowed

dynamic

and

for

speeds.
section

the

mechanism

rotor

strength
compound

The TRAC
over

to explore

For

while,

flap

then separate

In the

designed

alleviate

engines,

aircraft,

either.

at high forward

tunnel

aircraft

center

F-111

applications.

design

engineers

aerodynamic

the price of added

concept

an

NASA

devices

For

helicopter

slide

at Mach

the

first deflect

system

to cruise

mechanism,

distances.

[12].

is simply

between

using

devices

the

trade-off

than

aircraft

camber

which

was drag reduction

to

rather

sweep

landing

camber

(TRAC)

point

of jetliners

to improve

variable-sweep

high-lift

are not a new

mechanism
shaped

of the

extended

and compound

advantage

associated

pivot

with variable

are found

geometry

Variable-diameter

the aircraft

shorten

at different

of variable

the aircraft

high-performance

when

the

with changing

variable-geometry

of engines

to reduce

ft of runway.

on its own

and

is used

110 kt in 2000

complexity

flight

a cambered

change

sweep

early experimental

reliable

used on the wings

rotor

an

inner

cycle

tests

demonstratedthe performancebenefitsand the feasibility of the concept[13,

Another
tiltrotor
used

variable-diameter
aircrafL

a strap

extend

rotor design

2.2

Rather

telescoped

rotor design
concept

concept

of the

a jackscrew

or unwound

the blades.

Another

into the inner

demonstrated

Possible

Most

than

that wound

or retract

this design

rotor

a drum

difference

was

blade

section.

is illustrated

Torque
tube

attached

jack

2.3.

Nut
\ _

N_,'_

blade

A 25 ft diameter
during

this design

to the drive

shaft

sections

version

ground

rotor
screw

/
/

research

similar

has focused

to the TRAC

O _t,_;rd

Jackscrew

2.3:

rotor,

for

to
of

of this

tests [ 15].

Designs

in Figure

Figure

specifically

that the outer

and retractions

variable-diameter

by an internal

developed

of the TRAC

around

Variable-Diameter

actuated

was

mechanism

700 extensions

of the current

1960's

14].

Variable-Diameter

20

Rotor

Blade

[11]

on a telescoping
rotor system.

This

The major componentsof the design are an outer blade section, a torque tube, a
jackscrew,tensionstraps,andretentionnuts. The function of the torque tube is to
carry thebladebendingmomentsandto transferbladepitch controlfrom thehubto the
outer blade. The outerbladesectionprovidesthe majority of the lift andslides over
thetorquetubeduringextensionandretraction. Thesectionis held by tensionstraps
thatresistthecentrifugalforce during rotation. The tensionstrapsarefastenedinside
the outerbladesectiontip andrun along its length into the torquetube. Inside the
torque tube the strapsare anchoredto retentionnuts threadedonto the jackscrew.
Whenthejackscrewspins, the nuts inside the torquetube
retract

the

retention

blade.

To

improve

nuts with few threads

the

lifetime

are used rather

If only one nut were used the majority

few threads

which

nuts distribute
also

used

section

to make

over

the

more threads

system

load

Even

on the retention

nuts

wear.

of the blade.

Several

if several

straps

by the first
Multiple

tension

straps

the outer

strap in its center

If the jackscrew

threads.

[16].

fail

should

or

multiple

nut with multiple

be carried

also has a tension

extend

mechanism,

load would

to reduce

fall safe.

The jackscrew

the full tensile

are
blade

capable

break

of

this strap

keep the blade attached.

Perhaps

retract

the loads

wear

and either

retraction

than a single

of the tensile

lead to excessive

will be retained.

carrying
would

would

of the

move

surprisingly,

the blades.

the jackscrew

The

the opposite

blade

by applying

this outer shaft relative

jackscrew

little

to turn.

from

extension

a clutch

to the main

Applying

direction.

torque

a brake

A rotor

the drive

mechanism

brake
drive

which,

to the upper clutch

hub with

this clutch

2.4.
21

is necessary

discussed

to an outer
shaft

shaft

rotor

to extend

in the literature
shaft.

through
causes
mechanism

actuates

The braking

bevel

gears,

the jackscrew
is shown

or

slows

causes

the

to turn in
in Figure

Hub

.
Universal

...........

] IHlilI II

Torque
.

Differentia,

Trans_

_action
ke
brake"_j_,____[__

Figure

2.4:

Variable-Diameter

An important

aspect

remain

constant.

To maintain

energy

can

diameter
which

be conserved.

rotor
rotates

actuator

direction
B relative

during

of the extension

Figure

mechanism.

at B which

extension

RPM,

2.5

system

process
angular

a simplified
blade exists

around

point

momentum
model

of

the

mass

basic dynamics

The
relative

RPM

nor kinetic

A.

From

can be written

is that the rotor

coordinate

A and moves

frame

[11]

in the xy

around

or retraction.

to point A in the nonrotating

neither

shows

The rotor

rotates

Hub Concept

and retraction

a constant

in the X Y coordinate

blade is concentrated

Rotor

variablesystem

of the outer

to A in the radial

the acceleration

of point

as

(2.1)

a B = 2f_xf+_x(f_xr)

22

The first termrepresentstheCoriolisaccelerationwhich is tangentialwhile the second

is thecentripetalaccelerationin theradialdirection. The tangentialaccelerationis in the
directionof rotation during extensionand opposite rotation during retraction. To
producethe tangentialaccelerationnecessaryfor blade retraction and extension a
torquemustbeapplied to the rotor system. The torquerequireddoesnot necessarily
haveto comefrom the drive shaft. For instance,in retractiona diameterreductionat
constantRPM implies thatbladekinetic energy must drop. If the efficiencyof the
brakeanddifferentialmechanismusedto retractthe rotors is chosenproperly, the rate
of energy dissipation of this systemcan balancethe kinetic energy drop and no
externaltorqueneedbeapplied[11]. In extensionthis is not thecase. For a constant
RPM, tangentialvelocity must increaselinearly with the rotor radius. Therefore,
kinetic energymustbe addedto the system. Most if not all of the torquerequired
could besuppliedby aerodynamicforceson theblade.

Figure

2.5:

Simple

Model

of the Variable-Diameter

23

Rotor

Althoughthejackscrewdesignhas beenstudiedextensively,it is not the only

design

to consider.

The jackscrew

nuts will experience

tests

on

the jackscrew

withstand
[14],

1000

jackscrew

be

and

system

life

required

wear,

basic

structure
There

cutout

helicopter
design

is produced

on rotor

thrust.

operate
between

blade

section

in tension.

the outer blade

torsion

loads

while

[15]

nuts

available

at the time

advantages

of the

the nuts and screw

BaUscrew

mechanisms
feature

presence

provides

of

Furthermore,
loss in figure

operates

feature

an additional

and torque
functioning

tube.

the blade,

in addition

to the extension

is the large

blade

radius.

However,

test of rotors
of merit

problem

[17].

since

root cutout.

with even
Another

is also

between

about

Root

A typical

90 percent

the root cutout

whereas

This junction

24

the

In the variable-diameter

half of the blade,

as a joint

means

used to actuate

design

of the rotor

in compression
design

may

unsteady

of the blade that is not part of the airfoil.

by the outer

could

solution.

to the rotor

10 percent

A difficult

retention

between

in the

retention
Mechanical

A self-locking

of the mechanism

aspects

bear.

The

retraction.

diameter

be as high as 40 percent.

only a small percent

the outer

and

could

during

to be a good

portion

is about

the

to achieve.

mechanism

One significant

to the inboard

the lift in hover

small effect

appears

mechanism.

root cutout

strap

Regardless

unique

that

and friction

blade

must

with the materials

be difficult

energy

the associated

they

they are not self-locking.

reeled

control.

the cutout

show

The

are several

refers

may

and

loads

indicated

cycles

a constant

of the rotor

and retraction

extension

however,

loading.

for blade diameter

tensile

in 1976

rotor kinetic

to maintain

aerodynamic

mechanism

are that it is self locking

to dissipate

eliminate

to the high

mechanism

mechanism

are available

due

retention

but a long

would

wear

is a heavy

feature

conventional
presented

must
two

bear

has only a

50 percent

unique

by

cutouts
is that

blades

all

the junction

high axial,

different

of

shaped

bending
blade

sections. Sincethe blademust slide freely over the torque tube, the blade can only
havea linear twist andlittle if anytaper. The outer blade tip is on only part of the
bladethatcanbetaperedor sweptto improve aerodynamicperformance.

2.3

Recent

Variable-Diameter

A significant
concept

including

real-time
noise

amount

signatures

passenger

of 6 VDTR

acoustic

analysis

and

showed

that

footprint

requirements.

38,600

lb aircraft

performed

[19].

demonstrating

merit
VDTR
Figure.

of 600

Later,

the aeroelastic

in any flight

is only degraded

tiltrotors

performance

used

was

payload

a 1/6

external
were

of 300 kt at 25,000

acoustic

prediction

due

lower

semi-span

model
during

Furthermore,
by rotor

the

mission.

root

characteristics

climb

designed

the

with

over conventional

m was
of

hover

and

no instabilities

that hover

cut out (see Fig.

for a

purpose

conversion,

concept

test verified

for

ft.

sound

to lower

test of a rotor

30

system

to fly the same

predicted

of the VDTR

25

interactive

The designs

a significantly

tunnel

of a VDTR

2.7).

An

VDTR

and a 600 nmi, 300 kt, at 7,500

scale

the feasibility

gust response

also

wind

performance

mode.

speed

designed

the

to investigate

[18].

had

on

studies.

performed

configurations

by a few percent

will have improved

was

performed

design

performance

a reduced-scale

test

and

with the ROTONET

with a 36 passenger
This

tests

been

nmi and a cruise

than the conventional

A takeoff

Research

already

A takeoff

performed

This test demonstrated

encountered

tunnel

variable-diameter

Category

power

cruise.

was

has

configurations

with a range

The

Improved

wind

and OEI Category

aircraft

exposure

of research

simulations,

simulation

Rotor

2.6)

figure
and

designs

of

that a
(see

0.8
0.7
n ol o
=_

0.6

IJ.

i/
uu/

a)

OI

0.5

>

o
.r"

"4t
0.3
0.2

Corrected

Uncorrected

-----

-_,,:
, .........
0.02 0.04

0.06

0.08

to Zero

Vel

FM

EHPIC Prediction

0.1

0.12

I
0.14

(CT/a)*

Figure:

2.6:

Wind

Tunnel

Results

for VDTR

Figure

of Merit

[19]

0.40
ut

0.35

Conventional

80

0.30-

__ 0.25-

%RPM

Rotor

Vari

0.15i

abl

Diameter

Rotor

0.200.10 -

0.05 -

Test

0.00
0

a
100

Data

J
200

,
300

400

Forward Speed, kts

Figure:

2.7:

VDTR

vs. Conventional

Response

26

to a 30 fps Wind

Gust [19]

The baselineVDTR designwaslatermodifiedto incorporateNASA Short Haul (Civil

Tiltrotor) SH(CT) guidelineswhich includea 40passengercapacity,a cruisespeedof
350 kt at 25,000 ft anda rangeof 600 nmi. New rotor designswereexplored with
airfoils designedspecificallyfor tiltrotor aircraft[20]. A dualpoint optimizerwas also
developedto simultaneouslyoptimizetherotor designfor hover andcruise [21]. The
dual point optimizer was created from an existing single point optimizer, the
EI-IPIC/HERO (Evaluation of Hover-Performanceusing Influence Coefficients/
HelicopterRotorOptimizer)designtool. Severaldesignsinvestigatedshow a much
highercruiseefficiencythanconventionaltiltrotor designs. The calculatedfiguresof
merit were only slightly lower for the VDTR than conventionaldesigns and the
correspondinghoverpower loading(thrust/hp)was on theorder of 30 percentbetter
for the VDTR duetoits inherentlower disk loading.

2.4

Variable-Diameter

Certainly

complexity

Rotor

is a major

the complexity

of any aircraft

a demonstrated

reliability

As

seen

demonstrated,
the drive

component

chapters,

over conventional

While

the

reliability

the concepts

system.

runs through
or helicopters.

of

Testing

should
a clearly

rotors
a

already

be avoided
needed

for 40 passenger

large,

rotor

the component

has

in performance.

does

rotor

has

complex

and the interconnecting

to the tiltrotor

rotor and model-scale

27

Increasing

provide

a clear

civil tiltrotors.

and hub axe no more

add complexity

on the TRAC

unless

variable-diameter

tilt mechanism

design.

improvement

the variable-diameter

for the rotor

The nacelle

the wings

issue in the variable-diameter

and provides

in the following

improvement

Complexity

not found

not
than
drive

yet

been

the rest of
shaft

that

in turboprops

tests of a variable-diameter

filtrotor havedemonstrated
thatthe designis feasible. Another
the actual

diameter-change

flight

since

high

reliability

transmission
prove

a typical

conversion

required

or flight

of

control

that the complexity

that is not possible

mechanism

is only

used

only

lasts 20-40

aircraft

components

system

will be less

of the variable-diameter

to simply

disregard

the concept

too complex.

28

important

for a very

seconds.
in

While

is acceptable,

based

is that

portion

Therefore,

continual

difficuh.
rotor

small

point

of the

achieving

the

use

such

the

none

of these

as

facts

they do indicate

on the assumption

that it is

Chapter

Advantages

3.1

of a Variable-Diameter

Rotor System

Introduction

A variable-diameter
tiltrotor

aircraft.

of a rotor

modes

rotor could

These

optimized

reasons

to be explained

several

of the

modes.

Solidity,

not

twist

percent

mode.

autorotative

Improved

cruise.

The

rotor

and taper
between

more

design

than

disk

must

twenty

within
area).

and

tip speed

design

more

areas

performance,

include
external

response.

29

internal

power
noise

for

but,

for

In contrast,
flight

is defined

as

change

is no

The result

is that

like a rotor specifically

the hover
and

constant

between

(solidity

with rotor diameter.

to be

cruise,

change

limits
The

process

in both flight

remain

since it changes
performs

design

percent.

can

in

conditions

of the parameters

hover

parameters

may all change

rotor

performance

the majority

can vary

blade area to the rotor

to twenty

and

twist

by much

and diameter

variable-diameter

for each flight

efficiency,

later,

inherent

the fact that the operating

rotor,

sweep,

tip speed

variable-diameter

the ratio of the rotor

the optimized

solidity,

The rotor

compromises

so that a reasonable

With a fixed-geometry

modes.

limited

for hover

optimization

such as diameter,

both flight

the performance

stem from

different

a dual point

is achieved.

reduce

compromises

are significantly

must involve

longer

designed

requirement,
levels,

cruise
and

gust

3.2

Advantages

During
overcome

hover

this

represents

rotor

thrust

An

rotor

conservation
Figure

3.1.

momentum

is to provide

drag of an aircraft.

of induced

and

that the rotor imparts

required

advantage
power

a large

of the

The total power

profile

power.

to the wake

to overcome

of thrust

to

required

to

Induced

viscous

drag
rotor

forces
is that

that act on
it requires

design.

power

and

can be estimated

as a solid
airstream

of mass,

form

produced

momentum

disk which

a closed

momentum

The thrust
imparted

actuator

using

accelerates

system

and energy

apply.

by the flowing

theory.

mass

over

For

a mass
which

This

this calculation

of air downward.
the

concept

of air is equal

principles

of

is illustrated

in

to the change

in

to the air by the rotor disk:

T = rhAv

Since

mass

points

must

power

flow field per unit time.

variable-diameter

than a conventional

amount

Power

the rotor is treated

The

energy

less induced

Induced

and vertical

is the power

blades.

Induced

of a rotor

is composed

power

significantly

3.2.1

weight

the kinetic

The profile

Hover

the function

the gross

produce

the

in

must

be conserved

be constant.

Thus,

(3.1)

in the closed
the mass flow

to the flow past 1 or

30

system,
between

the mass
locations

flow

through

any two

0 and 2 is equivalent

(3.2)

rh = pAv

0
VO

VI

V2

Figure

In hover
system

the air far above

3.1:

Momentum

the rotor

Theory

has zero velocity

Control

Volume

so the change

in velocity

over

the

is
Av = (v_ - vo) = v 2

Combining

these equations

the rotor thrust

(3.3)

becomes

T = pAviv 2

(3.4)

31

The velocities v 1 and v2 may be relatedby applying the conservationof energy

betweenlocationsI and2. The work doneper unit time by the rotor is equivalentto
thechangein kineticenergyperunit time impartedto theslipstreamor

Tv1=

Combining
locations

Eq. 3.2,

Eq.

(3.5)

3.4

and

Eq.

3.5

the relationship

between

the velocities

I and 2 becomes

v2 = 2v !

From

this relationship

the thrust

(3.6)

can be rewritten

as

T = 2pAv_

Note that v_ is the velocity

called

at

the induced

velocity.

imparted
From

(3.7)

to the wake

flow

Eq. 3.7 the induced

field

by the rotor

velocity

can be written

vi = _T2pA

The induced

power

is just the thrust times

disk,

and it is
as

(3.8)

the induced

32

velocity

or

Pi = _ _pp

(3.9)

whereD.L. is the disk loadingdefined

as

D.L. = _

In the following
the thrust,

discussion

torque

(3.10)

it is convenient

and power.

Therefore

to use standard

the following

nondimensional

coefficients

forms

of

are defined:

T
C T = P-_R2 )"-'R_
t s"
2

(3.11)

Q
CQ = pr_R2(flR)2R

(3.12)

(3.13)

Cp = p_R2(_.2R)3

Since

P = Qf_ the torque

The

induced

these coefficients

and power

power

calculated

in momentum

from

are equivalent.

momentum

theory

can

be rewritten

with

as

Cp,

The power

coefficients

calculated
theory.

C_

(3.14)

here is less than the actual

These

include

non-uniform
33

induced
inflow

power

due to losses

to the rotor,

neglected

rotation

of the

wake and lossesat the bladetips. The inducedpower calculatedfrom momentum

theory is alsoknown as the ideal power. It is ideal in that all losseshave been
ignored. Typically, for a helicopter,the actualinducedpower is 10-20 percentmore
thanthe idealpower [22]. The true inducedpowercanbewritten as

Cp,= 1-_-

whereK is
From
the rotors.

some empirically

maximum
fuselage

determined

correction

Eq. 3.9 it is seen that the induced

For a tiltrotor

half of the aircraft

loading

(3.15)

because

in hover,

gross
they

diameter

weight.

have

a large

factor.

power

is set by the hover

the disk loading

is defined

by Eq.

Variable-diameter

designs

are capable

rotor diameter

in hover.

of a conventional

rotor

is set

by the

As seen

la

_D_
v

3.2:

Conventional

Tiltrotor

34

3.10

Tip Clearance

where

of a low

in Fig.

requirement

by a safe distance.

Figure

disk loading

of
T is
disk

3.2,

the

to clear

the

In contrast,a safe rotor-fuselageclearanceis maintainedfor the variable-diameter

designbecausethe rotor diameterdecreases
during the conversionto forward flight.
As illustratedin Fig. 3.3,the only requirementon the hover diameteris that the rotors
clearoneanotherby somesafedistance.

Figure3.3: Variable-Diameter
Tiltrotor Tip Clearance

The differencein disk loading and requiredpower is significant, particularly for a

forty-passengersize tiltrotor. For example, with a rotor tip clearanceof 2 ft, a
fuselagediameterof 9 ft and a 54 fl wing span, a conventionalrotor could have a
diameterof 41 feet. For the sameaircraftdimensionswith a 1 ft. clearancebetween
rotor tips, the variable-diameter
rotor could havea diameterof 53 feet. If the gross
weightof bothaircraftwereabout45,000lbs, thedisk loadingof thevariable-diameter
designwould beabout10psfcomparedto 17 psf for the conventionaldesign. From
Eq. 3.9,the correspondingidealpowerrequirementfor eachconventionalrotor would
be 2450 hp comparedto only 1900hp for eachvariable-diameterrotor. The 12 ft
35

increasein diameterwould thereforeleadto a 30 percentdecreasein idealpower for

the samerotor thrust.

3.2.2

Figure

of

The profile
accounted
measure
which

power

and

for by a factor
of rotor hover

the helicopter

figure of merit
actual

Merit

power

3.10 to form

all other power

known

hover

written

It is defined
to the actual

is the ratio of the ideal power

required

after

the induced

all losses

power,

F.M. =

where

as the figure

efficiency.

could

losses

P is the actual

power

using the coefficients

ignored

of merit.

calculated

of merit

hover

figure

from

theory

Therefore,

momentum

theory

can be expressed

Eq.

for
the

to the

3.9 and

Eq.

as

T_

(3.16)

required.

A dimensionless

defined

F.M. = -_C

is a

power

to hover.

By combining

are

of merit

of the minimum

required

are included.

the figure

The

as the ratio
power

in momentum

form of this expression

can be

in Eq. 3.11-3.13:

(3.17)

where

(3.18)

36

The term CQorepresentsthe profile torque (or power) required to drag the rotors
throughtheviscousatmosphere.
For a giventhrustrequirementin hover(grossweight + download)anda given
rotor diameter,the figure of merit dependson inducedlossesandon theprof'iledragof
the rotor blades. The sourcesof inducedloss havealreadybeendiscussed. Skin
friction, flow separationandcompressibilityeffectsall contributeto theprofile drag.
The torquerequiredto overcomethis drag can be substantial,particularlywhen the
inboardportion of the rotor operatesaboveits stall angleof attackor when the blade
tips operateabovetheir dragdivergencespeed.All of thelossesatthe rotor dependon
the detailsof the actualrotor designsuchassolidity, twist, taperandtip speed.
To seehow bladedesignaffectsfigureof merit considerthe forcesactingon an
airfoil cross-sectionasdepictedin Figure3.4.

dLl_

] dT

dQ _--_.-

Figure

The incremental

3.4:

Forces

Acting

lift and drag produced

on an Airfoil

by this airfoil

37

During

is given

by

Hover

= c,pV .cdr

(3.18)

dD = lcdPVRcdr

where

c is the element

coefficient

defined

chord

length,

(3.19)

V R is the inflow

velocity

and

c_ is the element

as

ct = a(0-_)

Here

a is the lift curve

smaller

slope

than the tangential

(3.20)

of the airfoil.

velocity

Since

the induced

(D.r), the following

velocity

assumptions

(vi) is much

are justified:

V R -- f_r,

(3.21)

cosO=

(3.22)

1,

sin _ = 0,

(3.23)

vi

Based

on these

lift

assumptions

the differential

(3.24)

thrust

and torque

dT=

1 OCt (D.r)2cdr
-_

dQ=

1 pc(t'_r)2 (ct_ + c d)rdr

acting

on the airfoil

are

(3.25)

38

(3.26)

The total thrust and torqueare determinedby integratingtheseequationsalong the

lengthof eachrotor blade. The integrationis difficult becausethe chord, inflow angle
andlift anddragcoefficientsareall functionsof radius. Even withoutperforming the
integrationthe equationsillustratethe key factorsaffectingfigure of merit. Theseare
the chorddislributionalongthe blade,the lift curveslopeand dragof the airfoils and
thebladeangleof attackateachradialstation.
Caremustbe takenwhencomparingthefigure of merit directlyfor conventional
and variable-diametertiltrotors. This is becausefor both designs rotor design
parameterscannot be chosenfreely due to cruise performanceconsiderations. The
figureof merit canvary widely dependingon the amountthatpropulsiveefficiency is
compromised.Thevariable-diameter
rotor figureof merit is penalizedby the presence
of the torquetubesparandthe lineartwist constraint. The spar cross-sectionhas a
symmetricairfoil shapewhichmusthavea relativelyhigh thicknessto chord ratio for
structuralreasons.In hover,thelineartwist requirementleadsto high anglesof attack
on outerportion of this sparwhich causethe spar to stall. The correspondingrise in
profile dragandlossin lift will reducethe thrust andincreasetheprof'detorqueof the
rotor. The overall impacton figure of merit is diminishedto someextentby the fact
thatthe sparhas a lower chordandcorrespondingareaand thus producesless drag
when stalled. In general,the figure of merit of a variable-diameterrotor will be
slightly lower than that of a conventionalrotor while the oppositeis true for the
propulsive efficiency. This trend can be seenin Fig. 3.5 which is based on data
generatedfrom anEHPIC/HEROanalysispresentedin reference[21].

39

0._.

opdmized
0.81

0.80

0.79

0.79,

0.77'

0,76.

0.75

0,82

0,80

0._4

0._90.881

0.90

11p

Figure

3.2.3

3.5:

Figure

Rotor.Airframe

Interactions
on the

hover

between
download
rotor

that must
wing

be lifted

induced

power.

by

rotors

difference
difficult

Trend

forces

a tiltrotor,

on the wing

between

a conventional

impinges

the gross

rotor

wake

For

take

on

weight

the

place
wing

of the aircraft

can

of the

increase

the benefits

all of these

of the

the presence

which

however,

effect

in momentum

download,

is achieved,

requirements.

a significant

interactions

and a change

of the rotor

speed

the power

wake

to producing

a recirculation

can have

important

is to increase

In addition

some forward

will reduce

and the airframe

the

of side

reasons,

and a variable-diameter

the

rotor

is

to quantify.

A critical
washed

causes

in download

Efficiency

As the rotor

of this download

in hover.

Once

For

and rotor.

by drag

The effect

and fuselage

side

fuselage

is produced

wake.

the rotor wake

requirement.

the wing,

vs. Propulsive

Interactions

between

power

of Merit

factor

by the rotor

in the download

is the ratio

wake

area

to the

disk

40

of the

of the rotor.

equivalent
This

fact

fiat
can

plate
be

area

shown

following a short discussionby McCormick [23].

Equivalentflat plate area is a

relativemeasureof dragdefinedas

fv = D_...._._
q

(3.27)

whereDvis theverticaldragforceandq is the dynamicpressurein the wake. In this

case,f_ is an areawith a C__= 1 that producesthe sameverticaldrag as the actual
wing. Assumingtherotor wakeis fully developedanduniform, the downloadcan be
writtenas
T
D, = f,-_-

(3.28)

sincefrom Eq. 3.6 and3.8 q = T/A. The total thrustrequiredin hoveris the aircraft
grossweight plus thedownloadwhich is

T=

(3.29)

Basedon this analysis,a low downloadwouldbeexpectedof a variable-diameterrotor

dueto thelargedisk area.The increasein disk areashouldbegreaterthan the increase
in equivalentflat plateareasincetheflat plateareavarieswith R, andthe disk loading
varieswith R2.
Due to the complex
oversimplification.

nature

In actuality

of tiltrotor

download

the equivalent

41

the preceding

flat plate area depends

analysis
on more

may be an
than just

the wing areawashedby the rotor wake. The velocity in the wake is distributed
unevenlybecauseof the high twist requiredin tiltrotor bladedesigns. Also, flow
patternsdue to the presenceof the fuselagekeep much of the wake from simply
flowing pastthe wing andcausingdrag.
Testsof a 2/3 scaleV-22 rotor, wing and imageplanedescribedin Ref. [24]
haveshown thatdownloadin tiltrotors is dueto both chordwiseand spanwiseflow
alongthe wing. Thechordwiseflow occursnearthe wing tip while the spanwiseflow
is foundon the inboardwing sections. The chordwiseflow falls off of the wings at
the trailing edgeandcausesa dragforce
dividing
method

the wing

into N panels

the download

and

on the wing.

adding

from the chordwise

D v = C D_

This

force

the contribution

flow is equivalent

can be calculated

of each

panel.

by

By this

to

Aiq i

(3.30)

i--I

where

_ and qi are the area and dynamic

of the wing in the chordwise

at 90 degrees

incidence

The majority

where

the flow

it meets

flow region.

is about

off the wing.

the other

plane

of symmetry,

prevents

from

spreading

creates
referred
turned

a fountain

that flows

to as the fountain
by the wings

and image

rotor.

When

the wing
the

flows

back

towards

is equivalent

42

on the ith panel

for a wing

section

flow

not fall

caused

does

toward
from

in the

the rotors.

two

The
image

This

by the spanwise

to the total change

the fuselage
the

with the fuselage.

in all directions

The download
plane

the spanwise

along

they interact

equally

upwards,

effect.

travels

acting

drag coefficient

In contrast,

of this flow

from

of the wake

A typical

1.4 [25].

meet at the aircraft

the flow

pressure

rotors

fuselage
plane

and

is commonly
flow

as it is

in momentum

of

theflow asit is turned180degrees. If little or no lossesare assumedto occur as the

flow is turned,the changein momentumis equivalentto the original momentumflux
in thewake. This flux is simply

D,, = q,A,

(3.31)

whereq,andA, arethe averagedynamicpressureandtheareaof the wakeinvolved in

the spanwiseflow.
Predictingthe relative downloadof variable-diameterand conventionalrotors
basedon this model is difficult.

The relative size of the rotor wake producing

chordwiseandspanwiseflow wasfoundto vary with rotor operatingconditionsandk

is also expectedto vary with different aircraft configurations [24].

In addition,

downloadwas found to increasewith Cr as the highestvelocityportion of the wake

shiftedinto the spanwiseflow region. This trendis shownin Fig. 3.6.

.12
O
.10
.08
.,J .06
Q
.04
.02
l

.002

.004

.006

.008

.010

.012

.014

'

.016

.018

.020

CT

Figure

3.6:

Download

vs. C r for a V-22 Tiltrotor

43

[24]

A low disk loadingvariable-diameter

rotor will havea lower inducedvelocity andthis
velocity will be distributed on the outer part of the rotor for a range of operating
conditions. Thesefactors would indicatea decreasein download due to a lower
momentumflux in the wake and a concentrationof the high-velocity wake in the
spanwiseflow region. However,theeffecta variable-diameterdesignwill haveon the
relative size of the spanwiseand chordwiseflow region is unknown.
unknown

is the effect

during

hover.

vortex

in the comer

to decrease

power.

Since

fountain

of the wing

thrust

of the wing

the wings

which

the wake

Figure

3.7 shows

Experimental
approximately
interference
involved

data

due

of the variable-diameter

rotor

the advance

this power
plotted

in this

figure

for a lateral
shaft

spacing

in power

is defined

show

shaft

is forward

reduction

design

44

largely

likely

that

spacing

was

found

balanced

by

the induced

further

the closely

of lateral

inboard

on

design,

the

be less.

In

a reduction

spaced

rotors.

shaft spacing.

induced

power

is reduced

of 2.05

rotor

radii.

2.5

radii.

The

For a shaft spacing

is experienced

as

ring,

and reduced

would

power

of a standing

will also experience

approaches

speed.

induced

of a conventional

between

as a function

was

will extend

penalty

interference

reduction

as

ratio

power

the

to a vortex

plane

than the wake

and the induced

in the interference

where

velocity

on

the presence

This effect

ground

to a positive

have

similar

[24].

the variable-diameter

disappears

the maximum

1.6 percent

a lower

22 percent

radii,

plane,

as a partial

hover mode,
power

would

tests of the V-22,

and image

acted

may be diminished

in induced

spacing

model

by about

and will have

a low-speed

rotor

In the large-scale

rotor

the benefit

decreased

Another

between

at an advance

by

The positive
other

factor

2.0 and 2.5

ratio

of 0.09,

V
l.t= _
Vup

At zero forward
0.20

[26].

Since

about 2.05 radii,

in the hover
scenarios
typical

speed

the benefits

disappear

the variable-diameter
the induced

mode.

while

(3.32)

This

the

conventional

power

should

effects

will

a shaft

ratios

have

while

to find

spacing

about

spacing

of

at low-speeds

helpful

a suitable

near

above

a shaft

operating

be particularly

the aircraft

will have

will likely

be reduced

reduction

maneuvers

design

little or no interference

rotor concept

power

pilot

as they do for advance

during

landing

or above

2.5

OEI

area.
radii

where

are experienced.

2.0 _

Couim!

P(tw|n).

P (i,o,,,.d)

x F.ctor

Induced
Power
Fmctor
(Mmzlmum)

.....

.........
---

1.o ,
0.0

i
!

_
O.S

1.0
Loterel

Figure

3.7:

Considering
quantify
hover
quantify

Beneficial

all the factors

the net impact

power.

Interference

There

the anticipated

rotor

1 .S

|hoft

Effects

that influence

and wing

|pelng

are several

potential

download

reduction.

download

benefits.

45

2.0

2.S

(redll)

for Low Rotor

interactions

!1 '

Shaft

Spacing

in tiltrotors,

would

have

Further

on

[26]

it is difficult

to

variable-diameter

testing

is required

to

3.2.4

Summary

Clearly

over a higher

power

merit.

Hover

Benefits

the variable-diameter

performance
induced

of

more

power

power

reduction

loading

than compensates

The download

hover

disk

requirement
translates

Advantages

During

variable-diameter

cruise

A higher

because

propulsive

improves

comfort.

Both

3.3.1

Rotor

drive

shaft.

at a given

The useful
flight speed.

The

significantly

that may exist

As a result
lower

for a given

engine

an advantage

over

in hover

of these

lower

in figure
benefits,

of
the

for the VDTR.

The

size or a reduction

in

has

efficiency

fuel consumption,
advantages

are

conventional

and reduced

gust response,

and a reduced
attributable

designs

to a

gust response
higher

blade

rotor in cruise.

Propulsive

efficiency

design.

as 30 percent

rotor propulsive
reduces

of the variable-diameter

Propulsive

also

efficiency

loading

improvement

Cruise

rotor

of higher

passenger

to be less.

into more payload

3.3

a large

for any differences

may be as much

size for the same payload.

during

represents

conventional

is also expected

engine

The

design

Efficiency

is the ratio of the useful

power
Written

is simply

the power

mathematically

46

power

to the power

required

to produce

propulsive

efficiency

input from
a certain

is

the

thrust

TV
rip= p

(3.33)

whereP is thetotal powerinput andTV is theusefulpower. This equationcanalsobe

written in termsof the nondimensionalcoefficientsdefinedin Eq. 3.11 - 3.13 (xecall
CQ= Cp):

rip =

where

Ix is an advance

affect

efficiency,

shown
direction

in Figure

(3.34)

ratio defined

consider
3.8.

l.tc_

The

can be expressed

in Equation

two blade
forces

elements

acting

3.32.
operating

on these

To understand
with

elements

high

the forces
and

in the thrust

low

that

RPM

and

as

torque

as

dT = dLcos-

(3.35)

dD sin @

and
dQ = dLsin

(3.36)

+ dDcos

where

COS_)

"-"

--,
_

sin0p = _V

VR

v i

VR

47

(3.37)

'dT

Figure

If the very small

3.8:

induced

Forces

Acting

velocity

on Airfoils

(vi) is ignored,

in the Cruise

the airfoil

Flight

efficiency

Mode

can be written

dT
rip = --tan#
dQ

From
inflow

this equation

it is evident

and the integrated

With

a conventional

(3.38)

that the factors

lift and drag across

rotor, the blade

as

affecting

propulsive

are the

for hover

are too

the rotor blades.

area and tip speed

48

efficiency

required

high for the rotor to

operate

compromise

of the cruise

is a result

the hover

value.

speed

or blade

ratio.

This ratio

at its best

To provide
area,

have

is really just

a thrust

shortly,

speed.
high
thrust

ratio.

To improve
hover

portion

cruise

of reduced

The
calculated

increase
from

can be expressed

ten percent

of

a corresponding

drop

thrust

to solidity

referenced

addition

coefficient

to blade

a low

condition

propulsive

area

in tip

rather

the rotor
of the flight

an associated

rotor

blade

an experimentally

referred

RPM by about
drag

profile

sections

than

determined
of the difference

49

which

tiltrotors

10 percent.

due

the rotor

An equally

rotational

velocities

leads

reduces

to

the rotor

tip speed
efficiency

from

the

is possible

Cr/o.

to compressibility

in the helical

follow

divergence.

Higher

compressibility

actually

also

reduce

rotor

is more

and their own

of these

to as drag

and a higher

torque

CT/o)

efficiency.

velocity

in drag

conventional

compressibility
in rotor

rise

(low

due to air compressibility

of the blade the combination

efficiency,

as a function

loaded

is that drag

This is commonly

value by reducing

because

and

thus,

In cruise

by the vector

numbers

to torque

and

tip speeds.

On the outer
tip Mach

ratio

in a lightly

for tip speed reduction

path defined

only about

design

(3.39)

important

helical

at a low

This

to torque

with high

without

coefficient

has a low thrust

significant

being

flight.

as

to be explained

reason

thrust

to operate

C a.
T
-o- = pAb(_R)

For reasons

in forward

thrust requirement

such a small

the blades

disk area and is defined

efficiency

drag
Math

effects
factor.
number,

can

This

be

factor

(M.75) and

thedragdivergenceMachnumber(M_) attherotor 75 percentradius[27]:

1+

42.51(M.75

- MDD) 2 + 3476(M._5

- MDD) 4, MDD > M.75_

(3.40)

1, Moo < M.75

where
(3.41)

To

account

multiplied
speed.

for compressibility
by ft.

This curve

of 350 kt at 25,000

Figure

3.9

is based

effects,
shows

the rotor

subsonic

the compressibility

on an example

41 ft rotor

profile
factor

operating

torque

as a function
with

a forward

ft.

1.5
A: MDo = 0.63

B: MDo = 0.65

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

36O

400

440

480

520

560

cruise tip speed (fps)

Figure

3.9:

Rotor

Compressibility
50

is simply

Drag Factor

600

of

tip

speed

The relationship betweentip speed, Cr/o and propulsive efficiency is less

obvious. This is becauseif thrustis held constantandtip speedis reduced,It,
and Cdo
relative
show

all increase.
magnitudes

that rip does

developed
closely

coefficient

efficiency

of these

changes.

indeed

by Schoen
with

The

and McVeigh

experimental

acting

increases

data

could

increase

A simple
as Cr/o

on tiltrotor

momentum

increases

of Boeing

or decrease

with

on the rotor blade can be defined

theory

can

tip speed.

Helicopters,

cruise

depending

has been

efficiency

[27].

on

the

be used

to

This

theory,

shown
The

Ci/o

to agree

total

torque

as

C 2

(3.42)

CQ = Co,.,.+ PCr + "_

2it
where

(3.43)

The

coefficient

determined
Equation
example

Co., is the

experimentally.
3.40.

These

41 ft rotor

propulsive
in efficiency

which

rotor

profile

torque

The compressibility
equations

were

has a solidity

used

coefficient
drag

efficiency

with Cr/C_ for a fixed tip speed.

due

blade loading

to increased

factor

which

(f_) was

the following

Figure

(increased

51

scaling

to generate

of 0.144.

in hover

3.10

shows

be

defined

in

plots

for

the

the increase

in

This is the well known

thrust).

can

Similarly,

increase
Fig.

3.11

shows the change

in _p with CT/a at a constant

thrust.

0.94

A:

CQo = .00013

0.9

B:

CQo = .00017

0.88

C:

Coo = .00020

0.92

0.86
o. 0.84
0.82

0.8
0.78

0.76

0.74
0.72

0.03

0.02

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

'

'

0.08

0.09

CT/C
Figure

3.10:

"qp vs. CT/_ for a Constant

Tip Speed

0.94

A:

CQO = .00013

0.9

B:

Cqo = .00017

0.88

C:

Cqo = .00020

0.92

0.86
=, 0.84

0.82
0.8

0.78

constant

thrust

0.76

C
0.74
0.72

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

C-r/<_
Figure

3.11: TIp vs. C-r/<_ at Constant

52

Thrust

0.09

0.1

In this casethe efficiencyincreaseis solely dueto decreasein tip speed. In the former
caseefficiencyincreasesbecauseCT increasesfasterthan CQ. In the latter caseCQ
actuallyincreasesfasterthanCr becausethe higherinflow tilts the lift vector in the
torquedirection. The efficiencyonly increasesbecausethe growth of I.tout-pacesthe
decreasein Cr/CQ. So,althoughthe in-planecomponentsof thelift anddrag actingon
the rotor increase,areductionin f2Rreducesthe powerrequirement.
For a fixed geometryrotor, the only way to reducethe tip speedis to reduce
rotor RPM. This canbeaccomplishedthroughthetransmissionor by reducingengine
turbine speed.Both methodshavelimitationsandassociatedpenalties. Drive system
weight is increasedif the transmissionmustperformthe RPM reduction. On the other
hand, reducingthe turbine speedreducesengineefficiency. Typical engineshavea
quadraticdrop-offin powerasturbinespeedis variedfrom theoptimum. In practiceit
appearsthatdueto vibrationproblems,the ratio of cruisetip speedto hover tip speed
cannot bemuchlessthan0.84which is the V-22 value.
Reducingtip speedby varying rotor diameteris a much better way to increase
C.r/G.Onereasonis thatC_n,/o
variesfasterwith R thanwith f2 since

CT _
T
.-_ (t2R)2R

At the

same

with an RPM
depends

time a diameter
reduction.

on the amount

change

(3.44)

avoids

the engine

The amount

of tip speed

of diameter

change
53

efficiency

reduction

possible

rather

reduction

is also less
than

associated

limited

the RPM

since
reduction

it

possible. Diameterreductionscorrespondingto a tip speedratio of 0.66 havebeen

demonstrated
in scaledmodeltesting[13, 19].
With eitherrotor type,properbladedesignchoicesmustbe madein conjunction
with tip speedreductionto ensurehigh efficiency. Returningto the bladeelement
picturesin Fig. 3.8,it is seenthatincreasingthe advanceratio by a tip speedreduction
tilts the lift vectorin thetorquedirection. To avoid the associatedefficiencypenalties,
bladeareaandtwist must be chosenso that the blade spanwiseloading distribution
minimizesthe amountof torquedueto lift. Aspointedout by Dadone,Liu, Wilkerson
andAcreein high-speed-proprotor
studies,simply designingthe bladesto operateat
maximumL/D doesnot suffice [28].
The tiltrotor bladetwist distributionis a compromisebetweenhover andcruise
requirements.In cruise,the inboardportionsof the bladeshouldbe highly twistedin
order to avoid large negativeanglesof attack. This is in conflict with the hover
requirement.In hovera high inboardtwist will causethesesectionsto stall, reducing
figure of merit. For a variable-diameter
rotor, compromisesin bladetwist arenot as
significant. The inboardportion of this rotor consistsof the torquetube which hasa
smallareaandproduceslessdragwhen stalledin hover. Also, this rotor operatesat
higheradvanceratios in cruise so the differencesin inflow along the length of the
bladesarenot aspronouncedandlessbladetwist is required. A simple lineartwist on
the outerbladesection,which workswell in hover,is alsoadequatefor cruise.
Althoughthe cruiseefficienciesof conventionalrotors arenot poor, they arenot
as high as is possiblewith a variable-diameter
rotor. Limits on RPM reductionand
associatedpenaltiespreventa conventionalrotor from operating in a Cr/a rangethat
correspondsto the highest efficiencies. In contrast the variable-diameterrotor is
54

capableof operating
Studies

indicate

at a much

that a 7 percent

levels

should

be possible

3.3.2

Gust

Response

An aircraft
for propeller
should

higher

minimize

increase

to wind

also

blade

response

to vertical

Conventional

designs

large, lightly

observed

in XV-15

longitudinal

3.4

in engine

efficiency

over

efficiency.

current

of a scaled
rotor

model
is

rotors

the

tiltrotor

highly

turboprops.

to a simulated
significantly

was

than

that

cause

blade

found

in Fig.
gust,

to

an

loading.
a higher

gust response

in cruise,

As seen

and

aircraft

will have

air turbulence

loaded

may

and
and

30 fps horizontal
less

of tiltrotor

of increased

aircraft

loading,

gusts

size

in cruise

to moderate

and more

wing

loading

rotor

Evidence

where

by

horizontal

on

loaded

in response

is smaller

wing

however,

turboprops.
tests

determined

high

depending

to the level of modem

variable-diameter
conventional

motion

rotor

be closer

the response

flight

chugging

variable-diameter
should

in modern

The

gusts,

motion

have

is largely

loading.

longitudinal

than found

in propulsive

gusts

unacceptable

response

any reduction

[11].

response

aircraft

C.r/t_ without

was

experience

[10].

Since

a
the

its gust response

2.7

which

shows

the response

predicted

for

of a
larger,

rotor.

Improved

Autorotation
for a safe, controlled

Autorotation

could

Capability

be used in tiltrotor

landing

in the event

aircraft,

as it is for helicopters,

of a total power

55

failure.

Many

to provide

conventional

designs,however,may haveonly a limited ability

sections

found

loading

leads

established.

to a high
Smaller

the falling
design,

on conventional

aircraft

rotors

of descent

to arrest

inertia,

improved

resist

rotor

once

the

lower

twist

autorotative

autorotative

available

descent.

and lower

disk

over

twisted

forces.
state

to store the kinetic

vehicle's

capability

Highly

a steadyautorotative

also have less inertia

in order

with its higher

significantly

rate

tiltrotors

to autorotate.

The

loading

a much

blade

High

disk

has

been

energy

of

variable-diameter
promises

larger

to have

range

of

flight

conditions.
Autorotation

is a condition

without

any

torque

from

upward

flow

upward

flow,

rotation.

This condition

where

the drive

of air through

shaft.

the rotor

the lift vector

a rotor
The

disk

is tilted

forces

and

by

required

as the aircraft

forward

is seen in Figure

is driven

has

aerodynamic

forces

are generated

by

descends.

Because

a component

an

of the

in the plane

of

3.12.

dL

velocity I_

Figure

3.12:

Forces

If the lift component

in the rotor

rotor

drive

section,

it will

the

Acting

plane
section

on an Airfoil

is enough
forward.

autorotate.
56

rotational

"_.
speed

During

Autorotation

to overcome
In

this case

the profile
the

rotor

drag

of the

is said

to

The phenomenaof autorotationcanbe usedby a skilled pilot in a well designed

aircraft for emergencypower-out landings. Immediatelyfollowing a total power
failure, enginedrive trainsare designedto disengagefrom the rotor so it is free to
rotate. Thepilot mustreactwithin a few secondsto preventrotor rpm decay. The first
taskis to reducethe rotor collectivepitch to minimizethe resistanceto rotor rotation.
Next,thepilot gradually adjuststherotor cyclicpitch to achievea forward speedthat
correspondsto theminimum powerrequirement. If the rotor is designedproperly, at
someachievablerate of descent,the upflow through the rotor will generateenough
aerodynamictorqueto enablethe rotors to producea substantialamountof thrust.
Whenthis thrustis sufficient to balancethe forcesactingon the aircraft,a steadyrate
of descentwill beachieved.Onceestablished,thedescentat constantspeedcontinues
until theaircraftis within a few hundredfeetof the ground. At this altitudethe pilot
beginsa flaremaneuverto minimizethetouchdownspeedandarresttherateof descent
to a level thatcan be sustainedby the landinggear. During a landingflare, the pilot
tilts the rotors to the rear, therebycreatinga large upflow through the disk. This
maneuvertransfersmuch of the aircraft kinetic energy to the rotor resulting in a
decreased
forwardspeedand rateof descent. Before the tail impactsthe ground, the
pilot levels the aircraft and adjuststhe bladepitch to createthrust from the kinetic
energythathasbeenstoredthe rotor blades. If the rate of descentwas not too great,
the thrustproducedduring the flaremaneuverwill be sufficient to easethe aircraft to
the ground.
The importantfactors
time

of

engine

autorotation,
amount

failure,

the magnitude

of kinetic

energy

in an autorotative
the

torque
of the

that can

landing

and

thrust

steady

rate

be stored
57

are the height

available

of descent

in the rotor

from
that
during

and
the

velocity
rotor

at the
during

is achieved

and

the

the flare

maneuver.

For

tiltrotors,

interaction

during

helicopters
airframe

the

effect

autorotation

it is desirable
in a nose down

disk loading

rotor

state.

the wings

Since

Unlike

be able to provide

complex

however,

load.

The

produce

are parallel

to carry some

is also

in tiltrotors

attitude.

the thrust

aerodynamic

wings

to unload

can easily

thc helicopter,

will have

of the

have

the

important.
been

wings

tests

required

with the flow,

autorotation

of the rotors

autorotative

autorotation

effect

state,

and wings.

3.13:

Deadman's

Curve

58

Speed

for a Typical

Rotorcraft

the

the low

autorotative
is minimized.

tiltrotor
and

may not
the wings

will also depend

No Autorotttion

Figure

by keeping

a steady

Forward

for winged

because

of a conventional

for a steady

If this is the case,

to enter

their disruptive

rotors

of rotor-wing

however,

lift lost is of no consequence

the smaller

interaction

published,

during

the thrust

necessary

No

on the

A safe landing by autorotationis only possible if power is lost at certain

combinationsof altitude and forward speed. These combinationsfor a typical
helicopterareshownin Figure3.13. As seenin this figure, autorotationfrom all but
very low altitudesrequiresforward speed. Therefore,in helicopters,flight is only
authorizedat altitudeandforwardspeedcombinationsthatallow for a safe,power-out
landing.
The aerodynamictorqueandcorrespondingthrustavailablefrom a rotor during
autorotationare compromisedby the high blade twist of conventional rotors.
Helicopters, which are all required to autorotate,have a low twist compared to
tiltrotors asseenin Figure3.14.

40

,_

....
0

0.2

-10

different
rotational
experience

of blade
rotor
speed

and

3.14:

twist on rotor

sections

during
twist

the same forces.

0.3
Blade

Figure

The effect

-_

0.6 _'_:l_
Radial

Blade

torque

the

Station

Twist

is seen

autorotation.

along

,,,,

For this reason

59

r/R

Comparisons

by

Since

rotor

looking

at the forces

the inflow

diameter,
only

1.0

not

all

the mid portion

angle
airfoil

varies

acting

on

with

the

sections

of the rotor

will

actually

autorotates. As shown in Fig. 3.15, on the outer portion of the blade, the high
rotationalspeedsresultin a low inflow angleandonly a smalltilt of thelift vector.

dL

dD

velocity
rotational

Figure

3.15:

Here the profile

the resulting
rotational
these

force tends

increase

thrust

for the same

rotor

angle of attack

relative

due

component

to decelerate

in the Deceleration

in the rotor plane

the rotor.

On the inner

angles

of attack

the drag on the rotor while

of a conventional

of the acceleration

stall region

Autorotation

is low and the resulting

Due to the high twist

expense

During

drag has a larger

velocity

sections

Forces

region.

applied

torque,

to produce

to both

blade,

are above

rotor

very

a higher

for the two rotors

60

root

are illustrated

the lift vector,

of the rotor,
stall.

and
the

As a result,

little to the thrust.

region

not only

The variable-diameter

and a blade

Region

portion

the stalled

but will also require

twist

than

contributing

conventional

that torque.

a lower

size of these regions

tiltrotor
The

speed

grows

at the

produces

less

forward
rotor

cut-out.
in Figure

The

speed

and

has a smaller
approximate

3.16.

tion

(0
Variable-Diameter

Figure

Using

The Aerodynamic

a sophisticated

calculated
during

the thrust

blade

V-22

loading

complete
conventional

In fact, the isolated

force of gravity
variable-diameter
the vehicle

gross

The

of collective

design

[29].

results
pitch.

has a significant
conventional

and maintain
design
weight

The

the

shown

As

was found
over a larger

in Fig.

3.17

rate of descent

range

the

not produce

to be capable

larger
thrust
enough

Corporation

speed

was

based
and

rotor
based

on a rotor
Fig.

3.18

on
with
for a

stalled

region

during

autorotation.

thrust

from any flight

of supporting

of forward

61

model

was

on the available

rotor could
a constant

rotor

design

expected,

effect

Aircraft

and variable-diameter

conventional

are

Rotor

Autorotation

Sikorsky

conventional

and the variable-diameter

of 10 psf.

range

of a Rotor During

analysis,

of an isolated

descent

geometry,

Regions

element

capability

an unpowered

published
a disk

3.16:

Conventional

Rotor

to balance
condition.

a larger
and rotor

percentage
angle

of

the
The
of

of attack.

100"

$
Lift Contribution Required
from Wing Surfaces

Pro_otor
Amorolatlve
Thrust
Capel:ltlty

80,

:i

lhll

(% of Veldcte
Design Orosl
welgPa)

60
Rotor AOA
250

No/b=torotml
ve
m=l=i I I ty" Ourt=i de
of Boundwi =Is

4O
50
100
VelOCity, knOtS

Figure

3.17:

The Autorotative

Thrust

.....

300

Isolated

Conventional

t50

Boundary
Rotor

of a Typical

110-

Rotor
__

100Proprotor
AutorotaUve
Thrust

90-

Capability

80-

(% of Vehicle
Design Gross
Weight)

70-

,,
_

250

50.

NO Aulorotatlve
Capability
Outside of
Boundade$

40.

,..

50

Autorotative

Thrust

,,

100

Velocity,

3.18:

20

60-

Figure

.__

30

:/

AOA

Boundary

62

150

knots

of an Isolated

Variable-Diameter

Rotor

The
airframe
weight

analytical

predictions

will have

to provide

in autorotation.

autorotative
nacelles

thrust

could

be 15-20
which

deg.

The

capability

At these

rate

also

at high rotor

high

ff this

of descent
rate

autorotation

which

autorotative

descent

flight

angles

angles

the

that

the rotors

of attack

(20-30

descent,

of attack,

case,

thrust

to support

show

it could

is the

to overcome

of

during

make

indicate

that

total

aircraft

will

only

deg).

the airframe

the airframe

it will

in turn

the drag

can

be

depends

for a given

in Figure

a steady

descent

at that speed.

is shown

equivalent

results

limit the contribution

The

forward

lift in order

rotor

gross
have

Assuming

angle of attack
would

to supporting

likely
the

be impossible

the

an
the

would

be stalled

weight

of the

to achieve

a steady

descent.

landing.

flight

The

in descent,

autorotative

some

conventional

be tilted aft by 10 deg during

would

aircraft

of isolated

determined

on forward

forward

A typical

3.19.

autorotative

speed
power

In this figure

of all non-lift

producing

flat plate area, f, the parasite

power

state
from

speed.

the

The

is equivalent
required

is also

power

power

required

components.

for

in forward

is the power
Defined

in
in an

required

for rotorcraft

power

to a safe

required

to the power

curve

the parasite

critical

required

in terms

of an

is

Pp = DpV

(3.44)

where

Dp = f-q

As in hover,

the profile

forces

on the rotor blades.

acting

power

= f'-PV
2

is the power
This power
63

(3.45)

required

to overcome

can be written

as

the

viscous

drag

P = DoV

where D o is

the proffie

(3.46)

drag.

Total Power

0
O.

Parasite Power

Profile Power

Induced
Forward

Figure

The

induced

3.19:

power

manner

analogous

system

considered

Power

to the

flight

method

in forward

Speed

Required

in forward

Power

Curve

can

used

for Helicopter

be estimated

for

flight.

64

hover.

from
Figure

Forward

Flight

momentum
3.20

shows

theory
the

in a
closed

T
Vz

Figure

The induced
the airstream.
determined.

3.20:

thrust

Momentum

is equivalent

To calculate
The velocity

VR

or since

Theory

=_W

Volume

to the mass flow multiplied

the mass
through

Control

flow,

the velocity

for Forward

by the velocity

through

the rotor

imparted
must

2 +(W

(3.47)

Z +vi)2

v i << V

the velocity

imparted

(3.48)

to the air is simply

65

v 2, the thrust

becomes

to

fin'st be

the rotor is

VR = V

Since

Flight

(3.49)

T = fflv2= pAVv 2

Fromtherelationshipbetweentheinducedvelocity andv 2 given

can also be written

the thrust

as

T = 2pAVv

The induced

in Eq. 3.6,

power

(3.50)

is therefore

T 2

Pi =Tvi

Combining
a velocity,

Eq. 3.44,

=-2pAV

Eq. 3.45 and Eq. 3.46,

V, can be written

the power

flight,

Eq.

engine

out

aircraft

gross

3.52

during
also

scenario.
weight,

the power

required

for forward

flight

at

as

p = -- T 2
2pAV

Since

(3.51)

+ __pfV3 + DoV
2

autorotation
describes
Therefore,

is equivalent

the power

that

the power

W, to determine

(3.52)

to the power
must

66

be supplied

for autorotation

the rate of descent

required

during

can

in forward

by the rotor
be divided

autorotation:

in an
by

the

R.O.D.= P - D.L. + f pV
W

As seen
desired

in this equation,
in autorotation

the rate of descent

for a similar

The

because
is shown

profile

rate of descent

forward

speed

it results

in the minimum

to be directly

and parasite

during

final,

the

3 + Do____V
2 W
W

2pV

power,

corresponding

proportional

critical

aspect

of

autorotation
a flare maneuver

autorotative

index.

index,

developed

parasite

power

rate of descent

is

rate of descent.

Furthermore,

to disk

which

is the

during

the

power

loading
design

means

will have

a low

autorotation.

of an aircraft

for

to minimum

the variable-diameter

performance

expression

(3.53)

The
rate

of descent

are ignored.
becomes

Since

a function

based

by
on

the forward

landing

flare.

can be compared
Fradenburgh

momentum
speed,

of only disk loading

[30],
theory.

V, is optimized

The
using

relative
a

begins
The

simple
with

profile

an
and

by the pilot,

the

and density:

(3.54)

To eliminate

the vertical

descent

be provided

by the rotors

over

av = g

velocity

prior

some time period

(T:)

to landing,
At.

a vertical

This acceleration

acceleration
is given

must
by

(3.55)

67

where T is the rotor thrust provided and W is the aircraft gross weight. The
accelerationmultipliedby thetime periodoverwhichit is appliedmustbeequivalentto
the changein velocitydesired. Sincethe goalof theflare maneuveris to bring therate
of descentto nearzero,theverticalaccelerationprovidedmustbe

(3.56)

where tf is thedurationof theflare maneuver. For a given maximummaneuverload

factorthattheaircraftcansafelywithstand,T/W,

the flare time can be written

as

(3.57)

From

Eq. 3.9 the power

can be written

required

to produce

this load

factor

for a low

forward

speed,

as

(3.58)

The energy

required

from

the rotors

is simply

this power

multiplied

by the flare time,

or

E R = P-tf

= k 4 W.D.L.
g
P

68

(3.59)

The sourceof this energy is the kinetic energy stored in the rotors. The energy
availablefrom the rotorscanbewrittenas

(3.60)

where

I is the rotor polar

speed

during

beginning

flight

of inertia

conditions

and

of the rotor

at the beginning

the available

energy

and

For

a given

of the flare and decrease

can be rewritten

about

f_st_

and end of the flare maneuver.

over normal
flare,

normal

moment

f_,,d

the hub,

are the rotor

percent
below

rotor

normal

is the rotor
speed

speed

at the
increase

at the end of the

as

EA = ksI_ 2

The

amount

indication

that

the

energy

of the autorotative

(3.61)

available

flare effectiveness

A.I.=m=EA
ER

As seen
with

in this equation,

lower

higher
increase

disk

inertia
during

loading

rotor

which

a landing

exceeds

increases
flare.

energy

required

gives

a good

of a helicopter.

gO

(3.62)
W.D.L.

the energy
and higher

the

ratio or autorotative
rotor

inertia.

the kinetic
As discussed

69

The

flare

index,

A.I.,

variable-diameter

energy

it absorbs

for

before,

the lower

disk

improves

design
a given
loading

has

RPM
also

reducesthe rate of descent. This reducesthe aircraft

absorbed
when

by the rotors

energy

lowers

the hover

without

3.5

stored

hover

noise

such

and

momentum

and

thickness

frequency.

be

stage

of the flare,

lower

disk

loading

the energy

required

also

to touch

down

less.

ratio,

by a rotor.

flight

path

of variable-diameter
to adjust

over current

noise

noise.

and

rotors

blade diameter

conventional

Blade

nacelle

such

geometry

tilt each

and

have

as low tip speed,

during

descent

could

an
low

lead to

designs.

noise

noise

fluid.

and motion.

distribution

The

of these

generally
noise

into two
is the result

momentum

The loading

0ift and drag)

are

noise sources

can be grouped

Thickness

of the surrounding

Both

must

the final

thrust,

produced

is one of the major

harmonic

on the blade geometry

of the force

that

Noise

noise

loading

energy

Noise

the noise

and the ability

Harmonic

to produce

Therefore,

as advance

levels

During

gear is significantly

determine

in noise

that generate

is used

Internal

characteristics

disk loading

Harmonic

rotor

maneuver.

requirement.

and

factors

Unique

the flare

the landing

conditions

a reduction

3.5.1

power

External

operating
effect.

in the

overloading

Several

during

kinetic

acting

comprised
mechanisms

70

in rotorcraft.
principal

categories:

of a rotor
imparted

The mechanisms

blade

thickness

changing

to the air is dependent

noise is due to the time varying

on the blade.
of

Thus,

harmonics

depend

on

the

of

the rotor

the loading
the

nature
noise

blade

passing

rotational

speed.

Lowering the speeddecreases

the noiseproduced. Althoughthesenoise sourcesare
importantduringhover,theydo not producehighesttiltrotor noiselevels.

3.5.2

Blade-Vortex

Flight
descent

[31].

move

the tip vortices

descent,
noise

of the XV-15

is

approaching

significant

aircraft

profile.

nacelle

angles

speed

that

The

in commercial

Average
and

are

interactions

(BVI)

which

occur

blades.

residential

Level

noise

areas,

the

as the rotors
occurs

only

out of the rotor

path.

distances

BVI noise

of the XV-15

20 degrees

during

ahead

of

the

find the most annoying.

and high forward

Sound

long

highest

typically

are blown

for

at abating

levels

above

BVI noise

the vortices

that humans

noise

of 60 degrees
angles

levels

it propagates

to be effective

highest

noise

by other

because

shown

tiltrotor

flight modes

at frequencies

for all nacelle

dB Day-Night

shed

since in other

One method
flight

show

This is due to blade-vortex

through

during
BVI

tests

Interaction

were

speeds.

resulted

found

Simply

[31].

noise

will

to correspond

decreasing

in a 30 percent

footprint
BVI

is to alter the conversion

the flight

decrease

For civil tiltrotors

have

to

in the 75
operating

to be reduced

even

further.
Other
Lamkin

[32].

Modification
method

methods
One

for reducing
such

is to reduce

the forces

number

Lowering
of blades

would

some

acting

loading

also increase

have

the

been

the

Hardin

of the rotor

of blades
method

[33].

or lowering
because

of interactions.

and

tip vortices.

at the time it encounters

is the preferred

71

by

for this approach

number

the number

suggested

strength

benefit

on the rotor

by increasing

the disk

noise

is to reduce

of the blade tip has shown

This can be accomplished

loading.

method

BVI

A better
a vortex.
the

disk

increasing

the

Although

Hardin

andLamkin realizedit would bedifficult to implement,theyalsonotedthatmoving the

trailingbladeby a smalldistanceso thatit would miss the precedingvortex would be
anothereffectivemeansof decreasingBVI noise.
With a variable-diameter
rotor all of theseBVI reductionmethodsare possible.
The rotor tip shapeis not constrainedbecausethe torquetubespar stopswell before
the tip in the retractedposition. A larger rotor diameteris maintainedeven at a 60
degreenacelletilt angle(seeFig. 4.1) so the rotor will havea low disk loading when
BVI is mostlikely. Finally, sincethe diameterof the individual bladescanbe varied,
it is conceivablethat changingthe diameterof oppositebladescould alter the blade
vortexinteractionregionor causethebladeandvortexto missoneanothercompletely.

3.5.3

Internal

Noise

A primary
clearance

contributor

between

be during

cruise

variable-diameter
as opposed
clearance
loading

the fuselage

the nacelles

rotor

with a 66 percent

would

be offset

by

This would

likely

just adds more

near-field

weight

insulation,
noise

a wing

ratio could

additional

some

In either

span

case,

to achieve

level possible

to the aircraft.

72

noise

is desirable

by

will

of 5 ft

Some

of this

the higher

blade

the recommended

treatment

will be required.

suppression
because

of

of 54 ft, a 53 ft

rotor.

caused

active

of clearance

have a clearance

noise

type of acoustic

however,

is the amount

The least amount

For

retraction

design.

level of only 78 dB [5],

The lowest

into the cabin

2 ft for a 41 ft conventional

cabin noise

used.

tips.

axe forward.

of only

of the variable-diameter

involve

transmitted

and the rotor

when

to a clearance
benefit

to the noise

could

acoustic

also
treatment

be

Chapter

Aircraft

Size and Performance

The advantages

of a variable-diameter

What

remains

unclear

would

offset

potential

overall

system

benefits.

filtrotor

were

also

enjoy

hover.

However,

VDTR,

they

would

designs

may

not be feasible

The

code

the VDTR

of the

they could

tiltrotor

chapter
designs

used is discussed
and conventional

advantages

a penalty

substantial

it is worthwhile

provide

the setup

a range

in detail.
designs

Next

disk

stability

73

with

a range

and,
low

of

conventional

similar
disk
with

the possibility

rotor

in

to the
loading
the long
to see

to a VDTR.

for comparisons
To

the implementation

is presented.

may be another

problems

to investigate

loadings.

program

variable-diameter

Very

on

aircraft.

loading

performance

in the best case relative

discusses
over

aircraft

to the aircraft.

of aeroelastic

tiltrotor

tiltrotor

disk

weight

design

designs

low

in detail.
complexity

rotor

tiltrotor

of the

in cruise

weight

because

The

and

aircraft

of variable-diameter

study.

same

have

Nevertheless,

following

conventional
design

they also

and rotors.

what performance

many

in this

weight

of additional

conceptual

conventional

Setup

have been discussed

system

the effects

of conventional

viability,

sized

would

add

rotor

a multidisciplinary

designs

wings

study

the disk loading

of improving
loadings

that added

To

Comparison

rotor system

the size and performance

Since reducing

disk

is the extent

performance,

was used to calculate

means

of the VDTR
begin

and

the conceptual

of the code

for both

4.1

VASCOMP

The conceptualdesignprogramusedin this studyis the NASA Ames

the V/STOL
program

Aircraft

was originally

assess

the feasibility

revised

by Boeing

range

of

Recently

of

aircraft

including

was

modifications

calculations,

and performance.

aerodynamics,

a conversion

[34].

is capable
and

engines
Ames

contract

Later,

others

for

lift

Research

performance

This

and a numerical

to calculate

aircraft

size

various

propulsion.

Center.

module,

module

a broad

using
and

to

it was

of analyzing

wing weight

the mission

process

capabilities

as the

rotor

begins
number

The

more

most

thorough

optimizer.

efficiencies

propulsion,

sizing

weights

user-defined

wing,

rotor,

module

fuselage,

dimensions

by

and

weight

tail section
specifying
74

and
guess.
are then

aircraft

inputs
vertical

including
tail

Separate
used

volume

geometry,

to synthesize

dimensions

dimensioning
rotor

size

is used.
aircraft

modules

calculates

either

of

horizontal

gross

and mission

set

for a given

with a predetermined

capability

a detailed

and an initial

the geometry

rotor

with

and performance

of an aircraft

of passengers,

First,

controls

under a NASA

tiltwings,

at the NASA

an aircraft.

user

tiltrotors,

In this study VASCOMP's

sizing

coefficients,

The code

modified

can be used

such

Vertol

(VASCOMP).

configurations

or turboshaft

included

or to determine

quantities

1980.

Program

of

Sizing

VASCOMP

The

aircraft

turbofan

an improved

VASCOMP

mission

V/STOL

1973 and

turbojet,

Computer

in 1968 by Boeing

in 1971,

VASCOMP

significant

4.1.1

developed
of various

V/STOL

combinations

drag

Sizing and Performance

version

according

information.

diameter

or

hover

to
The
disk

loading. Wing dimensionscanbespecifieddirectly by inputting spanandaspectratio

or indirectlyby inputting a desired wing loading. Horizontal and verticaltail areas
maybeinputdirectly or calculatedfrom thefollowing volumecoefficients:

LvTSvT
CVT = BwSw

Crrr-

In the above
gravity
span,

equations

Lw

to the aerodynamic
cw is the mean

areas of the wing, vertical

set the aerodynamics
sizing

module

requirements.
calculating

L m. are the moment

of the vertical

chord

and

calculates

an engine

The weights
individual

and

(4.2)

Sw,

module

component

arms

and

Sv-r and

tail and horizontal

module

chooses

LrrrSrrr
_wSw

center

wing

(4.1)

then estimates
weights.

tails,

Sin. are the

tail respectively.

to meet

the aircraft

horizontal

the total aircraft

size

from

hover,

cruise

the empty

A fuel weight

planform

the dimensions

drag coefficient

and

available

are

the engine

or conversion

weight

of

B is the wing

unknown

Once

center

power

of the aircraft

by

is then determined

by the equation

W_a

where
items

the useful
like water,

the fuel weight

= W_o . - W._y

load includes
beverages
required

the weight

- Wr, ylo,d - W.,._l lo,d

of the crew

and food u'ays. Finally

to perform

each segment

75

as well

the performance
of the specified

(4.3)

as passenger
module
mission

service
calculates

profile.

The sizingis consideredto haveconverged

required

is less than or equal

estimate

is made

parameter

for

design

predetermined
detailed

based

before

convergence

any performance

non-linear

objective
The

functions.

characteristic

uses

A variation

algorithm

continues

4.1.2

with direct

In VASCOMP
statistical

weight

trend

For instance,

Helicopter

Sizing

depends

weight

follows

be a linear

radius,

of engine

aircraft

developed

Program
and

sizing

out

routine

operating

is tolerant
found

gradient

to

costs

of highly

in VASCOMP

technique

value

rotor

horse

power.

components

from

with

penalty

are used

method

data

(HESCOMP)

RPM
engine

thrust
squared
torque.

The weight
76

on

are

fails,

[36].
during

calculated

existing

are based on trend

maximum

a trend based on required

function

is

to
the

search.

and hub weight

solidity

on the largest

prints

and line searches

If the conjugate

of most

equations
rotor

method

perform

Estimation

and Performance

of rotor

weight

pattern

the weights

rotorcraft.

function

minimum.

Weight

minimization

gradient

the

or direct

often

weight

performance.

optimizer

in slope

an unconstrained

function

VASCOMP

The

must

the code

with

weight

gross

is the governing

the aircraft

in conjunction

with discontinuities

a new

and mission

such as gross

of the conjugate

zero in on the objective

weights

if the fuel weight

Fuel weight

converged,

to have converged.

functions

algorithm

has

design

If not,

the mission

the design

can be used

is considered

available.

in the fuel.

because

Once

optimizer

the design

[35].

on the discrepancy

of the aircraft geometry,

A numerical
optimize

to the fuel weight

by the user.

description

on a feasible

equations

aircraft

and

used in the

Rotor

weight

maneuver

while

times power.
Engine

using

weight

of fixed equipment

Drive

is a
hub

system

is assumed

to

such as air-

conditioning,seatingandlavatoriesis also included.Fuselageweight is basedon a

diameterand length input by the user, a calculatedcabin acoustictreatmentweight
requiredto maintaina desiredinternalnoiselevel anda structuralweight required to
maintaina constantinternalcabin pressure. Cabinacoustictreatmentis a function of
rotor diameter,tip speed,enginehorsepower and rotor-fuselagetip clearance. The
weightof thetail sectionis a functionof tail loads,pitch and yaw radiusof gyration,
dive speedandaircraft grossweight.
Trend equationsarenot practicalfor tiltrotor wing weight estimation. Too few
of theseaircraft exist to provide an adequatedata base. Conventionalaircraft wing
weighttrendsarenot usefulsincetiltrotor wing structureis likely to be determinedby
a torsionalstiffnessrequirementfor whirl flutter stabilityratherthana bendingstrength
requirement.For a realisticwing weightestimate,VASCOMPincorporatesa method
developedby ChappeUandPeyranwhich is basedon the scalingof wing
ratios

[37].
In the frequency

ratio method

with a tip mass representing

choosing

beam

vibration

frequencies

wing

frequency

frequencies

provides
represents

bending

the conceptual

the engine.
and

torsional

and rotor

wing is treated

A complex
stiffness

speed.

The

whirl flutter
to achieve

method

as a cantilever
analysis

desirable

assumes

beam

is avoided
ratios

that scaling

by

between
conceptual

such that

a reasonable
a bending

assurance
or torsion

of aeroelastic
frequency

and

77

stability.

In the

fl is the rotor

above

rotational

equation,
speed.

f
The

referenceaircraftis an actualtiltrotor aircraftknown to be stable. The frequenciesof

the f'trst vertical,
mass

are given

horizontal

and torsional

by the respective

bending

modes

of a cantilever

beam

with tip

equations

/24(EI)_

(4.5)
[24(EI),

(4.6)
f, = J

where
gyration
ratios

L w is the length
of the tip mass.
from

the conceptual

which

2GJ
L,,m,rs2

of the beam

(wing),

Combining

the required

(4.7)

m, is the tip mass

and

Eq. 4.4 with Eq. 4.5 - 4.7

stiffness

in torsion

r_ is the radius

yields

and the two bending

of

the following
directions

of

wing can be determined:

(EI)v
(El),

(4.8)

=
Iglrgl_,a_

. (EI)h

(EI)h

(4.9)

(4.10)
..Jconcept_l

78

Oncethe requiredstiffnessesare known, the correspondingareamomentsof inertia

for a givenmaterialareeasilydetermined.Thesemomentsof inertia arethenrelatedto
torquebox and spar cross-sectionalareasby form factors based on tiltrotor wing
airfoil data. Torquebox andsparweightscanbe calculatedfrom thesecross-sectional
areas.After sizing thetorquebox and sparto obtainthe appropriatefrequencyratios,
thebendingstrengthof the wing is checkedfor cruiseanda 2g jump take-off. Here
the maximummomentexperiencedis comparedto the ultimatestrainof the spar and
torquebox. Additionalmaterialis addedif required.
This methodof wing weight estimationworks well if the conceptualaircraft is
similar to the referenceaircraft. Calculatedwing weightsfor the XV-15 matchesthe
true weight exactlyand the V-22 estimatehas less than a 0.1 percenterror [37].
Estimatesof conceptualaircraftwing weightswill likely havemore error, but as long
astheconfigurationof theseaircraftis similarto a referenceaircraft,the errors should
fall within thetoleranceof a conceptualdesign.

4.1.3

VASCOMP

Aircraft
compressibility

drag

Aerodynamics

in cruise

drag.

is calculated

The total drag

coefficient

C_,
CD = AR-r_.e

where

the first term is the induced

compressibility

effects

and

Co,

from

the

sum

can be written

of

induced,

parasite

as

+ ACD_ + CD,

drag,
is

the

(4.II)

ACDc is the drag

drag
79

of

the

and

wing

coefficient
and

all

increase
other

due to
airframe

components. The Oswald spanefficiency factor, e, may be input by the user or

calculatedby the program. For tiltrotors it is bestto input the Oswaldnumber since
theseaircraft havea lower induceddrag thanpredictedby conventionalaircraft wing
theorydueto nacelleinterferenceat the wing tips andinteractionof the wing androtor
wake. As long asthe rotors rotateso the bladesmove upwardsin front of the wing,
the swirl in the rotor wakewill reducethe wing inducedvelocity [38]. The result is
thatthewing lift vectoris tilted forward reducingthe wing induceddrag. The engine
nacellesalsoreducestheinduceddragbecausethey interferewith the vorticesshed at
the wing
number

tips.

The parasite

and 3-dimensional

wing

and spinner-blade

drag

coefficient

the drag

4.1.4

speed.

VASCOMP

and figure

Drag increases

interference

considers

Reynolds

due to nacelle-wing,

fuselage-

are also accounted

to increase

cubically

The divergence

for.

as the cruise

speed

is assumed

The compressibility

Mach

number

to decrease

exceeds

linearly

with

Propulsion

has several

of merit.

tables

of rotor

ratio.

Alternately,

values

include

efficiencies
versus

root

for all components

lift coefficient.

VASCOMP

using

calculation

flow effects.

is assumed

divergence

the wing

drag

flight

The calculation
power
the user

a figure

to be used
Mach

options

can be based

coefficients
may

of merit
in climb

number

for the calculation

point

to be used
and

on actual

as functions

specify

to be used

values

and

in cruise

80

propulsive

propeller

of thrust

in hover

descent

of rotor

calculations,
a table

of

performance

performance

coefficient

for rotor

efficiency
by

and advance

efficiencies.
separate

propulsive
calculations.

These
propulsive
efficiencies
Several

analyticalperformancemethodscan alsobe usedincluding bladeelementtheory and

themomentumtheorypresentedin Section3.3.
Engineperformanceis calculatedusingthecorrectedparametermethod[34, 39].
The power (SHP), fuel flow (Wr), gas generatorRPM (Nx) and
(N,)

for a given

flight

condition

are defined

power

turbine

RPM

as

(4.12)

Wt = 8._.

Nt = ._.

Nn =._.

where
flight

_ and 0 are the density

condition.

reference
temperature,
accounted
The engine

flight

The

T.

for by applying
"deck"

and N n in tabular
normalized
flow,

Variations

format.

speed

(4.13)

f4(M,o

(4.14)

(4.15)

ratios

between

fl, f2, t"3, and f4 describe

for

combinations

in engine

These

consists
referred

maximum
and power

of

power

an appropriate

in VASCOMP

by the engine

gas generator

f3(M,o

and temperature

functions

condition

f2(M,o

static

due

correction
of tables
values

the engine

Mach

to Reynolds
factor

81

speed

and
number

referred

the functions
of shaft

respectively.

at the

turbine

to the shaft

of engine

are just

and a reference

performance

number

sea level values

turbine

the given

inlet

effects

are

horse

power.

SHP,

Wf,

N_

fl, f2, f3 and f4

horse
For

power,
a given

fuel
flight

condition (Mach number)and an enginepower setting (turbine inlet temperature),

engineperformanceis calculatedby a tablelook up followed by multiplicationby the
appropriatedensityor temperatureratio. Limits on gasgeneratorspeed,turbinespeed,
fuel flow andenginetorqueaswell asenginecontingencypowermay be specifiedby
the user.

4.1.5

VASCOMP

As pointed
fuselage

in order

significant

to predict

The download

without

dispersed
induced

effect

nacelle

provided

by the wings.

tilt (thrust

on the aircraft.
and wings

due

to aircraft

balance

taking

forward

and

during

hover

and

is fully contracted
to be turned

wing.

are assumed

at incremental
increment

The

module

the effects

The user
82

toward

specifies

the

fuselage

to be blocked

velocity

steps.
from

of the wake

of the
in

by the partial

The

required

a force

produced
swirl.

and

Increases

to be balanced

rotor

it reaches

total momentum

is calculated

into account

when

contribution.

the lift and drag

into account

speed.

wings

in the conversion

the download

includes

that takes

performance

rotors,

the flow is assumed

the

effect

is calculated

of attack

is calculated

above

at each velocity

The force

at an angle

by the wake
wing

performance
vector)

is assumed

to determine

by the fountain

the

performance.

At the fuselage

in all 180 degrees

between

are calculated

the wake

wake

caused

Conversion

tiltrotor

interactions

the rotor

flow is then integrated

power

on

assumes

any loss of momentum.

equally

interactions

and conversion

calculation

At the wing

dispersed

ground

these

download

Download

3.2.3,
impact

In VASCOMP

the wing.

and

out in Section

have

conversion.

Conversion

balance

by the nacelles
Download
falling

the acceleration

caused
off of the

profile

to be

followed during
calculating

the conversion.

the stall speed

VASCOMP

determines

and then multiplying

the conversion

the stall speed

speed

by first

by a user input margin

of

safety.

4.2

Comparison

The

variable-diameter

derivatives

of a NASA

baseline

mission,

fuselage

dimensions,

designs.

The

was allowed
to change

and
Short

shown

level

to vary.

conventional

Haul

Civil

in Fig.

cabin

same

1.6

layout,

The

Tiltrotor

was

high

of engine

not ignored.

wing

external
Accurate

noise

a methodology

conceptual

designs

performance

was

study

are

The

SH(CT)

all aircraft.

The

SH(CT)

also

assumed

of the rotors,

in this

baseline.

t-tail were

common

although

wings

for

engine

and tail were

details

at this early

design

stage.

that

[40], however,

may

be

noise predictions

in this study

give proper

treatment

Only Four-bladed

to the importance

considered.
tip speed

rotors
As

useful

the code

quantitative

characteristics

the external

require

variable-diameter

rotor

directly,

predictions

and it is not set up to model

lowering

for

and

noise was not calculated

developed

were

compared

(SH(CT))

assumed

size and weight

that were not available

directly,

tiltrotors

all
size

allowed

with disk loading.

Although

loading

Approach

in

of the rotor
Wells,

is not yet fully

would

and flight patterns

with low tip speeds

discussed

previously,

are methods

of reducing
83

Therefore,

noise
known

relative

BVI

noise

and Glinka

have

acoustics

for

into VASCOMP

questionable.

without
to lower

the

noise

of any

In order

calculating

to

the noise

were

selected.

and SH(CT)

baseline

number

during

was
and

the accuracy

to the V-22

increasing

issue

geometry

rotor

integrated

be highly

of external

Bona

predicting

rotors.

noise

descent

of

blades
and

and

loading

noiseduring hover. Also, fairly steep6 degreeapproachand departurepaths were

selectedto lower communitynoiseexposure. Thesedesignchoicesshould result in
acceptablenoiselevelsfor eachof thelow diskloadingdesignsconsidered.

4.2.1

Common

VASCOMP

A common
generic
deck

engine

turboshaft

Inputs

model

engine

was

with a power

was also used in the (SH(CT))

to meet the largest

on engine
Power

power

output

efficiency

speed,

Therefore,

where

for both aircraft

rating

of hover,

to have a quadratic

in reduced

contingency

turbine

engine
power

efficiency.

2005

to weight

ratio and specific

entry into service

Conversion

vertical

have a significant

impact

on tiltrotor

conversion

as blade

design,

conversion

engine

within

set limits

and fuel

speeds

flow.

varied

to increase

from

propulsive

contingency

power

was

rating
rating

@ 2000
@ 2000

fuel consumption

were

ft ISA + 20*
ft ISA + 20

assumed

(4.16)

based

on a year

date.

between

such

cruise

A 3.5 percent

This

as

C.P. = 2.5 rain. power

5.0 min. power

A power

or cruise

inlet temperature

during

was

size was "rubberized"

drop off as turbine

speed

is defined

Engine

conversion
speed,

The model

for civil use.

model.

gas generator

lowering

designs.

appropriate

VASCOMP

requirement

turbine

resulted

assumed

power

was assumed

the optimum.

used

loads

does generally

and forward
sizing

and

[9].

stability

require

flight was found

Although
are outside

the most engine

84

many
the
torque

in a previous
important
scope

of

study

problems

to
of

a conceptual

and therefore

it sizes

the transmission.If an aggressiveaccelerationprofile is followed, conversionpower

may evensetthe enginesize. For both designs,conversionwas allowed to size the
engineandtransmissionif necessary.However, to avoid conversionenginesizing, a
conservativeconversionaccelerationprofile shown in Fig. 4.1 was used for both
designs.

0.15

0.15

0.i0

0.I0

0.05

1/3

2/3

velocity/convert

Figure

For both types

gross

weight

4.1:

VASCOMP

of aircraft,

calculation.

The

treatment

weight

Alexander

for a 78 dB interior

based

on a more

better

match

VASCOMP
predicted

thorough

was

obtained

Conversion

a cabin
method

overestimates

the
noise

by Unger

and Alexander

used

Accelem_on

treatment

predictions

target

VASCOMP

cabin

calculations

[5] for similar

85

was

included

for calculating
presented

The later calculations

so the VASCOMP
the

Profile

weight

in VASCOMP

level [5].

by setting

The adjusted

acoustic

weight

analysis,

routine.

velocity

tip clearances

was

level

agreed

the cabin
Unger

are assumed

calculation
noise

by

adjusted.

to 90
closely

and

in the

and
to be
A

dB

in the

with

those

tip speeds.

At

lower tip speedsor greatertip clearances

anyerrorsin the artificial estimatearecarried
throughto bothaircraft designs.
The V-22 wasselectedasthereferenceaircraftfrom which to scalethe frequency
ratiosfor whirl flutter
the 23 percent
A secondary

reason

wing

could

was

assumed

wake

wing

wing

thickness

for

all wing

factor

VASCOMP

was

for rotor
[11].

through

changes

to other

and hub weight

They

estimated

conventional
actually

rotors

leads

example,

Therefore,

weight
the

to a dramatic
span,

variable-diameter

for

for all designs.

of the V-22

efficiency

the beneficial

VASCOMP

factor

effects

of 0.98

of the rotor

equations.

weights.

increase

VASCOMP

would

solidity

in rotor

and

weight

a 53 ft variable-diameter
the 41 ft conventional
system

resulted

weight.
86

by simply

A scaling

rotors

to properly

model

applying

As the increased

based on estimates

radius,

Model

to be modified

modules,

variable-diameter

For the same span,

the

trend

component

with the same

assumed

drag characteristics

were calculated

sizing

calculations

for a 54 ft wing

per rotor.

had

rotor weights

carded

was

calculation,

drag.

Tiitrotor

rotor

of the weight

A high Oswald

to account

calculations

to the VASCOMP

appropriate

system

on induced

Variable-diameter

weight

compressibility
design.

designs

Variable-Diameter

Several

the accuracy

to chord ratio of the V-22

be used in the conceptual

The

aircraft.

To improve

was so the known

swirl and nacelles

4.2.2

sizing.

factor

system

automatically

made

of 1.2 was

selected

rotor

and Matuska

20 percent

hover
for

tip speed.
the

same

system

percent

more

than

This

factor

airframe.

For

weighed

rotor only weighted

in a 46

a scaling

rotor

by Fradenburgh
weight

VDTR

3132

lb

2144 lb each.

increase

in rotor

Rotor performancewas calculatedfrom point values of figure of merit and

propulsiveefficiencyduring climb, descentandcruise. The specificvaluesof figure
of merit and propulsive efficiency for a given C.r/o were based on analytical
predictions from an EHPIC./HEROanalysis as describedin reference[21].

The

efficienciesandthrustcoefficientassumedin this study are similar to thosecalculated

for a rotor configurationalso presentedin this reference. The rotor design was
assumedto havea 66percentretractionratio anda tip speedof 600fps.
To model the variable-diameter-rotor
diameterchangeduring conversion, the
VASCOMPconversionmodulehad to be modified. The original moduleassumeda
constantrotor diameterthroughoutthe conversionsequence. Therefore, the rotor
thrust andthe inflow to the wing duethe rotor wake were in error. To correct the
problem,a nacelletilt changeschedulehadto beinputinto VASCOMP. The schedule
usedis shownin Figure4.2.
100 -

_mm

95-

upper bound_

....

_"

diameter

100%

90-

7s

7o

_"

change/schedule
66%

65

lower boundary

60

,
0

10

.....
40
nacelle

Figure

4.2:

Diameter

SO

'o........
70
so

tilt (deg)

vs. Nacelle

87

90

Tilt Schedule

10o

There was
nacelle

angle

no easy

is not

way

to input

an independent

module

determines

the required

balance

calculation.

To avoid

guess"

nacelle

schedule

tilt angle

could
tilt.

against

the actual nacelle

After

versus

run

tilt schedule

variable-diameter

was

complete,

calculated

velocity
Samples

profile

the

based

profile

did

not vary

and conventional

was

fairly

well
for

D.L = ll.O

\\\:

pd

C_v,=Lio_l
D.L. ffi 18.0 l_f
VDTR

101

01
20

40

60

80
forward

Figure

4.3:

Nacelle

100

120

speed

(fps)

160

Tilt vs. Forward

88

D.L

\\\\
140

the

different

in Figure

st

=-\

since

are shown

designs

qt

-...,

the run

calculated

8o-"
Q._

in

tilt schedule

gO u

60.

than

checked

and

4.3.

70.

This

If differences

significantly

nacelle

the

rather

modified

and worked

Rather,

input.

assumed

the table was

the

a table of"best

on airspeed

balance.

because

on a force

based

by the force

of the conversion

variable-diameter

velocity

in the VASCOMP

diameter

was easy to implement

tik versus

for

included

rotor

module.

used in the module,

tilt were significant,

This procedure

designs.

at a given

the method

was

into VASCOMP

in the conversion

angle

velocity

a program

nacelle

by VASCOMP

nacelle
changing

tilt and calculated

was repeated.
calculated

variable

then be used to determine

nacelle

the assumed

this information

180

Speed

- 11.01_

The numerical
aircraft

gross

These

design

value.

weight

select

with

variables

When

diameter.

optimizer

disk

constant,

were

was

ratio

drag, or too large

the basic airframe

4.2.3

Conventional

model

included

method

figure

range

of

First
profile

quantities
solidity.

drag

thrust

profile

model

coefficient
define

the torque

from

cruise

found

parameters

were

assumes

using

to

were

held

induced

Hover

tip speed

to be higher
also

than

held constant

V-22-1ike

to solidity

condition.

is calculated

divergence

torque

(Co0)

(C o) is defined

for

V-22

blade

is

used

Mach

calculation
from

a given

by engine

advance

capabihties,

over

tip
to

Mach
predict

proceeds

an input

number.

rotor
In this

values

and

3.3
The

Vertol

performance.

ratios

in Section

drag

89

a Boeing

a table of measured

flight

and a rotor

coefficient

weight.

rotor

VASCOMP

variables

always

coefficient

the profile

the

in unnecessary

wing

calculated

discussed

torque

with

allowed

resulting

optimum

Model

coefficient

theory

for a given

completely

was

is determined

the rotor

Since

The

at the

to change

If these

in hover.

baseline.

VASCOMP

performance

ratio

to vary

was

The remaining

of the SH(CT)

momentum

efficiency

tip speed

to minimize

tip clearance

aspect

and chord.

too small,

designs

rotor

had

in unnecessary

the optimal

operating

The

propulsive
follows.

of merit

span
loading

span

resulting

in VASCOMP.

blade

numbers.

rotor

wing

be either

and

the wing

and wing

Tiltrotor

Conventional

blade

varied,

for noise considerations.

to keep

loading

to keep

wing

would

was held at 600 fps because

desirable

selected

corresponding

in the variable-diameter

to wing

the tip clearance

the aspect

and profile

used

respect

loading

Allowing

the optimal

was

as

average

These
ratio

two
and

Cr can be

calculateddirectly from Eq. 3.42. Finally, with CT,

efficiency

is calculated

The numerical
aircraft

gross

were

allowed

was

always

weight.
system
whirl

designs

the optimal

involves

tip speed

increases

A high tip speed

flutter stability.
designs

used on the conventional

Tip speed
would

design,

did not need

acceptable

was allowed

of tip speed

weight.

was also

Tip clearance

the minimum

clearance

to vary

propulsive

a trade

increases
was

tip speed

to vary

because

of 2.0

off between

the torque

allowed

over

90

The

reasons
drive

stiffness

to vary
unfairly.

constant

ft.

requirement

the wing

models

hover

for the same

not be penalized

tip speed was relatively

l.t defined,

3.34.

For the conventional

to vary.

A low

disk loading

optimizer

weight.

conventional
The choice

from Equation

CQ and

and

to minimize
wing

the optimal

wing

loading

value
of the

as in the VDTR

system
which

weight
drives

and weight

As the results

wing

up the drive
required

show,

of disk loading

case.

and

so that the weight

the range

loading

for

of the high
however,
anyway.

Chapter

VASCOMP

In this chapter
are compared
weights
index

based

and

Later,

over

a range

5.1

Baseline

of hover

wing,

tail

rotor,

disk

The

loading

and

of

fuselage

which

are

variable-diameter

baseline
a rough

and

predictions.
aircraft.

conventional

Calculated

The

comparison

rotors

autorotation

of autorotative

aircraft

are presented

values.

Comparisons

described

major

to give

and

performance

for

for VDTR

aircraft

only

and

discussed

disk loading

A summary
aircraft

sizing

first

size trends

baseline

conventional

with conventional

is calculated

Aircraft

To begin,

SH(CT).

are

baselines

performance.

aircraft

on VASCOMP

dimensions

of both

compared.

tiltrotor

Results

with conventional

the

aircraft

was

considered

selected

dimensions

differences
primarily

and variable-diameter

as the conventional
were

essentially

in this design
a result

91

is given

of

using

the

are

in Table

5.1.

baseline

because

same

are the higher

four-bladed

rotors

as the

gross
rather

The

NASA

weight
than

the

and
three-

bladed

rotors.

airframe

The

VDTR

equipped

system

with

increased

but other

the

airframe

optimal

dimensions

A detailed

aspect

remained

The

ratio
the

and

the

decreases

Conventional

VDTR

Baseline

Baseline

Loading

123 psf

133 psf

Hover Tip Speed

601 fps

600 fps

Fuselage

61.7 ft

61.7 ft

426 sqft

455 sqft

441 sqft

458 sqft

54.4 ft

54.2 ft

Aspect Ratio

7.51

7.96

Hover Rotor Diameter

41.4

Cruise Rotor Diameter

41.4 ft

35.1 ft

Rotor Solidity

0.165

0.104

Download

0.107

0.076

Hover Power Loading

0.424 lb/hp

0.327

lb/hp

Gross Weight

48334

48883

lb

Tail Area
Span

Baseline

results

similar
description

Ratio (D/W)

Conventional

show

in dimension,
of the

that

they
weights

tail

of the
size

rotor

slightly,

same.

Wing

Tail Area

baseline

weight
the

11.0 psf

Length

conventional

additional

18.0 psf

VASCOMP

are

rotors.

is just

Disk Loading

Wing

designs

wing

here

Hover

Vertical

5.1:

considered

variable-diameter

Horizontal

Table

baseline

ft

and

53.2

lb

Variable

although

axe very
of each

5.2.
92

the

ft

Diameter

baseline

different
design

Design

Summary

VDTR

and

conventional

in weight

and

performance.

is given

in Fig.

5.1

and

Figure

Gross

Weight

Landing Gear,
Structure, Fixed
Equipment,
15417

= 48334

Wing Weight
2507 lb

lb

Fuel
6306 lb

etc.

Cabin Treatment
545 lb

Payload
8000 lb
Controls
Drive
Rotor
System Engines
3596 lb 2326 lb Systems
4288 lb

1937 lb

Figure

5.1:

Conventional

Rotor

Baseline

Gross Weight
Landing
Structure,

Fuselage
Tail
4436 lb
1003 lb

Aircraft

= 48883

Wing Weight
2150 lb

Gear,
Fixed

Weights

lb
Fuel
5691 lb

Cabin Treatment

Equipment, etc.
15142 lb

282 lb
Payload
8000 lb

Controls
2153 lb

The

gross

weight.

Drive
System
4203 lb

Engines
1888 lb

Rotor
Systems
6264 lb

Figure

5.2: Variable-Diameter

Rotor

weight

of the VDTR

higher

The

drive

system

is slightly

weight

is also

Tail
867 lb

Baseline

Aircraft

Weights

due to a 46 percent

17 percent
93

Fuselage
4396 Ib

higher

due

increase
to a higher

in rotor
torque

requirement
rotor

during

and drive

decreased

larger

system

by

stability.

conversion

is reduced

The

drop

ratio.

fuel

because

engine

the fuel

spacing

directly

experience
rotor

accounted

for,

ratio

range

could

meet

OEI flight
During

(VMS)

ratios

With

This

is in conflict

more

hp through

without

simulations

the transmission
with
each

VASCOMP
transmission.

This means

Center,

during

results

which

Although

94

was

in required

decrease

by

is 2.63

side

rotors

in this

advance

is a good

way

of contingency

similar

sizes

in

will not

spacing

side

shaft

Motion

Simulator

to the hover

conversion
the engines

to

power.

that the maximum

indicate
hover

also

baseline

designs

Vertical

it was found

to thrust

has a lateral

the VDTR

in the

conversion

requirement.

efficiency

shaft

the

of a

engine

download

conventional

the baseline

VDTR

power

is

flutter

The

as a 20 percent

of

weight

because

decrease

the lateral

of the

whirl

cruise.

VDTR

the need for high levels

of the

Research

The

effects

between

as 33 percent.

requirements

through

interference

difference

Ames

because

and

9.8 percent

The

for

propulsive

as much

and 0.16.
power

beneficial

be as much

at the NASA

required

in induced

power

recent

0.03

power

cost.

experience

hover

rotor

The

in operating

during

in the

a higher

wing

by 48 percent

tip speed

in induced

much

The

is required

is reduced

decrease

with

should

between

the

the

weight

However,

factors.

stiffness

of the VDTR.

and

this reduction

radii.

wing

to a decrease

to a decrease

at advance

by other

and reduced

combined

of 2.04 rotor radii

power

less

treatment

requirement

is reduced.

is offset

of a 22 percent

is due

A smaller

relates

because

tip clearance

in power

decreases

penalty

acoustic

fuselage-rotor

size

weight

14 percent

The cabin

as the diameter

requires
due

power
value.
910
to the

OEI powerrequirement,the higherpower throughthe transmissionsleadsdirectly to

an increase in the VASCOMP calculated drive system weight.

If the VMS

mathematical model is assumedto represent conversion more accurately, the

calculatedVDTR baseline drive systemweight is incorrect. To determine the
impact a lower conversionpower requirementwould have on the VDTR baseline,
the VASCOMP conversiondrive systemsizing option was disabledand the VDTR
baselinesizewasrecalculated.Theresultingdesignhada grossweight of 47,090lb,
a 3.7 percentreduction from the VDTR baselinevalue. The conventionalbaseline
grossweight was unaffectedby this changesinceits drive systemwas alreadysized
by hover. Therefore,if the actualVDTR conversionpower is nearthe hover value,
a variable-diameterrotor systemwill lead to a 2.6 percentreductionin grossweight
for the conventional baselinedesignrather than a 1 percentincreaseas indicated
previously.
Another

important

basis

performance

in autorotation.

three

phases.

distinct

failure,
first
rotor.

the steady

and

last

The

the contribution
The

autorotative

second

rate

trim analysis

from

descent

reaction

and

the

the flare

the scope

here

parasite
because

aircraft

that

thrust

is their

autorotation

immediately

energy

of this study.

95

3.4,

maneuver.

on the autorotative

and the aircraft

baseline

period

on the

is not calculated

is beyond

of

in Section

dependent

depends

the wing

of descent
which

are the pilot

is heavily
phase

comparison

As discussed

These

phases

for

involves
after

engine

Performance

in the

can be stored

in the

capability

of the rotor,

drag.
it would
However,

require

a detailed

it has already

been

shownthat the isolatedvariable-diameterrotor could generatemore thrustduring an

autorotativedescentthana conventionalV-22 sizerotor (seeFig. 3.18-3.19). This is
a good indication that the VDTR will havea much lower rate of descentat a given
forward speedthana conventionalrotor.
The effectivenessof a flare maneuverand the time a pilot has to react to a
power failure areheavily influencedby the rotor massmomentof inertia. The rotor
moment inertia was determined from the VASCOMP calculated rotor weights
assumingthatthe massof the rotor bladeswasevenly distributedalong their length.
This assumptionis probablygood for the VDTR rotor, but it may overestimatethe
conventionalrotor inertia becausemore of the massshould be found inboard. For
the VDTR baseline aircraft, the weight of a single blade was 397 lb which
correspondsto a mass moment of inertia of 11,620 slug-ft2 per rotor. For the
conventional baseline, the weight and inertia were 259 lb and 4596 slug-ft2
respectively.
Pilot reactiontime dependson the amountof kinetic energystoredin the rotor
andthe rateof kinetic energydecaydueto lossesat the blades. Assumingthe rateof
energylossis similar for both aircraft,thepilot would havemorethantwice the time
to reactin the VDTR baseline.
Along

with

landing

flare

designs

using

omitted

assuming

the

maneuver.
Eq.

3.62
that

rate

of descent,
The

[30].
the

the

Autorotative
The

flare

rotor

inertia

Flare

Index

acceleration

maneuver

takes

96

due

plays
is easily

to gravity

place

a major

role

calculated
and

at sea level.

the

in the
for both

density

Based

on

are
the

grossweight, disk loading androtor speedsindicatedin Table 5.1, the Autorotative

index for the VDTR baseline is 21 ft3/lb while it is only 9.50 ft3/lb for the
conventional baseline. The VDTR index is comparableto the index for a large
helicopter such as the Sikorsky CH-53D at a slightly lower gross weight. The
conventionalbaselineindex is far below the rangeof even the heaviesthelicopters.
The conclusionof this energybasedanalysisis thata conventionalrotor would have
a questionableability to arrestan autorotativedescentwhile the VDTR will likely
havethe autorotativeperformanceof a heavyhelicopter.

5.2

Comparison

Over

As discussed
leads

in the preceding

to a small

aircraft.

(less

In contrast,

conventional
because

than
this

design

section

section,

Disk

Loading

the increased

increase

shows

that

rotor

in gross
if a low

compares

favorably

incurs

a significant

design

weight

weight

disk

in terms
wing

of the VDTR

over

loading
of gross
weight

the

baseline

is forced
weight.

on

This is

penalty

as disk

is reduced.
In the following

conceptual
calculations.
conventional
V-22,

of Hover

1 percent)

the VDTR

a conventional

loading

a Range

design
For
rotor

the agreement

comparisons

code

it is important

such as VASCOMP.

instance,

although

propulsive

efficiency

with much

larger

the

Errors
analytical

correlates
rotors

97

to consider
could

the error
be introduced

method

used

well with empirical

can be expected

inherent

in a

in several
to

compute

data from

to be less exact.

the

Other

possiblesourcesof error are the engineperformanceand figure of merit which are

found by fitting a quadraticcurve to tabular data. Errors inherentin the curve fit
were found to over estimatethe figure of merit by as much as 0.02. Perhapsthe
largest sourceof error is in the estimationof componentweights basedon trend
equations. While mostaircraft componentsfollow a definite trend, aircraft outside
the range of experiencemay not fit thesetrends. For the range of disk loading
consideredhere,the conventionalrotor diameterrange is outsidethe rangeof V-22
experience:therotor diametersrangefrom 6 percentto 69percentlargerthanthe 39
ft diameterV-22 rotor. In the V-22, oscillatoryrotor loadscanexceedthe rotor load
limit during aggressive maneuvers. To prevent failure, pilot inputs during
maneuversmust be limited by an automaticcontrol system[41]. This situation
shouldbe muchworseasthe cruiserotor diameterincreases.Without a properstatic
anddynamicloadsanalysis,wing, rotor andhub weightsmay be inaccurate.For the
VDTR, dynamically-scaled-modelwind tunnel tests have at least demonstrated
stability and acceptableblade loadsfor the sizeof rotors consideredhere [19]. In
addition,exceptfor the lowestdisk loadingcase,all of the variable-diameterrotors
consideredareactually smallerthanthe V-22 rotor in the cruiseconfiguration. This
increasesconfidencethat bladeloads will be acceptable.The large diameterhover
rotor of the VDTR is not as much of a concern becauseit is in the range of
helicopterexperience. Another possibleerror is the wing weight calculation. As
discussedin the following paragraphs,the wing of the conventional design was
always sizedby whirl flutter while the VDTR wing was always sizedby bending.
98

The calculatedVDTR wing weight should be more accuratebecauseit is easy to

predict wing responseto a staticload. It is much more difficult to predict the input
force andthe wing responseresultingfrom the gyroscopicmotion of the rotor pylon
asin whirl flutter.
Therearealsopossibleerrorsin the VDTR calculations. As
the

VDTR

what

the

rotor

weight

was calculated

weight

would

have

penalty

could

vary

VDTR

may

also

been

significantly
have

VASCOMP

model

experimental

data,

due

by simply

if the

to

possible

diameter

depending
slightly
a

did

a 20 percent

not change.

on the diameter

different

reduction

losses

applying

change

download

in

the

in rotor

than

penalty

by

to

In reality
mechanism.

In

caused

before,

calculated

fountain.

thrust

mentioned

the

the

this
The

by

the

absence

of

fountain

were

ignored.
Although
assumed

that

within
range

the

of 480-540

within

lb.

much

optimized

and

Of course

higher.

The

5 to 10 percent

VASCOMP

calculated

and

errors,

are

only

the comparison

magnitudes

of an actual

error

size

be

accurate

of the weight
aircraft

it will

to

is in the

calculations
is likely

to be

aircraft.

diameter

was

optimized

only for the conventional

design.

loading

here,

the absolute

fuselage

wing

of the possible
calculations

considered

The

5.2.

size

performance

VDTR

The

of

the

the

in Table

designs.

size

For the designs

A summary
shown

to estimate

relative

+/- 1 percent.

are probably
only

it is difficult

conventional

99

tiltrotor

and length
in both

designs

were

cases

held

while

considered

constant
the

The fact that the tip speed

tip

is

for both
speed

was

of the VDTR

was fixed

had a negligible

were

also fixed

have

been

effect

on the results.

at 600 fps the maximum

gross

If the conventional
weight

increase

design

tip speed

for any design

would

less than 0.23 percent.

Disk Load

Wing

Tip Speed

Wing

Aspect

Diameter

(ps0

Load (ps0

(fps)

Span (ft)

Ratio

fit)

18.0

122.5

601

54.4

7.51

41.4

16.0

110.5

613

56.8

7.42

43.7

14.0

98.1

632

59.8

7.31

46.7

12.0

97.0

612

63.7

8.15

50.6

11.0

98.0

602

66.3

8.80

53.2

10.0

97.5

599

69.6

9.41

56.5

8.0

89.7

596

78.7

10.27

65.6

Diameter
14.0

148.8

600

49.2

7.35

47.2

12.0

135.0

600

52.8

7.71

50.1

11.0

132.5

600

54.2

7.96

53.2

10.0

124.2

6OO

57.0

8.19

56.0

8.0

106.0

6OO

65.0

8.71

63.9

Conventional

Variable

Table 5.2: Conceptual

The

gross

weights

of

both

designs

are

discussed,
weight
12-18
weight

over
psf.

a range

designs

seen

of disk loading.

For the VDTR

penalties

the

the range

of the conventional

Design Dimension

are

to have

shown

Information

in Fig.

a relatively

constant

For the conventional

is from
designs

100

10-14

psf.

5.3.

rotor,

Within
(+/-

error

lb)

gross

this range

A surprising

are less than

500

the

the weight

result

is from

is that the

penalties

of the

VDTR

until disk loading

to 8 psf,

the

gross

acknowledged
and

rotor

weight

that

to about

of both

11 psf.

designs

this is certainty

diameters

confidence

is reduced

shows

the likely

so far out of the range

in the gross

weight

As the disk loading

a dramatic

trend,

these

of tiltrotor

increase.

designs

experience

have

is reduced
While

it is

wing

that there

spans
is little

estimate.

56O0O
55000
54000
530O0
v

52000

F_,
=0

"_ 51000

VDTR

50000
49000

conventional

48OOO
47000
46000

,
6

=
10

12

14

16

'
18

20

hover disk loading (psf)

Figure

The
wing

trends

weight

between

5.3:

trend

VASCOMP

for gross

weight

Calculated

shown

Gross

above

Weight

vs. Disk Loading

can be explained

seen in Fig. 5.4. The key is that the difference

the conventional

and variable-diameter

disk loading.

101

designs

diverges

by considering
in the wing
with

the

weight

an increase

in

6000

convendonM
50O0

4000

VD

3000

2000

1000

10

12

14

16

18

20

hoverdisk loading (psO

Figure

The

difference

as follows.
larger
wing

must

the VDTR
be stiffer

conventional
which

The

additional

requirement.

and

against

whirl

rotor

wing

area

and

efficiency

reduced

11 psf

and

the

cruise

Weight

wing

weights

rotor

flutter.

diameter

power

102

the

profile
because

combine
becomes

span

diameter.

forces

decreases

can be explained

wing

As disk loading

an increased

efficiency
cruise

VDTR

Wing

the conventional

to a larger

increasing

propulsive

Calculated

of 14.0 psf,

due

to guard

drag
Near

conventional

loading

to a larger

the rotor

VASCOMP

wing

design,

leads

addition,

in the

At a disk

than

5.4:

In addition,

span

drag

during

of a lower

so large

the

is reduced

wing

to increase

is slightly

the
that

in the

to increase
cruise.

blade
cruise

In

loading.
power

it exceeds

the

hover powerrequirement.To minimize grossweight it becomesnecessaryto reduce

the wing drag. This is done by increasing the wing aspectratio (span/chord).
Trendsfor the optimal aspectratio andresultingwing drag areshown in Figure 5.5.
The penalty of a higher aspectratio is an increasein wing weight sinceit is more
difficult to stiffen a long slenderwing. In contrast,the VDTR engineis sized by
hover at all disk loading values,and decreasingwing drag by increasingthe wing
aspectratio haslittle benefitin termsof grossweight. The endresult is thatthe wing
weight increasesfasterfor the conventionaldesignasdisk loadingis reduced.

15

AR = 7.4

. J

V'DTR

AR

7.5

conventional
AR =10.2

10

If the wing

loading

the weight

penalty

high cruise

power

would
would

5.5:

have

12
hover

Figure

14

disk loading

VASCOMP

been

have simply

requirement.
103

18

20

(ps0

constant

shifted

16

Calculated

held

Wing

Drag

as the disk loading

to the engine

and fuel

was reduced,

weights

due to a

As discussedin Chapter3, lower disk loading should reduce

acoustic
fuel

treatment

weight

savings

tend to balance
gross

weight

hover

disk

exceeds
loading

the

weight.
combined

the wing
relatively

loading
hover

only acts

This

trend

with

and rotor
constant

power,

and

cruise

cabin

weight

in Fig.

acoustic

penalties

a range

to the

fuel

to worsen

the

over

is lowered

is verified

point

engine

involved.

where
weight

engine

and

The

engine

and

5.6-5.8.
treatment

of disk

fuel,

weight

This keeps

loadings.
the

power

disappear.

performance.

66O0
conventional
6400
6200

_6000

VD

5800

5600

54O0

5200

10

12

14

hover disk loading

Figure

5.6:

VASCOMP

16

18

(ps_

Calculated

104

the aircraft

However,

cruise

savings

reduction

Fuel Weight

20

once

the

requirement
Lower

disk

1200

1100
cony

1000

900

80O

10

12

14

'

'

16

'

18

20

hover disk loading (psf)

Figure

5.7:

VASCOMP

Calculated

Engine

Weight

600

5OO

400

"i

200
300

100

/n

10

12

14

16

18

20

hoverdiskloading(psO

Figure

5.8:

VASCOMP

Calculated

105

Acoustic

Treatment

Weight

The fuel savingsindicate that the VDTR compareswell with a conventional

design of the samedisk loading. This trend is particularly true when the disk
loading is below 11.0psf. At 10.0psf the VDTR designhasa 6 percentlower fuel
weight and5 percentlowerengineweight thanthesimilar conventionaldesign.
For disk loadingsfrom 11-14 psf, the results also show that a conventional
designhassurprisinglygoodcharacteristics.The conventionaldesignsin this range
havea beneficialreductionin fuel weight andenginesizecomparedthe conventional
baseline. Both traits could improve tiltrotor viability. As mentionedbefore,these
resultsmust be usedwith cautionbecauseof likely inaccuraciesin the rotor system
andwing weight calculations. For instance,if the actualwing or rotor weightswere
higher, it would not be advantageousto use a high wing aspectratios to reduce
cruisepower. The actualengineweight andfuel consumptionwould then be higher
thanindicated.

106

Chapter

Conclusions

The VDTR
tiltrotor

providing

tradeoffs

between

quantified
landing
compared

on

conclusions

tests, simulations

thorough

6.1

during

and

of rotor

maintainability

safety
can

benefits
be

of the variable-diameter

aircraft

weight,

power

Other

design

gross

including

Category
viability

external

will require

further

tests as necessary.

system

and

A performance

of a variable-diameter

testing

and

performance

basis

OEI

VDTR

performance

autorotation.

and flight

rotor

required,

The

rotor

have

been

fuel required

and

internal

noise,

gust

response.

analytical

Questions

must

established.

characteristics

and

studies,

about

be answered

for the civil

have

been

autorotative
Definite
wind

tunnel

the complexity,

cost

by the construction

and

hardware.

Conclusions

The results
failure,

of baseline

rate,

about

and reliability

and

a qualitative

descent

potential

reliability

weight

index

and Recommendations

offers

system

in terms
flare

steady

concept

of this study indicate

fuel economy,

hover

power

that from the standpoint

required

107

and wing

of safety

and engine

during

power

development

costs

the VDTR

baseline

conventional

has a large

interference

VASCOMP,
advance

performance

without

that of current

development

heavy

helicopter

rotor weights

should

civil

mission

autorotative

only

9.5 ft3/lb,

far below

that the VDTR

for high levels

and improve

will provide
The

capability.

predictions

lower

than

the

Based

on

autorotative

than

at

power.

This

A
may

directly

similar

to

based

on

is comparable

to

rotor
Index

design

will

likely

for this design

Although

for either

the

baseline,

design.

performance

Index

which

for helicopters.

rotor

requirement

performance

was 21 f_/lb

a conventional

of isolated

by

an OEI Category

Autorotative

The Autorotative

not calculated

calculated

reliability.

the conventional

range

power

will have

calculated

VDTR

power

of contingency

engine

In contrast,

slower

the hover

the VDTR

designs.

was

will descend

based on analytical

Therefore,

the acceptable

rate of descent

A performance.

have a 33 percent

for the baseline

a very limited

was
steady

it is evident

This

conclusion

in autorotation

is

discussed

[29].

Conclusions

cannot

and

are that a VDTR

have

but the

the rotors

costs

helicopters.

acoustics

between

baseline

of heavy

previously

platform

Category

a requirement

All indications

autorotative

for a larger

in OEI

in the 0.09 range.

save on engine

the index

viable

advantage

effects

the VDTR

ratios

VASCOMP

be more

baseline.

The VDTR
beneficial

may

testing
VDTR

about

should
predict

Conclusions

about

however,

weight,

engine

environmental

of the rotor

accurately

limited,

the

have

systems.
advantages

noise

size required

Both

baseline

in BVI

noise.

of either
aircraft

are

Current

design
low

must

noise

analytical

await

designs,
methods

from this source.

the overall

the VDTR

acceptability

baseline

economic
was

found

and fuel economy.

108

viability

of the VDTR

to be superior
The

wing

are

somewhat

in the areas

of the VDTR

of wing

design

was

sizedby bendingand showsno needof aeroelastictailoring. The conventionalwing

may require more advancedcompositedesignsin order to keep the wing weight
acceptable.Also the VDTR was found to require615 lb less fuel for the same600
nauticalmile mission. The savingsin fuel would lead to a small decreasein direct
operatingcostif all otherfactorsareequal. The VDTR shouldalsoimprove passenger
comfort dueto lower gustresponseasshownin Fig [2.7]. To makean assessment
of
theoveralleconomicviability, thedevelopmentandmaintenance
costsof the variablediametermechanismmust be known relative to the costs of additionaltechnologies
requiredby conventionaldesigns. The additionalcostsof conventionaldesignsmay
include aeroelastictailoring of wings and developmentof engines with high
contingencypowerratings.
If conversionpoweris similar to hover poweras indicatedby recenttestsof the
VDTR in the verticalmotionsimulator,the VDTR baselinegrossweight will be 3.7
percentlower thanindicated.This possiblereductionin grossweight will amplify the
benefitsjust discussed.
Additionalcomplexitydoesnot necessarilymeanthe reliability and maintenance
costsof the variable-diameter
rotor are unacceptable.The currentscaledmodel rotor
hasredundantloadpathssothat a singlecomponentfailure would not causethe rotor
to fail. Acceptablereliability mayberelativelyeasyto achievesincethe mechanismis
only operatedduringconversion.Noneof the full-scalerisk reductionor model-scale
wind tunneltestsdiscussedin references [14, 16and 19] haveindicatedproblemsin
theextensionandretractionmechanism.
Low disk loadingconventionalrotor designswerealsoinvestigatedas a possible
meansof improving filtrotor viability for the civil transportmission. Thesedesigns

109

comparedwell in termsof grossweight, enginesizeandpower requirementup to a

hoverdisk loading of 11.0psf.

6.2

Recommended

To validate
further

research

simulation

rotor

predictions

tests.

to tiltrotor

1. Several
this study

and

designs.

Bona

to improve
design

studies

would

tests

are

and about

and

wind

tunnel

be helpful

needed

studies

then be appropriate

emergency

concept

wing

landing

and

analytical

and

based

tests,

to improve

to confirm

the performance

of the most promising

the civil tiltrotor

of the VDTR,

such as rotor performance,

test data would

studies

should

future

size

analysis,

and Glinka

eliminating

studies,

3) Simulation

quality

the viability

stability

of

on mathematical
to determine

pilot

characteristics.

rotor design

and to measure

4)

or designs
public

will

response

noise.
analytical

conceptual

tunnel

of VDTR

of ride

to demonstrate

of analytical

in areas

2) Wind

by wind tunnel

external

form

calculations

noise.

opinion

and to investigate

1) Analytical

a flight test demonstrator

be warranted

involve

and flight

conventional

validated

Eventually

Wells,

in the

the performance

loading

passenger

depth

is necessary

and

about

low disk

and

of this study

of VASCOMP

weights

models

the results

studies

the accuracy

Research

[40]

redundant

Also, more

in VASCOMP

for use in calculating

noise

be incorporated

calculations

noise.

to validate

and performance

the tiltrotor

should

near field rotor

be performed

accurate
cruise

calculations.
prediction

module

the module

performance

and hover efficiency.

110

For

data

of

a more

developed

into VASCOMP.

and modifying
rotor

the assumptions

This

in
by

would

to also estimate

should

VASCOMP

be included
is already

setup to calculaterotor performancefrom tablesof Cpas a function of I.tand Cx.

In

the absence

be

of wind

used to generate
module

tunnel

this data

sophisticated

for promising

rotor

and the VMS mathematical

of the discrepancy
rotor-wing

reference

errors

tiltrotor

sized

aeroelastic

frequency

possible

in rotor

should

2.

tunnel

of the

most

be

loads

verified

using

weight

module

This

would

permit

weight

estimation.

the range

of experience

steady

provide

descent

more

and determine

size calculations

the source

and stability

wing

a more

appropriate
and
the

indicate
study

whether

in this study

rate in autorotation

of

of

or not

are realistic.

for conceptual

aircraft

sized

also be developed.
tests

are critical

important

autorotative

thrust

capability

interactions

in autorotation,

rotor-wing-fuselage

to determine

Blade

should

conversion

for use in the VASCOMP

conventional-tiltrotor

by VASCOMP
Wind

requirement.

could

VASCOMP

be compared

VASCOMP
The

The

would

system

for estimating

designs.

programs

analysis

outside

the low-disk-loading

by

aerodynamics

should

power

analysis.

ratios

configurations

A method

model

in the conversion

combinations

sophisticated

Some

test data,

to validate

quantities

to measure

of various
BVI noise

combinations

the

proprotor
during

and

results

are

the

listed

designs,

descent,

of
here.

of

studies.

These

the effects

download

reliability

analytical

are

the

of rotor-wing

of variable-diameter
the

diameter

change

mechanism.
3. Modern
development.
the scrutiny

Simulations
of pilots

characteristics
vibration

simulation

will

technology
provide

and gust response

also

the opportunity

and passengers
be unique

should

from
as well

at a low cost.
other

play a major
to subject

111

various

CTR

This is critical

since

Passenger

tolerance

aircraft.

as steep

role in civil tiltrotor

approach

and

departure

designs

tiltrotor

paths

of

to

flight
aircraft

must

be

known before proceedingwith more expensiveflight tests. The limits of pilot

techniqueduring partial andtotal power failures should be establishedto assessthe
safetyof variousdesigns.
4. A tiltrotor flight demonstratorwill likely be necessaryto convincerelevant
partiesof thefeasibilityof the civil tiltrotor. Passengerandcommunityacceptance
of
tiltrotor ride quality and external noise must be establishedbefore operatorswill
commit

to purchasing

that investing

aircraft.

in the infrastructure

option

for a demonsu'ator

noise

and

response.

Another
This

demonstrator.

A sub-option

diameter

to validate

rotors

the useful

and evaluation
acceptance
an advanced

has

of community
noise

the

could
a decrease

load capability

for internal

with

is to convert

option

must

involves

also be convinced

acceptable

the XV- 15 with variable-diameter

demonstrator

option

authorities

for civil tiltrotors

comparisons

of the XV-15

passengers.

transportation

is to equip

performance

limitation

increase

Local

conventional

would

be the

be to further
in the hover

of the aircraft.

acceptance

for external

and ride quality

civil tiltrotor.

112

of

modify
power
This

a
V-22

levels

enable

passenger

near

to carry
actual-size

with

requirement

would

noise

in a cabin

the

for direct

configured

providing

One

technology.

to measure

a V-22 into a demonstrator

advantage

rotors

proprotor

inability

risks.

and

variablethereby

demonstration

as well as passenger

environment

representative

of

Bibliography
[1]

Boeing
Commercial
Airplane
Co.,
et. al, "Civil
Tiltrotor
Missions
Applications:
A Research Study." NASA CR 177451, November,
1987.

and

[2]

Boeing
Commercial
Airplane
Applications,
Phase II: The
177576, February 1991.

and
CR

[3]

"Final Report of the Task Force on High Speed Rotorcraft",

Aeronautics
Advisory Committee, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration,
August
1992.

[4]

The Civil Tiltrotor Development

Advisory Committee,
"Final Report
Supplement,",
Department of Transportation,
December,
1995.

[5]

Unger, G., and Alexander,

H., "Research
Needs for a Commercial
Passenger
Tiltrotor,"
Seventeenth
European Rotorcraft
Forum, Paper No. 91-23,
Berlin,
Germany,
September
24-26, 1991.

[6]

Federal

Aviation

Department

[7]

Co.,
et. al, "Civil
Tiltrotor
Missions
Commercial
Passenger
Market",
NASA

Regulations,

The

Federal

Aviation

Technical

Administration,

of Transportation.

Interim
Federal

Airworthiness
Criteria,
Aviation Administration,

Region,

Fort Worth,

Powered-Lift
Department

Transport
Category
Aircraft,
of Transportation,
Southwest

Texas.

[8]

"Technology
Needs for High
177592, October, 1991.

[9]

Schleicher,
D., "Advanced
Civil Tiltrotor Design
49th Annual Forum of the American
Helicopter
1993.

[10]

Bilger et al., "'Interim Flight Test Data Report for XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research
Aircraft," Bell Helicopter
Textron Report No. 301-989-010,
November
15,
1979.

[11]

Fradenburgh,
E.,
Variable Diameter
Washington,

[12]

Jane's
All
Alexandria,

D.C.,

Speed

Rotorcraft

_d Matuska, D., "Advancing

Rotors,"
American
Helicopter
June,

the World's
VA, 1995.

(3),"

NASA

Contract

Optimization
Society,
St.

Report

and Issues,"
Louis,
MO.,

Tiltrotor
Society

State-of-the-Art
with
48th Annual Forum,

Jane's

Information

1992.
Aircraft

1995-96,

113

Group,

[13]

Fradenburgh,
E., "Dynamic
Model Wind Tunnel Tests of a Variable-Diameter,
Telescoping-Blade
Rotor System (TRAC Rotor),"
Sikorsky
Aircraft Division,
United
Aircraft
Corporation;
USAAMRDL
Technical
Report
73-32,
Eustis
Directorate,
U.S. Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory,
Fort Eustis, VA, July,
1973.

[14]

Frint, H., "Design

Selection
Tests for TRAC Retraction
Mechanism,"
Sikorsky
Aircraft Division,
United
Technologies
Corporation;
USAAMRDL
Technical
Report 76-43, Eustis Directorate,
U.S. Army
Air Mobility R&D Laboratory,
Fort Eustis, VA, January,
1977.

[15]

Martin,
S. and Hall,
Cruise Performance,"

[16]

Fradenburgh,
E.,
"Evaluation
of
the TRAC
Variable
Diameter
Rotor:
Preliminary
Design
of a Full-Scale
Rotor and Parametric
Mission
Analysis
Comparisons,"
Sikorsky
Aircraft
Division,
United
Aircraft
Corporation;
USAAMRDL
Technical
Report
75-54,
Eustis
Directorate,
U.S.
Army
Air
Mobility
R&D Laboratory,
Fort Eustis, VA, February,
1976.

[17]

Cassarino,
S., Effect of Root Cutout on Hovering
Performance,
Sikorsky
Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation,
Technical
Report AFFDL-TR70-70,
Air Force
Flight Dynamics
Laboratory,
Wright
Patterson
Air Force
Base, OH, June 1970.

[18]

Warburton,
F. and Curtis, H., "Evaluation
of Tiltrotor Aircraft Design Utilizing
a Realtime Interactive Simulation,"
American
Helicopter
Society
48th Annual
Forum, Washington,
DC., June, 1992.

[19]

Studebaker,
K. and Matuska,
D.,
Test Results,"
American
Helicopter
MO, May, 1993.

[20]

Owen, S., "Design

and Experimental
Verification
of a Family of High-Speed
Tilt Rotor Airfoils,"
American
Helicopter
Society
51st Annual
Forum,
Ft.
Worth, TX, May 1995.

[21]

Davis, S., et al., "Aerodynamic

Rotor,"
American
Helicopter
May, 1995.

[22]

Johnson,

[23]

McCormick,
B., Aerodynamics
Diego,
1967.

[24]

Felker, F. and Light,

American
Helicopter
4, 1986.

G., "Rotor Will Retract in Flight to Improve

SpaceAeronautics,
November
1969.

W., Helicopter

"Variable
Society

Design
Society

Theory,

Diameter
Tiltrotor
Wind Tunnel
49th Annual
Forum,
St. Louis,

Optimization
51st Annual

Princeton
of V/STOL

of a Variable
Diameter
Forum,
Fort Worth,

University
Flight,

J., "Rotor/Wing
Aerodynamic
Society 42nd Annual Forum,

114

V/STOL

Press,

Academic

Interactions
Washington,

Princeton,
Press,

Inc.,

Tilt
TX,

1980.
San

in Hover,"
D.C., June 2-

[251

Felker, F. and Light, J., "Aerodynamic

Interactions
Between
a Rotor and Wing
in Hover,"
Journal of the American
Helicopter
Society,
Vol. 33, No. 2, April
1988.

[26]

Pollack,
M., Warburton,
F. and Curtiss, H., "A Simulation
Study of Tiltrotor
Vertical Takeoff Procedures
Using Conventional
and Variable Diameter
Rotor
Systems,"
Seventeenth
European
Rotorcraft
Forum, Berlin, Germany,
September
24-26, 1991.

[27]

Felker, F., "Results

from a Test of a 2/3-Scale
V-22 Rotor and Wing in the 40By 80-Foot Wind Tunnel, American
Helicopter
Society 47th Annual Forum,
Phoenix,
AZ, May 6-8, 1991.

[28]

Dadone,
L., Liu, J., Wilkerson,
J., and Acree, C., "Proprotor
Design Issues
for High Speed Tiltrotors,"
American
Helicopter
Society 50th Annual Forum,
Washington,
D.C., May 1994.

[29]

Matuska,
Material

D., "Issues Pertaining

to Tiltrotor
Autorotative
Presented
to the CTRDAC Environmental/Safety

Meeting,

Sikorsky

Aircraft

Corporation,

Capability",
Briefing
Subcommittee

June 6, 1995.

[30]

Fradenburgh,
E., "A Simple Autorotative
Helicopter
Society,
29-3, 1984.

[31]

Edwards,
Helicopter

[32]

Hardin, J. and Lamkin,

S., "Concepts
for Reduction
of Blade-Vortex
Interaction
Noise," AIAA Paper 86-1855,
July 1986.

[33]

Hoad, D., "Helicopter

Model Scale Results of Blade-Vortex
Impulsive
Noise as Affected by Tip Modifcafion,"
American
36th Annual Forum, Washington
D.C., May 1980.

[34]

Schoen,
Manual

B., "X'V- 15 Tiltrotor Aircraft

Society 46th Annual Forum,

A., Rosenstein,
for VASCOMP

Computer
1980.

Program

J.,

H., Stanzione,
II, The V/STOL

(Revision

"A Robust

III),"

Numerical

Flare Index,"

Journal

of the American

Noise Characteristics,"
American
Washington
D.C., May 1990.

Interaction
Helicopter

Society

K. and Wisniewski,
J., "User's
Aircraft Sizing and Performance

NASA

Contract

Optimizer,"

No. NAS

No.

94-4336,

Phillips,
1994.

[36]

Davis,
Sizing
1973.

[37]

Chappell,
D. and Peyran,
R., "Methodology
for Estimating
Wing Weights
Conceptual
Tilt-Rotor
and Tilt-Wing
Aircraft,"
51st Annual
Conference
Society of Allied Weight Engineers,
Inc., Hartford,
CT, 18-20 May 1992.
115

Paper

May

[351

S. and Wisniewski,
J., "User's
Manual
and Performance
Computer
Program,"

AIAA

2-3142,

for HESCOMP,
The Helicopter
NASA CR-152018,
September,

for
of

[38]

Drees,

J.,

Lecture,"
1987.

"Prepare
for the 21st Century-The
Journal of the American
Helicopter

1987 Alexander
A. Nikolsky
Society,
Vol. 32, No. 3, July

[39]

Talbot, P., Bowles,

J.,
Preliminary
Performance

[40]

Wells, V., Bona, J., and Glinka, A., "An Acoustic

Methodology
Conceptual
Design of Tilt-Rotor
Aircraft,"
American
Helicopter
Annual Forum, Washington,
D.C., June 1996.

[41]

Agnihotri,
Analysis
American

and Lee, H.,

Estimation,"

A., Schuessler,
and Development
Helicopter
Society

"Helicopter
Rotor and Engine
AIAA Paper 86-1756, 1986.

Sizing

for

for Use in
Society 52nd

W., and Marr,

R., "V-22
Aerodynamic
Loads
of Loads
Alleviation
Flight
Control
System,"
45th Annual Forum, Boston, MA, May 1989.

116