Helicopter Theory

Copyright

Copyright © 1980 by Wayne Johnson. All rights reserved.

Bibliographical Note

This Dover edition, first published in 1994, is an unabridged and slightly corrected republication of the work first published by the Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, in 1980.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Johnson, Wayne, 1946-

Helicopter theory/Wayne Johnson. p. cm.

This Dover edition...is an unabridged and slightly corrected republication of the work first published by the Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, in 1980—T.p. verso.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

9780486131825

1. Helicopters. I.Title.

TL716.J63 1994

629.133’352—dc20

94-26727 CIP

Manufactured in the United States by Courier Corporation

68230706 www.doverpublications.com

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NOTATION

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 - VERTICAL FLIGHT I

Chapter 3 - VERTICAL FLIGHT II

Chapter 4. - FORWARD FLIGHT I

Chapter 5 - FORWARD FLIGHT II

Chapter 6 - PERFORMANCE

Chapter 7 - DESIGN

Chapter 8 - MATHEMATICS OF ROTATING SYSTEMS

Chapter 9 - ROTARY WING DYNAMICS I

Chapter 10 - ROTARY WING AERODYNAMICS I

Chapter 11 - ROTARY WING AERODYNAMICS II

Chapter 12 - ROTARY WING DYNAMICS II

Chapter 13 - ROTARY WING AERODYNAMICS III

Chapter 14 - HELICOPTER AEROELASTICITY

Chapter 15 - STABILITY AND CONTROL

Chapter 16 - STALL

Chapter 17 - NOISE

CITED LITERATURE

INDEX

A CATALOG OF SELECTED DOVER BOOKS IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Figure 2-15 reprinted by permission of David R. Clark and the American Helicopter Society.

Figure 5-39 reprinted by permission of Franklin D. Harris and the American Helicopter Society.

Figure 12-4 reprinted by permission of James C. Biggers and the American Helicopter Society.

Figure 12-10 reprinted by permission or Robert A. Ormiston and Dewey H. Hodges, and the American Helicopter Society.

Figure 16-1 reprinted by permission of Frank J. Tarzanin, Jr., and the American Helicopter Society.

Figure 16-4 from Alfred Gessow and Garry C. Myers, Jr., Aerodynamics of the Helicopter, copyright 1952 by Alfred Gessow and the estate of Garry C. Myers; published by Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 16-6 reprinted by permission of Norman D. Ham and Melvin S. Garelick, and the American Helicopter Society.

Figure 17-2 reprinted by permission of Sheila E. Widnall and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Results of rotor airloads calculations presented in Chapter 13, sections 13-2 and 13-3 used by permission of Michael P. Scully.

NOTATION

Listed below alphabetically are the principal symbols used in this text. Not included are symbols appearing only within one chapter. Very often dimensionless quantities are used in this text; these are based on the air density, the rotor rotational speed, and the rotor radius (ρ, Ω, and R). See also section 1-3.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1-1 The Helicopter

The helicopter is an aircraft that uses rotating wings to provide lift, propulsion, and control. Figures 1-1 to 1-3 illustrate the principal helicopter configurations. The rotor blades rotate about a vertical axis, describing a disk in a horizontal or nearly horizontal plane. Aerodynamic forces are generated by the relative motion of a wing surface with respect to the air. The helicopter with its rotary wings can generate these forces even when the velocity of the vehicle itself is zero, in contrast to fixed-wing aircraft, which require a translational velocity to sustain flight. The helicopter therefore has the capability of vertical flight, including vertical take-off and landing. The efficient accomplishment of vertical flight is the fundamental characteristic of the helicopter rotor.

The rotor must efficiently supply a thrust force to support the helicopter weight. Efficient vertical flight means a low power loading (ratio of rotor power required to rotor thrust), because the installed power and fuel consumption of the aircraft are proportional to the power required. For a rotary wing, low disk loading (the ratio of rotor thrust to rotor disk area) is the key to a low power loading. Conservation of momentum requires that the rotor lift be obtained by accelerating air downward, because corresponding to the lift is an equal and opposite reaction of the rotating wings against the air. Thus the air left in the wake of the rotor possesses kinetic energy which must be supplied by a power source in the aircraft if level flight is to be sustained. This is the induced power loss, a property of both fixed and rotating wings that constitutes the absolute minimum of power required for equilibrium flight. For the rotary wing in hover, the induced power loading is found to be proportional to the square root of the rotor disk loading. Hence the efficiency of rotor thrust generation increases as the disk loading decreases. For a given gross weight the induced power is inversely proportional to the rotor radius, and therefore the helicopter is characterized by the large disk area of large diameter rotors. The disk loading characteristic of helicopters is in the range of 100 to 500 N/m² (2 to 10 1b/ft²). The small diameter rotating wings found in aeronautics, including propellers and turbofan engines, are used mainly for aircraft propulsion. For such applications a high disk loading is appropriate, since the rotor is operating at high axial velocity and at a thrust equal to only a fraction of the gross weight. However, the use of high disk loading rotors for direct lift severely compromises the vertical flight capability in terms of both greater installed power and much reduced hover endurance. The helicopter uses the lowest disk loading of all VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft designs and hence has the most efficient vertical flight capability. It follows that the helicopter may be defined as an aircraft utilizing large diameter, low disk loading rotary wings to provide the lift for flight.

Figure 1-1 A single main rotor and tail rotor helicopter

Figure 1-2 A two-bladed single main rotor helicopter

Figure 1-3 A tandem main rotor helicopter

Since the helicopter must also be capable of translational flight, a means is required to produce a propulsive force to oppose the aircraft and rotor drag in forward flight. For low speeds at least, this propulsive force is obtained from the rotor, by tilting the thrust vector forward. The rotor is also the source of the forces and moments on the aircraft that control its position, attitude, and velocity. In a fixed wing aircraft, the lift, propulsion, and control forces are provided by largely separate aerodynamic surfaces. In the helicopter, all three are provided by the rotor.

Vertical flight capability is not achieved without a cost, which must be weighed against the value of VTOL capability in the desired applications of the aircraft. The task of the engineer is to design an aircraft that will accomplish the required operations with minimum penalty for vertical flight. The price of vertical flight includes a higher power requirement than for fixed wing aircraft, a factor that influences the first cost and operating cost. A large transmission is required to deliver the power to the rotor at low speed and high torque. The fact that the rotor is a mechanically complex system increases first cost and maintenance costs. The rotor is a source of vibration, hence increased maintenance costs, passenger discomfort, and pilot fatigue. There are high alternating loads on the rotor, reducing the structural component life and in general resulting in increased maintenance cost. The stability and control characteristics are often marginal, especially in hover, unless a reliable automatic control system is used. In particular, good instrument flight characteristics are lacking without stability augmentation. Aircraft noise is an increasingly important factor in air transportation, as it is the primary form of interaction of the system with a large part of society. The helicopter is among the quietest of aircraft (or at least it can be), but utilization of its VTOL capability often involves operation close to urban areas, leading to stricter noise requirements in order to achieve its potential. All these factors can be overcome to design a highly succsesful aircraft. The engineering analysis required for that task is the subject of this book.

1-1.1 The Helicopter Rotor

The conventional helicopter rotor consists of two or more identical, equally spaced blades attached to a central hub. The blades are maintained in uniform rotational motion, usually by a shaft torque from the engine. The lift and drag forces on these rotating wings produce the torque, thrust, and other forces and moments of the rotor. The large diameter rotor required for efficient vertical flight and the high aspect ratio blades required for good aerodynamic efficiency of the rotating wing result in blades that are considerably more flexible than high disk loading rotors such as propellers. Consequently, there is a substantial motion of the rotor blades in response to the aerodynamic forces in the rotary wing environment. This motion can produce high stresses in the blades or large moments at the root, which are transmitted through the hub to the helicopter. Attention must therefore be given in the design of the helicopter rotor blades and hub to keeping these loads low. The centrifugal stiffening of the rotating blade results in the motion being predominantly about the blade root. Hence the design task focuses on the configuration of the rotor hub.

A frequent design solution that was adopted early in the development of the helicopter and only recently altered is to use hinges at the blade root that allow free motion of the blade normal to and in the plane of the disk. A schematic of the root hinge arrangement is given in Fig 1-4. Because the bending moment is zero at the blade hinge, it must be low throughout the root area, and no hub moment is transmitted through the blade root to the helicopter. This configuration makes use of the blade motion to relieve the bending moments that would otherwise arise at the root of the blade. The motion of the blade allowed by these hinges has an important role in the behavior of the rotor and in the analysis of that behavior. Some current rotor designs eliminate the hinges at the root, so that the blade motion involves structural bending. The hub and blade loads are necessarily higher than for a hinged design. The design solution is basically the same, however, because the blade must be provided with enough flexibility to allow substantial motion, or the loads would be intolerable even with advanced materials and design technology. Hence blade motion remains a dominant factor in rotor behavior, although the root load and hub moment capability of a hingeless blade has a significant influence on helicopter design and operating characteristics.

Figure 1-4 Schematic of an articulated rotor hub and root, showing only one of the two or more blades of the rotor.

The motion of a hinged blade consists basically of rigid body rotation about each hinge, with restoring moments due to the centrifugal forces acting on the rotating blade. Motion about the hinge lying in the rotor disk plane (and perpendicular to the blade radial direction) produces out-of-plane deflection of the blade and is called flap motion. Motion about the vertical hinge produces deflection of the blade in the plane of the disk and is called lag motion (or lead-lag). For a blade without hinges the fundamental modes of out-of-plane and in-plane bending define the flap and lag motion. Because of the high centrifugal stiffening of the blade these modes are similar to the rigid body rotations of hinged blades, except in the vicinity of the root, where most of the bending takes place. In addition to the flap and lag motion, the ability to change the pitch of the blade is required in order to control the rotor. Pitch motion allows control of the angle of attack of the blade, and hence control of the aerodynamic forces on the rotor. This blade pitch change, called feathering motion, is usually accomplished by movement about a hinge or bearing. The pitch bearing on a hinged blade is usually outboard of the flap and lag hinges; on a hingeless blade the pitch bearing may be either inboard or outboard of the major flap and lag bending at the root. There are also rotor designs that eliminate the pitch bearings as well as the flap and lag hinges; the pitch motion then occurs about a region of torsional flexibility at the blade root.

The mechanical arrangement of the rotor hub to accommodate the flap and lag motion of the blade provides a fundamental classification of rotor types as follows:

Articulated rotor. The blades are attached to the hub with flap and lag hinges.

Teetering rotor. Two blades forming a continuous structure are attached to the rotor shaft with a single flap hinge in a teetering or seesaw arrangement. The rotor has no lag hinges. Similarly, a gimballed rotor has three or more blades attached to the hub without hinges, and the hub is attached to the rotor shaft by a gimbal or universal joint arrangement.

Hingeless rotor. The blades are attached to the hub without flap or lag hinges, although often with a feathering bearing or hinge. The blade is attached to the hub with cantilever root restraint, so that blade motion occurs through bending at the root. This rotor is also called a rigid rotor. However, the limit of a truly rigid blade, which is so stiff that there is no significant motion, is applicable only to high disk loading rotors.

1-1.2 Helicopter Configuration

The arrangement of the rotor or rotors on a helicopter is perhaps its most distinctive external feature and is an important factor in its behavior, notably its stability and control characteristics. Usually the power is delivered to the rotor through the shaft, accompanied by a torque. The aircraft in steady flight can have no net force or moment acting on it, and therefore the torque reaction of the rotor on the helicopter must be balanced in some manner. The method chosen to accomplish this torque balance is the primary determinant of the helicopter configuration. Two methods are in general use; a configuration with a single main rotor and a tail rotor, and configurations with twin contrarotating rotors.

The single main rotor and tail rotor configuration uses a small auxiliary rotor to provide the torque balance (and yaw control). This rotor is on the tail boom, typically slightly beyond the edge of the main rotor disk. The tail rotor is normally vertical, with its shaft horizontal and parallel to the helicopter lateral axis. The torque balance is produced by the tail rotor thrust acting on an arm about the main rotor shaft. The main rotor provides lift, propulsive force, and roll, pitch, and vertical control for this configuration.

A twin main rotor configuration uses two contrarotating rotors, of equal size and loading, so that the torques of the rotors are equal and opposing. There is then no net yaw moment on the helicopter due to the main rotors. This configuration automatically balances the main rotor torque without requiring a power-absorbing auxiliary rotor. The rotor-rotor aerodynamic interference losses absorb about the same amount of power, however. The most frequent twin rotor arrangement is the tandem helicopter configuration-fore and aft placement of the main rotors on the fuselage usually with significant overlap of the rotor disks and with the rear rotor raised vertically above the front rotor. A side-by-side twin rotor arrangement has also found some application.

1-1.3 Helicopter Operation

Operation in vertical flight, with no translational velocity, is the particular role for which the helicopter is designed. Operation with no velocity at all relative to the air, either vertical or translational, is called hover. Lift and control in hovering flight are maintained by rotation of the wings to provide aerodynamic forces on the rotor blades. General vertical flight involves climb or descent with the rotor horizontal, and hence with purely axial flow through the rotor disk. A useful aircraft must be capable of translational flight as well. The helicopter accomplishes forward flight by keeping the rotor nearly horizontal, so that the rotor disk sees a relative velocity in its own plane in addition to the rotational velocity of the blades. The rotor continues to provide lift and control for the aircraft. It also provides the propulsive force to sustain forward flight, by means of a small forward tilt of the rotor thrust.

Safe operation after loss of power is required of any successful aircraft. The fixed wing aircraft can maintain lift and control in power-off flight, descending in a glide at a shallow angle. Rotary wing aircraft also have the capability of sustaining lift and control after a loss of power. Power-off descent of the helicopter is called autorotation. The rotor continues to turn and provide lift and control. The power required by the rotor is taken from the air flow provided by the aircraft descent. The procedure upon recognition of loss of power is to set the controls as required for autorotative descent, and establish equilibrium flight at the minimum descent rate. Then near the ground the helicopter is flared, using the rotor-stored kinetic energy of rotation to eliminate the vertical and translational velocity just before touchdown. The helicopter rotor in vertical power-off descent has been found to be nearly as effective as a parachute of the same diameter as the rotor disk; about half that descent rate is achievable in forward flight.

A rotary wing aircraft called the autogiro uses autorotation as the normal working state of the rotor. In the helicopter, power is supplied directly to the rotor, and the rotor provides propulsive force as well as lift. In the autogiro, no power or shaft torque is supplied to the rotor. The power and propulsive force required to sustain level forward flight are supplied by a propeller or other propulsion device. Hence the autogiro is like a fixed-wing aircraft, since the rotor takes the role of the wing in providing only lift for the vehicle, not propulsion. Sometimes the aircraft control forces and moments are supplied by fixed aerodynamic surfaces as in the airplane, but it is better to obtain the control from the rotor. The rotor performs much like a wing, and has a fairly good lift-to-drag ratio. Although rotor performance is not as good as that of a fixed wing, the rotor is capable of providing lift and control at much lower speeds. Hence the autogiro is capable of flight speeds much slower than fixed-wing aircraft. Without power to the rotor itself, however, it is not capable of actual hover or vertical flight. Because autogiro performance is not that much better than the performance of an airplane with a low wing loading, it has usually been found that the requirement of actual VTOL capability is necessary to justify the use of a rotor on an aircraft.

1-2 History

The initial development of rotary-wing aircraft faced three major problems that had to be overcome to achieve a successful vehicle. The first problem was to find a light and reliable engine. The reciprocating internal combustion engine was the first to fulfill the requirements, and much later the adoption of the turboshaft engine for the helicopter was a significant advance. The second problem was to develop a light and strong structure for the rotor, hub, and blades while maintaining good aerodynamic efficiency. The final problem was to understand and develop means of controlling the helicopter, including balancing the rotor torque. These problems were essentially the same as those that faced the development of the airplane and were solved eventually by the Wright brothers. The development of the helicopter in many ways paralleled that of the airplane. That helicopter development took longer may be attributed to the cost of vertical flight, which required a higher development of aeronautical technology before the problems could be satisfactorily overcome.

1-2.1 Helicopter Development

A history of helicopter development is usually begun with mention of the Chinese top and Leonardo da Vinci. The Chinese flying top (c. 400 B.C.) was a stick with a propeller on top, which was spun by the hands and released. Among da Vinci’s work (late 15th century) were sketches of a machine for vertical flight utilizing a screw-type propeller. In the 18th century there was some work with models. Mikhail V. Lomonosov (Russia, 1754) demonstrated a spring-powered model to the Russian academy of sciences. Launoy and Bienvenu (France, 1784) demonstrated a spring-powered model to the French academy of sciences. It had two contrarotating rotors of four blades each (constructed of feathers), powered by a flexed bow. Sir George Cayley (England, 1790’s) constructed models powered by elastic elements and made sketches of helicopters. These models had little impact on helicopter development.

In the last half of the 19th century many inventors were concerned with the helicopter. There was some practical progress, but no successful vehicle. The problem was the lack of a cheap, reliable, light engine. A number of attempts to use a steam engine are known. W.H. Phillips (England, 1842) constructed a 10 kg steam-powered model. Viscomte Gustave de Ponton d’Amecourt (France, 1863) built a small steam-driven model; he also invented the word helicopter. Alphonse Penaud (France, 1870’s) experimented with models. Enrico Forlanini (Italy, 1878) built a 3.5 kg flying steam-driven model. Thomas Edison (United States, 1880’s) experimented with models. He recognized that the problem was the lack of an adequate (meaning light) engine. Edison concluded that no helicopter would be able to fly until engines were available with a weight-to-power ratio below 1 to 2 kg/hp. These were still only models, but they were beginning to address the problem of an adequate power source for sustained flight. The steam engine was not successful for aircraft, especially the helicopter, because of the low power-to-weight ratio of the system.

Around 1900 the internal combustion reciprocating gasoline engine became available. It made possible airplane flight, and eventually helicopter flight as well. Renard (France, 1904) built a helicopter with two side-by-side rotors, using a two-cylinder engine; he introduced the flapping hinge for the helicopter rotor. The Breguet-Richet (France, 1907) Gyroplane No. 1 had four rotors with four biplane blades each (rotors 8 m in diameter, gross weight 580 kg, 45 hp Antoinette engine). It made a tethered flight with a passenger at an altitude of about 1 m for about 1 min. Paul Cornu (France 1907) constructed a machine that made the first flight with a pilot (Cornu). It had two contrarotating rotors in tandem configuration with two fabric-covered blades each (rotors 6 m in diameter, gross weight 260 kg, 24 hp Antoinette engine connected to the rotors by belts). Control was by vanes in the rotor slipstream and was not very effective. This helicopter achieved an altitude of about 0.3 m for about 20 sec; it had problems with mechanical design and with lack of stability. Emile and Henry Berliner (United States, 1909) built a two-engine coaxial helicopter that lifted a pilot untethered. Igor Sikorsky (Russia, 1910) built a helicopter with two coaxial three-bladed rotors (rotors 5.8 m in diameter, 25 hp Anzani engine) that could lift 180 kg but not its own weight plus the pilot. Sikorsky would return to the development of the helicopter (with considerably more success) after building airplanes in Russia and in the United States. Boris N. Yuriev (Russia, 1912) built a machine with a two-bladed main rotor and a small antitorque tail rotor (main rotor 8 m in diameter, gross weight 200 kg, 25 hp Anzani engine). This helicopter made no successful flight, but Yuriev went on to supervise helicopter development in the Soviet Union. Petroczy and von Kaŕmań (Austria, 1916) built a tethered observation helicopter that achieved an altitude of 50 m with payload.

The development of better engines during and after World War I solved the problem of an adequate power source, at least enough to allow experimenters to face the task of finding a satisfactory solution for helicopter control. George de Bothezat (United States, 1922) built a helicopter with four six-bladed rotors at the ends of intersecting beams (gross weight 1600 kg, 180 hp engine at the center). It had good control, utilizing differential collective of the four rotors, and made many flights with passengers up to an altitude of 4 to 6 m. (Collective pitch is a change made in the mean blade pitch angle to control the rotor thrust magnitude.) This was the first rotor-craft ordered by the U.S. Army, but after the expenditure of $200,000 the project was finally abandoned as being too complex mechanically. Etienne Oemichen (France, 1924) built a machine with four two-bladed rotors (two 7.6 m in diameter and two 6.4 m in diameter) to provide lift, five horizontal propellers for attitude control, two propellers for propulsion, and one propeller in front for yaw control—all powered by a single 120 hp Le Rhone engine. It set the first helicopter distance record, 360 m. Marquis Raul Pateras Pescara (Spain, 1924) constructed a helicopter with two coaxial rotors of four biplane blades each (180 hp; a 1920 craft of similar design that used rotors 6.4 m in diameter and a 45 hp Hispano engine had inadequate lift). For control, he warped the biplane blades to change their pitch angle. Pescara was the first to demonstrate effective cyclic for control of the main rotors. (Cyclic pitch is a sinusoidal, once-per-revolution change made in the blade pitch to tilt the rotor disk.) Pescara’s helicopter set a distance record (736 m), but had stability problems. Emile and Henry Berliner (United States, 1920-1925) built a helicopter using two rotors positioned on the tips of a biplane wing in a side-by-side configuration. They used rigid wooden propellers for the rotors and obtained control by tilting the entire rotor. Louis Brennan (England, 1920’s) built a helicopter with a rotor turned by propellers on the blades, to eliminate the torque problem; the machine was mechanically too complex. Cyclic control was obtained by warping the blades with aerodynamic control tabs. A.G. von Baumhauer (Holland, 1924-1929) developed a helicopter with a single main rotor and a vertical tail rotor for torque balance (two-bladed main rotor 15 m in diameter, gross weight 1300 kg, 200 hp rotary engine). A separate engine was used for the tail rotor (80 hp Thulin rotary engine mounted directly to the tail rotor). The main rotor blades were free to flap, but were connected by cables to form a teetering rotor. Control was by cyclic pitch of the main rotor, produced using a swashplate. Flights were made, but never at more than 1 m altitude. There were difficulties with directional control because of the separate engines for the main rotor and tail rotor, and the project was abandoned after a bad crash. Corradino d’Ascanio (Italy, 1930) constructed a helicopter with two coaxial rotors (rotors 13 m in diameter, 95 hp engine). The two-bladed rotors had flap hinges and free-feathering hinges. Control by servo tabs on the blade was used to obtain cyclic and collective pitch changes. For several years this machine held records for altitude (18 m), endurance (8 min 45 sec), and distance (1078 m). The stability and control characteristics were marginal, however. M.B. Blecker (United States, 1930) built a helicopter with four winglike blades. Power was delivered to a propeller on each blade from an engine in the fuselage. Control was by aerodynamic surfaces on the blades and by a tail on the aircraft. The Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute of the Soviet Union developed a series of single rotor helicopters under the direction of Yuriev. The TsAGI I-EA (1931) had a four-bladed main rotor (rotor 11 m in diameter, gross weight 1100 kg, 120 hp engine) with cyclic and collective control, and two small contrarotating antitorque rotors.

The development of the helicopter was fairly well advanced at this point, but the stability and control characteristics were still marginal, as were the forward flight and power-off (autorotation) capabilities of the designs. It was in this period, the 1920’s and 1930’s, that the autogiro was developed. The autogiro was the first practical use of the direct-lift rotary wing. It was developed largely by Juan de la Cierva (Spanish, 1920’s-1930’s; he also coined the word autogiro). In this aircraft, a windmilling rotor replaces the wing of the airplane. Essentially, the fixed wing aircraft configuration is used, with a propeller supplying the propulsive force; the initial designs even used conventional airplane-type aerodynamic surfaces for control (ailerons, rudder, and elevator). With no power directly to the rotor, hover and vertical flight is not possible, but the autogiro is capable of very slow flight and in cruise it behaves much like an airplane.

Juan de la Cierva designed an airplane that crashed in 1919 due to stall near the ground. He then became interested in designing an aircraft with a low take-off and landing speed that would not stall if the pilot dropped the speed excessively. He determined from wind-tunnel tests of model rotors that with no power to the shaft but with a rearward tilt of the rotor, good lift-to-drag ratio could be obtained even at low speed. The best results were at low, positive collective pitch of the rotor. In 1922, Cierva built the C-3 autogiro with a five-bladed rigid rotor and a tendency to fall over sideways. He had a model with blades of flexible palm wood that flew properly. It was discovered that the flexible rotor blades accounted for the successful flight of the model; suggesting the use of articulated rotor blades on the autogiro. Cierva consequently incorporated flapping blades in his design. The flap hinge eliminated the rolling moment on the aircraft in forward flight due to the asymmetry of the flow over the rotor. Cierva was the first to use the flap hinge in a successful rotary-wing aircraft. In 1923, the C-4 autogiro was built and achieved successful flight. It had a four-bladed rotor with flap hinges on the blades (rotor 9.8 m in diameter, 110 hp Le Rhone engine). Control was by conventional airplane aerodynamic surfaces. In 1924, the C-6 autogiro with flapping rotor blades was built (four-bladed rotor 11 m in diameter, 100 hp Le Rhone rotary engine). An Avro 504K aircraft fuselage and ailerons on outrigger spars were used. The demonstration of this autogiro in 1925 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment was the stimulus for the early analysis of the rotary wing in England by Glauert and Lock. The C-6 is generally regarded as Cierva’s first successful autogiro (1926).

In 1925, Cierva founded the Cierva Autogiro Company in England, which was his base thereafter. In the next decade about 500 of his autogiros were produced, many by licensees of the Cierva Company, including A.V. Roe, de Havilland, Weir, Westland, Parnell, and Comper in Britain; Pitcairn, Kellett, and Buhl in the United States; Focke-Wulf in Germany; Loire and Olivier in France; and the TsAGI in Russia. A crash in 1927 led to an appreciation of the high in-plane blade loads due to flapping, and a lag hinge was added to the rotor blades. This completed the development of the fully articulated rotor hub for the autogiro. In 1932, Cierva added rotor control to replace the airplane control surfaces, which were not very effective at low speeds. He used direct tilt of the rotor hub for longitudinal and lateral control. Raoul Hafner (England, 1935) developed an autogiro incorporating cyclic pitch control by means of a spider control mechanism to replace the direct tilt of the rotor hub. E. Burke Wilford (United States, 1930’s) developed a hingeless rotor autogiro that also used cyclic control of the rotors.

By 1935, the autogiro was well developed in both Europe and America. Its success preceded that of the helicopter because of the lower power required without actual vertical flight capability and because the unpowered rotor is mechanically simpler. In addition, it was possible to start with most of the airplane technology, for example in the propulsion system, and initially even the control system. Lacking true vertical flight capability, however, the autogiro was never able to compete effectively with fixed wing aircraft. Autogiro developments, including experimental and practical experience, had some influence on helicopter development and design. The autogiro had a substantial impact on the development of rotary wing analysis; much of the work of the 1920’s and 1930’s, which forms the foundation of helicopter analysis, was originally developed for the autogiro.

Meanwhile, the development of the helicopter continued. Louis Breguet and Rene Dorand (France, 1935) built a helicopter with coaxial two-bladed rotors (rotors 16.5 m in diameter, gross weight 2000 kg, 450 hp engine). The rotors had an articulated hub (flap and lag hinges); control was by cyclic for pitch and roll, and differential torque for directional control. The aircraft had satisfactory control characteristics and held records for speed (44.7 kph), altitude (158 m), duration (1 hr 2 min), and closed circuit distance (44 km). E.H. Henrich Focke (Germany, 1936), constructed a helicopter with two three-bladed rotors mounted on trusses in a side-by-side configuration (rotors 7 m in diameter, gross weight 950 kg, 160 hp Bramo engine). The rotor had an articulated hub and tapered blades. Directional and longitudinal control were by cyclic, roll control by differential collective. Vertical and horizontal tail surfaces were used for stability and trim in forward flight, and the rotor shafts were inclined inward for stability. This helicopter set records for speed (122.5 kph), altitude (2440 m), and endurance (1 hr 21 min). It was a well-developed machine, with good control, performance, and reliability. Anton Flettner (Germany, 1938-1940) developed a synchropter design, with two rotors in a side-by-side configuration but highly intermeshed (hub separation 0.6 m). The FL-282 had two-bladed articulated rotors (rotors 12 m in diameter, gross weight 1000 kg, 140 hp Siemens-Halske engine). C.G. Pullin (Britain, 1938) built helicopters with a side-by-side configuration, in 1938 the W-5 (two-bladed rotors 4.6 m in diameter, gross weight 380 kg, 50 hp Weir engine), and in 1939 the W-6 (three-bladed rotors 7.6 m in diameter, gross weight 1070 kg, 205 hp de Havilland engine) for G. & J. Weir Ltd. Ivan P. Bratukhin (TsAGI in the USSR, 1939-1940) constructed the Omega I helicopter with two three-bladed rotors in a side-by-side configuration (rotors 7 m in diameter, gross weight 2300 kg, two 350 hp engines). There was considerable effort in rotary wing development in Germany during World War II, including the Focke-Achgelis Fa-223 in 1941. This helicopter, which had two three-bladed rotors in the side-by-side configuration (rotors 12 m in diameter, gross weight 4300 kg, 1000 hp Bramo engine), had an absolute ceiling of 5000 m, a range of 300 km, a cruise speed of 120 kph with six passengers, and a useful load of 900 kg.

Igor Sikorsky (Sikorsky Aircraft Co. in the United States, 1939-1941) returned to helicopter development in 1938 after designing and building airplanes in Russia and the United States. In 1941, Sikorsky built the VS-300, a helicopter with a single three-bladed main rotor and a small antitorque tail rotor (rotor 9 m in diameter, gross weight 520 kg,100 hp Franklin engine). Lateral and longitudinal control was by main rotor cyclic, and directional control was by means of the tail rotor. The tail rotor was driven by a shaft from the main rotor. The pilot’s controls were like the present standard (cyclic stick, pedals, and a collective stick with a twist grip throttle). Considerable experimentation was required to develop a configuration with suitable control characteristics. The first configuration had three auxiliary rotors (one vertical and two horizontal) on the tail for control and stability. In 1941, the number of auxiliary rotors was reduced to two, a vertical tail rotor for yaw and a horizontal tail rotor for pitch control. Finally the horizontal propeller was removed, main rotor cyclic replacing it for longitudinal control. This version was Sikorsky’s eighteenth, the single main rotor and tail rotor configuration that has become the most common helicopter type. Sikorsky also tried a two-bladed main rotor. It had comparable performance and was simpler, but was not pursued because the vibration was considered excessive. In 1942 the R-4 (VS-316), a derivative of the VS-300, was constructed (three-bladed rotor 11.6 m in diameter, gross weight 1100 kg, 185 hp Warner engine). This helicopter model went into production and several hundred were built during World War II. Sikorsky’s aircraft is generally considered the first practical, truly operational helicopter, although a possible exception is the work of Focke in Germany during World War II; the latter effort reached a dead end in the early 1940’s because of the time and place of its development, however. Igor Sikorsky’s R-4 was successful because it was mechanically simple (relative to other helicopter designs of the time at least) and controllable—and because it went into production.

Sikorsky’s success gave great impetus to the development of the helicopter in the United States. Many other designs began development and production in the next few years. Since World War II there has been considerable progress in the mechanical and technical development of the helicopter, with production to support further development. Lawrence Bell (Bell Helicopter Company in the United States, 1943) built a helicopter with a two-bladed teetering main rotor and a tail rotor, using the gyro stabilizer bar developed by Arthur Young in the United States during the 1930’s. In 1946, the Bell Model 47 (rotor 10.7 m in diameter, gross weight 950 kg, 178 hp Franklin engine) received the first American certificate of airworthiness for helicopters. Frank N. Piasecki (Piasecki Helicopter Corporation in the United States, 1945) developed the PV-3, a tandem rotor helicopter (three-bladed rotors 12.5 m in diameter, gross weight 3100 kg, 600 hp Pratt and Whitney engine). Piasecki’s company eventually became the Boeing Vertol Company, with the tandem configuration remaining its basic production type. Louis Breguet (France, 1946) built the G-II E, a helicopter with two coaxial contrarotating rotors (three-bladed rotor 8.5 m in diameter, gross weight 1300 kg, 240 hp Potex engine). The rotors had fully articulated hubs with flap and lag dampers. Stanley Hiller (United States, 1946-1948) experimented with several types of helicopters, eventually settling on the single main rotor and tail rotor configuration. Hiller developed the control rotor, a gyro stabilizer bar with aerodynamic surfaces that the pilot controlled in order to adjust the rotor orientation. He built the Model 360 helicopter in 1947 (two-bladed rotor 10.7 m in diameter, gross weight 950 kg, 178 hp Franklin engine). Charles Kaman (Kaman Aircraft in the United States, 1946-1948) developed the servotab control method of rotor pitch control, in which the rotor blade is twisted rather than rotated about a pitch bearing at the root. Kaman also developed a helicopter of the synchropter configuration. Mikhail Mil’ (USSR, 1949) developed a series of helicopters of the single main rotor and tail rotor configuration, including in 1949 the Mi-1 (three-bladed 14 m diameter, gross weight 2250 kg, 570 hp engine). Nikolai I Kamov (USSR, 1952) developed helicopters with the coaxial configuration, including the Ka-15 helicopter (three-bladed rotors 10 m in diameter, gross weight 1370 kg, 225 hp engine). Alexander Yakolev (USSR, 1952) developed the Yak-24, a helicopter with two four-bladed rotors in tandem configuration. A number of dynamic problems were encountered in the development of this helicopter, but it eventually (1955) went into production.

An important development was the application of the turboshaft engine to helicopters, replacing the reciprocating engine. A substantial performance improvement was realized because of the lower specific weight (kg/hp) of the turboshaft engine. Kaman Aircraft Company (United States, 1951) constructed the first helicopter with turbine power, installing a single turboshaft engine (175 shp Boeing engine) in its K-225 helicopter. In 1954, Kaman also developed the first twin-engine turbine powered helicopter, an HTK-1 synchropter with two Boeing engines (total 350 shp) replacing a single 240 hp piston engine of the same weight in the same position. Since that time the turboshaft engine has become the standard powerplant for all but the smallest helicopters.

The invention of the helicopter may be considered complete by the early 1950’s, and so we conclude this history at that point. In the years that followed, several helicopter designs achieved extremely successful production records, and some very large helicopters were constructed. The operational use of the helicopter has grown to a major factor in the air transportation system. Helicopter engineering is thus now involved more with research and with development than with invention.

1-2.2 Literature

On the history of the development of the helicopter: Warner (1920), NACA (1921a, 1921b), Balaban (1923), Moreno-Caracciolo (1923), Oemichen (1923), Klemin (1925), Wimperis (1926), Breguet (1937), Kussner (1937), Focke (1938), Sikorsky (1943, 1967, 1971), Gessow and Myers (1952), Hafner (1954), McClements and Armitage (1956), Stewart (1962a, 1962b), Focke (1965), Izakson (1966), Anoshchenko (1968), Legrand (1968), Gablehouse (1969), Free (1970), Lambermont and Pirie (1970), Kelley (1972).

On the history of helicopter analysis and research: Glauert (1935), von Kaŕmań (1954), Gustafson (1970), and the original literature.

1-3 Notation

This section summarizes the principal nomenclature to be used in the text. The intention is to provide a reference for the later chapters and also to familiarize the reader with the basic elements of the rotor and its analysis. Only the most fundamental parameters are included here; the definitions of the other quantities required are presented as the analysis is developed. A number of the fundamental dimensionless parameters of helicopter analysis are also introduced. An alphabetical listing of symbols is provided at the end of the text.

1-3.1 Dimensions

Generally the analyses in this text work with dimensionless quantities. The natural reference length scale for the rotor is the blade radius R, and the natural reference time scale is the rotor rotational speed Ω (rad/sec). For a reference mass the air density ρ is chosen. For typographical simplicity, no distinction is made between the symbols for the dimensional and dimensionless forms of a quantity. New symbols are introduced for those dimensionless parameters normalized using quantities other than ρ, Ω, and R.

1-3.2 Physical Description of the Blade

R = the rotor radius; the length of the blade, measured from hub to tip.

Ω = the rotor rotational speed or angular velocity (rad/sec).

p = air density.

ψ = azimuth angle of the blade (Fig. 1-5), defined as zero in the downstream direction. This is the angle measured from downstream to the blade span axis, in the direction of rotation of the blade. Hence for constant rotational speed, ψ = Ωt.

Figure 1-5 Rotor disk, showing definition of ψ and r.

r = radial location on the blade (Fig. 1-5), measured from the center of rotation (r = 0) to the blade tip (r = R, or when dimensionless r = 1).

It is conventional to assume that the rotor rotation direction is counterclockwise (viewed from above). The right side of the rotor disk is called the advancing side, and the left side is called the retreating side. The variables r and ψ will usually refer to the radial and azimuthal position of the blade, but they may also be used as polar coordinates for the rotor disk.

c = blade chord, which for tapered blades is a function of r.

N = number of blades.

m = blade mass per unit length as a function of r.

= moment of inertia of the blade about the center of o rotation.

The rotor blade normally is twisted along its length. The analysis will often consider linear twist, for which the built-in variation of the blade pitch with respect to the root is Δθ = θtwr. The linear twist rate θtw (equal to the tip pitch minus the root pitch) is normally negative for the helicopter rotor. The following derived quantities are important:

A = πR² = rotor disk area.

σ = Nc/πR = rotor solidity.

γ = ρac R⁴/Ib = blade Lock number.

The solidity σ is the ratio of the total blade area (NcR for constant chord) to the total disk area (πR²). The Lock number γ represents the ratio of the aerodynamic and inertial forces on the blade.

1-3.3 Blade Aerodynamics

a = blade section two-dimensional lift curve slope.

α = blade section angle of attack.

M = blade section Mach number.

The subscript (r, ψ) on α or M is used to indicate the point on the rotor disk being considered; for example, the retreating-tip angle of attack α1270 or the advancing-tip Mach number M1,90.

1-3.4 Blade Motion

The basic motion of the blade is essentially rigid body rotation about the root, which is attached to the hub (Fig. 1-6).

Figure 1-6 Fundamental blade motion.

β = blade flap angle. This degree of freedom produces blade motion of the disk plane (about either an actual flap hinge or a region of structural flexibility at the root). Flapping is defined to be positive for upward motion of the blade (as produced by the thrust force on the blade).

ζ = blade lag angle. This degree of freedom produces blade motion in the disk plane. Lagging is defined to be positive when opposite the direction of rotation of the rotor (as produced by the blade drag forces).

θ = blade pitch angle, or feathering motion produced by rotation of the blade about a hinge or bearing at the root with its axis parallel to the blade spar. Pitching is defined to be positive for nose-up rotation of the blade.

The degrees of freedom β, ζ, and θ may also be viewed as rotations of the blade about hinges at the root, with axes of rotation as follows: β is the angle of rotation about an axis in the disk plane, perpendicular to the blade spar; ζ is the angle of rotation about an axis normal to the disk plane, parallel to the rotor shaft; and θ is the angle of rotation about an axis in the disk plane, parallel to the blade spar. The description of more complex blade motion, for example motion that includes blade bending flexibility, will be introduced as required in later chapters.

In steady-state operation of the rotor, blade motion is periodic around the azimuth and hence may be expanded as Fourier series in ψ :

The mean and first harmonics of the blade motion (the 0, 1c, and 1s Fourier coefficients) are the harmonics most important to rotor performance and control. The rotor coning angle is β0 ; β1c and β1s are respectively the pitch and roll angles of the tip-path plane. The rotor collective pitch is θ0, and θ1c and θ1s are the cyclic pitch angles.

1-3.5 Rotor Angle of Attack and Velocity

α = rotor disk plane angle of attack, positive for forward tilt (as required if a component of the rotor thrust is to provide the propulsive force for the helicopter).

V = rotor or helicopter velocity with respect to the air.

v = rotor induced velocity, normal to the disk plane, and positive when downward through the disk (as is produced by a positive rotor thrust).

The resultant velocity seen by the rotor, resolved into components parallel and normal to the disk plane and made dimensionless with the rotor tip speed ΩR, gives the following velocity ratios (Fig. 1-7):

Figure 1-7 Rotor disk velocity and orientation.

µ = V cos α/ΩR = rotor advance ratio.

λ = (V sin α + ν)/ΩR = rotor inflow ratio (defined to be positive for flow downward through the disk).

λi = ν/ΩR = induced inflow ratio.

The advance ratio μ is the ratio of the forward velocity to the rotor tip speed. The inflow ratio λ is the ratio of the total inflow velocity to the rotor tip speed.

1-3.6 Rotor Forces and Power

T = rotor thrust, defined to be normal to the disk plane and positive when directed upward.

H = rotor drag force in the disk plane; defined to be positive when directed rearward, opposing the forward velocity of the helicopter.

Y = rotor side force in the disk plane; defined to be positive when directed to the right, toward the advancing side of the rotor.

Q = rotor shaft torque, defined to be positive when an external torque is required to turn the rotor (helicopter operation).

P = rotor shaft power, positive when power is supplied to the rotor.

In coefficient form based on air density, rotor disk area, and tip speed these quantities are:

CT = thrust coefficient = T/ρA(ΩR)²

CH = H force coefficient H/ρA(ΩR)²

Cy = Y force coefficient = Y/ρA(ΩR)²

CQ = torque coefficient = Q/ρA(ΩR)²R

CP = power coefficient = P/ρA(ΩR)³

Notice that since the rotor shaft power and torque are related by P = ΩQ, it follows that the coefficients are equal, Cp = CQ. The rotor disk loading is the ratio of the thrust to the rotor area, T/A, and the power loading is the ratio of the power to the thrust. The rotor blade loading is the ratio of the thrust to the blade area, T/Ab = T/(σA), or in coefficient form the ratio of the thrust coefficient to solidity, CT/σ.

1-3.7 Rotor Disk Planes

The rotor disk planes (defined in Chapter 5) are denoted by:

TPP tip-path plane

NFP no-feathering plane

HP hub plane

CP control plane

1-3.8 NACA Notation

No true standard nomenclature is used throughout the helicopter literature, so one must always take care to determine the definitions of the quantities used in any particular work, including the present text. One system of notation which is common enough in the literature to deserve some attention is that proposed by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The primary deviations from the practice in this text are:

b = number of blades.

x = r/R = dimensionless span variable.

θ1 = linear twist rate (from the expansion θ = θ0 + θ1 r).

Ι1 = rotor blade flapping inertia.

λ = rotor inflow ratio, defined to be positive when upward through the disk = (V sinα—ν)/ΩR.

α = rotor disk angle of attack, defined to be positive for rearward tilt of the rotor disk and thrust vector.

In addition, λ and α are assumed to refer to the no-feathering plane if