Você está na página 1de 298

NASA Contractor Report 3579 Technical

AVRADCOM Report 82-A-9

A Comparative Study vs. Western Helicopters


Part IGeneral Comparison

of Soviet

of Designs

W. Z. Stepniewski International Technical Upper Darby, Pennsylvania

Associates,

Ltd.

Prepared for Aeromechanics Laboratory AVRADCOM Research and Technology Ames Research Center under Contract NAS2-10062

Laboratories

N/LSA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch 1983

Even a superficial Western problems.

observation

would indicate

that there

are basic differences

in the Soviet and one should

design and operational

philosophies

of rotary-wing

aircraft. On the other hand, technical

not be surprised

to find a lot of commonality

in the approach to various

and operational

In view of this anticipated duality similarities dissimilarities, of and itbecomes especially interesting to developa deeperunderstanding the subject.hiscan bc done by showing not onlyWHAT of T is

either varianceor in agreementinthe Soviet at design and operationalhilosophyof helicopters p with thoseintheWest, but also WHY. The need forsuch a comparative study of Soviet vs.Western helicoptersas recognized the w by Researchand Technology Laboratoriesf the U.S.Army AviationR&D o Command, cspcciaUyby Dr.

Richard M. Carlson, Director the Labs.Consequently, contract conduct this of a to taskwas awarded through NASA to International TechnicalAssociates, Ltd.,and Mr. Ronald A. Shinn was designated

by the Labs as monitor of the project for PartI,"GeneralComparison of Designs." Mr. Wayne D. Mosher monitored the preparation Part If,"Evaluation Weight,Maintainability, Design of of and Aspectsof Major Components." The results the tasksperformed arc presentedin thistwo-partreportas outlinedbelow: of PART I. General Comparison of Designs. Here basicdesignaspects existing of Sovietheli-

copters,as wellas hypothetical helicopters representing optimum configurationsescribedin the d Sovietbook, "Helicopters-Selection DesignParameters" M.N. Tishchcnkoct allarccornparcd of by with selected estern representatives. W PART If. Evaluation Weight,Maintainability Design Aspectsof Major Components. In of and

thistask,a deeper comparativeinsight intodesignand operational philosophiessgained by exami ining (a) weight-prediction methods and weight trends, (b) maintainability, (c)overall merits of component designs, and (d) classification ranking of helicopter and configurations transport for

operations. In preparation forPartI, nineproductionand fourSoviethypothetical helicopters, a total and of fourteen Western helicoptersepresentingross-weight r g classes rangingfrom under 12,000 to over 100,000 pounds were includedin thestudy.Thisphaseof thework represented look intothe overa alldesignphilosophy of Soviet vs.Wcstcm helicopters. Also includedwas a comparison of sixproduction and two hypothetical Sovietengines, nd thirteen esternengines, epresenting a W r powcrplants installed thecompared helicopters. in Upon completion of the above work, review copiesof the reportwere printed(courtesyof in February 1981, and distributed the manufacturersof the Western to

Boeing Vertol Company)

helicopters containedin the study,along with a request thatthey reviewand correct thematerial related theirproducts, to whilethematerial related toRussianhelicopters engines and was submitted to the U.S. Army ForeignScienceand Technology Centerfor their comrncntsand suggestions. The responsewas very good, and valuableadditional nformation, well as basic i as up-to-date data was obtainedand incorporated intothefinal eport. r

iii

In production

preparation and gross phase four

for

Part

I of

the

Comparative helicopters, from 12,000 a look six

Study and

of

Soviet

vs. Western of fourteen pounds

Helicopters, Western were

nine

hypothetical classes work

Soviet ranging represented of

a total

helicopters in the vs. and also

representing study. Western thirteen included. Upon Boeing helicopters related to the response obtained, This

weight of the A engines,

to over into the and installed

100,000 overall two in the

included

design hypothetical compared

philosophy Soviet helicopters

of Soviet engines, were

helicopters. Western

comparison representing

production

powerplants

completion Company)

of

the in

above February study, the

work, 1981, along

review and

copies distributed

of

the

report

were

printed

(courtesy of the the Western material

of

Vertol

to the they

manufacturers review and correct

contained products,

in the while

with

a request

that

to their

material

related

to Russian Center information,

helicopters for their

and engines

was submitted The was

U.S. Army was very

Foreign good,

Science and into

and Technology additional report.

comments

and suggestions. up to date data

valuable the final

as well as basic

and incorporated meantime, was the unveiled corresponding aspects of regarding data (referred turboshaft along Soviet the with the

In the shaft engine the new engine with

Mil Mi-26 at the Paris

heavy-lift Air Show

transport in June,

helicopter 1981,

with

the

Lotarev

D-136

turboand that for the

A comparison by Tishchenko milestones of the

of this helicopter et al 1 indicated and valuable goals

hypothetical in his and the

machine book

postulated

hypothetical generation

contained helicopters Mi-26 its and

actually Taking

represented advantage the -the

engines.

additional the rotor extra helion the

information helicopter copter D-136

D-136

turboshaft,

undersigned

has included 52-ton available single

'conceptual as the Hypo

prototype' 52-SR),

hypothetical the information

in this

work

while

to date

is contained of Part I of

in the 'A

powerplant Comparative manufacturers Vertol include

comparison. Study of Soviet vs. Western helicopters Helicopters' as represented was by made AeroGmbH, served as a

The possible spatiale, and source and

revision by Bell the

contributions

of the Textron,

of Western Company,

Helicopter Aircraft.

Boeing

Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm who who, continuously in his capacity of the

Sikorsky

Other and

contributors

Dr. R. M. Carlson Mr. R. A. Shinn to the concept of Boeing for their

of inspiration administrative The and

valuable greatly

suggestions, contributed to Mr. and

and

as technical study and its

monitor, editors

formulation Vertol, expert

execution. Research tions.

are grateful Labs, and sincere volume was

R. D. Semple

Mr. H. D. Wilsted review and valuable

of the sugges-

Technology

Mr. E. R. Mclnturff are extended

Our appreciation The text of this

thanks set

to all of the above of ITA, who

companies also assisted

and individuals. with editorial

by Mrs.

W. L. Metz

aspects.

Upper July

Darby, 30, 1981

Pa., USA

W. Z. Stepniewski

iv

page Preface ................................................. .............................................. iii ix

List of Syrnbols

Chapter 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Introductory

Considerations 1 2 4 4 8 19 20 26

Objectives ................................................. Helicopter Groups ............................................ Selection of Gross Weight ........................................ Design Effectiveness Criteria for Hovering and Vertical Climb ................... Design Effectiveness Criteria for Forward Flight ........................... Some Aspects of Design Philosophy .................................. Configurational Aspects ......................................... Concluding Remarks ...........................................

Chapter 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Powerplants 29 30 33 40 46 48

Introduction ................................................ Auxiliary Relationships ......................................... Comparison of Engines Installed in Helicopters of up to 12,000-1b Gross Weight Class ..... Comparison of Engines Installed in 12,000 to 30,000-1b Gross Weight Class Helicopters .... Comparison of Engines Installed in the 30,000 to lO0,O00-1b and Over 100,000-1b Gross Weight Class Helicopters .................................... Concluding Remarks ............................................

Chapter 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Helicopters

of the

Up-to-12,000-lb

Class 55 68 79 83 89 100 100

Basic Data ................................................. Hovering and Vertical Climb Aspects .................................. Energy Aspects in Hover ......................................... SHP Required Aspects in Level Flight at SL, ISA ........................... Energy Aspects in Forward Flight ................................... Productivity ............................................... General Discussion and Concluding Remarks ............................

Chapter 4.1 4.2

Helicopters

of the

12,000

to 30,000-1b

Gross

Weight

Class 103 113

Basic Data ................................................ Hovering and Vertical Climb Aspects .................................

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

Energy Aspects in Hover ....................................... SHP Required Aspects in Level Flight at SL, ISA ......................... Energy Aspects in Level Flight, SL, ISA .............................. Productivity .............................................. General Discussion and Concluding Remarks ........................... Appendix - Chapter 4 ........................................

129 133 140 147 147 153

Chapter 5.1 $.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

30,000

to lO0,000-1b

GW Helicopters 154 159 168 180 184 196 204 204

Hypothetical Helicopters ....................................... Basic Data ............................................... Hovering and Vertical Climb Aspects ................................ Energy Aspects in Hover ....................................... SHP Required Aspects in Level Flight at SL, ISA ......................... Energy Aspects in Level Flight, SL, ISA .............................. Productivity .............................................. General Discussion and Concluding Remarks ...........................

Chapter 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

Over

lO0,O00-1b

Gross

Weight

Helicopters 210 218 225 235 235 242 249 253 255

Compared Helicopters ........................................ Basic Data ............................................... Hover and Vertical Climb Aspects ................................. Energy Aspects in Hover ....................................... SHP Required Aspects in Level Flight at SL ............................ Energy Aspects in Level Flight, SL, ISA .............................. Productivity .............................................. General Discussion and Concluding Remarks ........................... Append/:< - Chapter 6 ........................................

Chapter 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Introduction

Overview

of Design

Parameters

and

Performance 260 260 265 270 270 280

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

Principal Design Parameters ..................................... Weight Aspects ............................................ Hovering Aspects ........................................... Forward Flight Aspects ....................................... Energy Aspects ............................................

References

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

287

vi

Evena superficial
and Western should not design be surprised problems. of this

observation

would

indicate

that

there

are basic aircraft.

differences

in the

Soviet one and

and operational

philosophies

of rotary-wing

On the other to various

hand,

to find a lot of commonality

in the approach

technical

operational

In view interesting WHAT

anticipated a deeper

duality

of similarities

and dissimilarities,

it becomes

especially

to develop

understanding or in agreement

of the subject. in the Soviet

This can be done by showing not only design and operational philosophy of

is either

at variance

helicopters

with those in the West, but also WHY. evaluation and analysis was recognized especially by the Research by Dr. Richard and M.

The need for such a comparative Technology Carlson, Laboratories

of the U.S. Army

Aviation

R&D Command; to conduct

Director

of the Labs. Consequently, Technical Associates,

a contract

this task was awarded A. Shinn was designated

through by the

NASA to International Labs as monitor The study

Ltd., and Mr. Ronald

of the project. is divided into several separate below. tasks, and the results are presented in this report

which consists of the three parts outlined Part 1. General Comparison Here, representing selected of Designs

basic design aspects optimum

of existing

Soviet helicopters, in Tishchenko's

as well as hypothetical

helicopters with

configurations of the West.

as set forth

et al studies I are compared

representatives

Part II. Evaluation In this task, examining (a) (b) (c) Part III. The

of Major Components a deeper comparative

and Their Weight-Prediction insight

Methods philosophies is gained by

into design and operational

the following weight trends conceptual producibility Ranking final

aspects of the major components and weight-prediction methods

of Soviet and Western helicopters.

approach and maintainability. Transport vs. Western of various Helicopters approaches to helicopter design using

of Large Single and Multirotor comparison is made of Soviet

Tishchenko's selected Soviet diction short

method

of ranking cargo

large helicopters transport

configurations

with respect

to a few

and long-haul constraints

missions.

This task will be performed requirements,

by using both trend pre-

and Western methods

and minimal

performance

and the weight

indicated

in Part II.

vii

In themeantime, theMil Mi-26heavy-lift transport helicopter withtheLotarev -136 D turboshaftengine unveiled at the Paris Air Show in June 1981. A comparison of this helicopter and was
engine the with the corresponding aspects of Soviet hypothetical machine postulated by Tishchenko milestones et al I indicated that hypothetical contained helicopters in his book and engines. actually Taking represented and goals for the additional the extra inheli-

new generation formation copter (referred turboshaft

advantage of the valuable has included

regarding the Mi-26

and D-136

turboshaft,

the undersigned

data along

with its 'conceptual

prototype'

- the hypothetical

52-ton single-rotor available

helicopter

to in this work as the Hypo is contained in the powerplant

52-SR), while the information comparison. Study

to date on the D-136

The revision of Part I of "A Comparative possible spatiale, by the contributions Bell Helicopter Aircraft.

of Soviet vs. Western Helicopters" of Western helicopters as represented

was made by AeroGmbH, served as a

of the manufacturers Boeing Vertol include

Textron, Other

Company,

Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm who continuously

and Sikorsky source and

contributors

Dr. R.M. Carlson

of inspiration

and valuable suggestions, monitor, gready contributed

and Mr. R.A. Shinn to the concept

who, in his capacity formulation

as technical and its

administrative

of the study

execution. Research Technology thanks

The editors

are grateful to Mr. R.D. Semple Labs, and Mr. E.R. Mclnturff review and valuable

of Boeing Vertol,

Mr. H.D. Wilsted of the Foreign Science and

and Technology Center

of the U.S. Army suggestions.

for their

expert

Our appreciation

and sincere

are extended

to all of the above companies

and individuals. aspects.

The text of this report was set by

Mrs. W.L. Metz of ITA, who also assisted with editorial

W. Z. Stepniewski

Upper Darby, Pa. USA July 30, 1981

viii

total rotor(s) wing aspect number

swept area; sq.ft ratio

b Co

of blades

wing drag coefficient wing lift coefficient power coefficient: thrust coefficient: Cp - 550 HP/A p Vt 3 C r =- T/A p V_ C w =- Wgr/A p V_

CL Cp
CT Cw
C

gross-weight coefficient: chord, blade or wing; ft

-ca
0

average blade profile drag coefficient average blade-lift diameter; ft drag; lb coefficient: "cQ ---6CT/O

equivalent

helicopter

drag:

D e =- 32551-P/V;

lb

f FF FF w PFm o FM FMoa GW H h HFF HH HP


kblo keng hind kpc

equivalent flat-plate area; sq.ft fuel flow; lb/unit of time fuel required fuel required per lb of gross weight & 100 n.mi per lb of zero-range payload & 100 n.mi

rotor figure of merit helicopter overall figure of merit: FMoa = RPid/SP

gross weight; lb altitude; ft height; ft hourly fuel flow; Ib/hr horizontal horsepower; blocking engine weight rotor induced climb efficiency download distance; lift; lb length; ft distance; n.mi ft hinge hp coefficient power coefficient: factor k v = Tmr/War kin d =- RPind/RPid

effect coefficient

kv L

coefficient:

M NGW
n

Much number normal gross weight; number out-of-ground payload; lb housing effect lb

OGE PL PH

pitch-bearing

ix

PI R RP RHP

productivity

index:

P/=

Vcr Wpl/W e

rotor radius; ft rotor power: ft-lb/sec, hp or hp

rotor horsepower;

R/C
S SP SHP sfc T t V

rate of climb; fps, or fpm area; sq.ft shaft power; ft-lb/sec, hp lb/hr-hp or hp shaft horsepower;

specific fuel consumption; rotor thrust; lb time; sec, min, or hr speed of flight; kn rate of climb; fps or fpm
e

total rate of ideal flow through rotor tip speed; fps cabin volume; cu.ft vertical induced weight; tail-rotor relative tail-rotor relative hinge velocity; lb or kg psf distance tail-rotor elevation tail-rotor fps

the disc; fps

Vt

Vcab
VII
V

W
W X X

disc, and area loading;

from main-rotor distance

shaft; ft shaft: x = x/R

from main-rotor hub; ft

Y Y

over main-rotor elevation:

_ ==-y/R

O_

relative fuel flow at idle angle-of-attack; slope of relative deg or rad fuel flow vs partial power setting transmission efficiency: rloa =- RP/SP

A
770 a 17xm

increment overall rotor-power transmission

efficiency

relative engine power lapse rate with altitude wingqift /J P


(7

to total-lift slugs/cu.ft

ratio /a = 1.69 V/V t

rotor advance ratio: air density;

rotor solidity;

a = bc/rrR

Subscripts:
act av c

actual available, climb or average

cont cr e

continuous cruise crnpty minimum power (approx. maximum endurance)

eng

cnginc forward flat plate fuel gross altitude hovering hovering ideal induced main normal initial rotor rated value ceiling

f fp fu gr H h hc id ind mr NR
0

sea level p ref req ro t $c TO


t

payload reference required rotor serviceceiling takeoff time tip

tab

tip of advancing trapped tail rotor takeoff at speed fluid

blade

tf
tr

VTO
V W

vertical vertical; gross wing

of flight

weight

xm e

transmission

e =-(wa,/o_)_ _

xi

Chapter Introductory

Considerations

1.1

Objectives The principal aim of this chapter is to make a general comparison of the state of the art of Soviet and differ-

helicopter

design vs. that of the West (U.S. in particular), design philosophies existing

and to indicate both commonalities economically,

ences in conceptual climatically

in those two politically,

and to some extent,

and geographically

different groups.

There are two basic aspects of the comparison: (1) Presentation ness according of important design parameters, and (2) evaluation of the overall design effective-

to various criteria. by simply presenting, numerically and often power

With respect to the first of these tasks, it is performed graphically, loading, of the flight*, such input parameters (d) number as: (a) disc loading,

(b) installed

(TO) and transmission-limited

(c) tip speeds, tail rotor,

of blades, blade aspect ratios, and rotor solidities, radii ratio, (f) Cr/o and/or

(e) relative location regimes of

and tall-rotor

to main-rotor

Fz in the considered

and (g) cabin dimensions. again simple listing and suitable graphical presentation of performance

As far as task (2) is concerned,

would, by itself, provide some clues regarding the success of design. Here, the following mind: (a) hovering with all engines ceiling, OGE vs. gross weight; (b) rate of vertical (d) service ceiling with all engines and corresponding

items come to one's

climb; (c) forward flight rate of climb, and one engine out; (e) maximum

operating;

operating, range.

and cruise speeds of flight i and (f) payload, This dependent cursory design evaluation

can be further ceilings,

improved

by graphically

presenting

such

power-

performance

items as hovering power loading.

rates of climb, and flight speeds as a function

of installed

or transmission-limited However, weights, are judged

in order to gain a still deeper insight into the overall design effectiveness more detailed criteria are established and discussed,

(aerodynamics, helicopters

and powerplants), according to them.

and particular

*Items (a), (c), (d), and (f) refer to both lifting and tail rotors.

Since powerplants represent an


chapter engines, tion. is devoted to the comparison and the accumulation

important

contribution important

to the success characteristics necessary

or failure

of rotorcraft,

one

of the most performance

of both Soviet and Western for further helicopter weight; specific evaluafuel concom-

of engine

information power

Consequently,

such items are examined power setting;

as various

ratings; specific dimensions.

sumption, parisons

and its variation with

and external

However,

the powerplant

are not as indepth as those for the rotorcraft as a whole. these general introductory remarks, it should designs, supplemental be emphasized benefits that in addition to the be

In concluding comparison acquired

of Soviet through

and Western helicopter (under

from this study

should

an accumulation and acquisition All this material

a single cover) of data representing evaluation

values and ranges of various aspects of the overall air-

design parameters, design efficiency.

of numerical should

of the most important

be of significant courses

help to the designers of new rotary-wing design.

craft as well as to those who teach academic 1.2 Helicopter Groups the significance

on helicopter

In order to improve according

of the comparative

process,

all examined

helicopters

are grouped

to their design gross weight as follows:

(1) Up to 12,000-1b gross weight class (2) (3) 12,000 to 30,000-1b gross weight class 30,000 to 100,000-1b 100,000-1b gross weight class gross weight class. was accepted, it was not difficult Also it was possible gross weight to properly group existing Soviet

(4) Higher than Once helicopters helicopters the above

classification

on which published considered

data are available.

to incorporate classes.

the hypothetical

in Tishchenko's

et al book I into suitable it appeared

As far as Western designs rotorcraft and, in that process, As a result of this approach,

are concerned,

desirable to include

both U.S. and European

to select representatives the following

of the most recent, as well as earlier designs.

groups were formed for comparison:

1. Up to 12,000-1b Gross Weight Class A. Soviet: Mil Mi-2 (original version as produced Mil Mi-2-A (with 2 Allison 250-C20B Kamov Ka-26 by PZL, Swidnik, engines (PZL)) Poland)

B. Western: Aerospatiale Sikorsky S-76 SA-365N

Bell UH-1H MBB BO-105 222

Bell Model

2.

12,000

to 30,000-1b

Gross

Weight

Class

A. Soviet: Mil Mi-8 Mil Mi-24D Kamov B. Western: Aerospafiale Boeing Boeing Sikorsky Sikorsky Vertol Verrol CH-3E UH-60A SA330J CH-46E YUH-61A (S-61R) Black Hawk (UTTAS) Puma Sea Knight (UTTAS) Ka-25

3.

30,000 A.

to 100,000-Ib

Gross

Weight

Class

Soviet: Mil Mi-6 Mil Mi-lO Hypothetical Hypothetical 15 metric-ton 24 metric-ton S.R. helicopter S.R. helicopter t 1

B.

Western: Boeing Sikorsky Sikorsky Vertol CH-47D Chinook

CH-53D CH-53E

4.

Over A.

lO0,O00-1b Soviet: Mil Mi-12 Hypothetical Hypothetical

Gross

Weight

Class

52 metric-ton 52 metric-ton

S.R. helicopter S.b.S. helicopter

t and Mil Mi-26 t

B.

Wester_......__n: Boeing Vertol HLH

1.3

Selection Absolute

of

Gross Weight of helicopters as well as their relative it becomes important study. since performance are often specific figures quoted missions, published in such rating can be strongly to establish a common affected ground by their for the

performance weight

flying

gross

values. Consequendy,

selection

of gross weights gross weight

to be used in this comparative

Normal reference value. ferent

appears as one of the possibilities,

texts as Jane's 2, Blue Book 3 and manufacturers this weight helicopters evaluation. flying weight as specified brochures, maximum is often determined

brochures around some

for this gross weight which may be difground

Unfortunately, for various

and thus the normal

gross weight

may not represent

a truly common

for this comparative Maximum references is directly be selected

operational

by the manufacturer forms a somewhat capacity

and usually

quoted

in such

as 2 and 3, as well as helicopter associated with the practical

better

gross weight

basis since it Hence, it will

load-carrying

of the rotorcraft.

as the principal one may

flying gross weight in this study. object to this approach on the ground that helicopters and/or are,first of all, VTO airspecified

However, craft,

and as such altitudes

should

have the capability temperature

to take off vertically conditions. In order

hover

OGE under

pressure

and ambient

to satisfy

these aspects,

the following

is proposed: VTO gross weight Should the so-defined will be defined as a gross weight corresponding to hovering OGE at 3000 operational ft, ISA.

VTO gross weight of a helicopter performance

be lower than its maximum for that supplemental standing

value, then

some of the comparative to show how respect 1.4 adherence

items will be recalculated would

gross weight in order of that helicopter with

to the VTO capabilities

alter the relative

to the others. Criteria for Hovering and Vertical Climb effectiveness of design in hover as a ratio of the ideal

Design Effectiveness Overall Figure of Merit.

Overall aerodynamic Figure

and configurational which

can be evaluated power required

through

the Overall

of Merit (FMoa)

can be defined

in hovering (liPid

= WgrVr-'_h/550)

to the actual shaftpower

delivered

by the engines in

that regime of flight OGE. FMoa The ideal power in hovering cases, flight directly, this is easily determined, = HPidlSHPre q (w) of lifting rotor(s) and air density (1.1) (p_)

as the disc loading

are readily obtainable. test results

As to the total engine S/-/P required which either give the such

under these circumstances,

in some

will be available form

desired relationship direct relationship

of SHPreqn = f(Wg r) be not available, then

or in a coefficient

as Cp = f(Cr). by assuming

Should that

difficulty

can be surmounted

the hovering

ceiling is associated

with the TO power

rating. Consequently, themanufacturer's once orassumed


at hovering ceiling can be obtained. at the hovering ceiling can be calculated, FMoa For the compared helicopters Determination facilitate establishment Assuming rotor thrust) that =

lapse-rate

for the engines is known, per pound

the SHPTo

From this, the shaft horsepower and Eq (1.1) is rewritten

of gross weight (SHP/Wg r)

as follows: (1.1a) graphically. can greatly

wV/-w-_-Phc/550(SHPIWgr)hc can be tabulated as well as presented

the above quantity

of VTO Gross Weight.

Once the FMoa values are found,

their knowledge

of the VTO gross weight: the FMoa value remains variation limits, approximately constant within possible gross weight (main

and density helicopter

the shaft as

horsepower

required

to hover OGE at 3000 ft, ISA

by a single-rotor

can be expressed SHPreqh

Wgr4Wgr/_'KR2mr

P3000/550 FMoa 0.002175 slugs/ft 3 . power at 3000 ft, the TO shaft

where

Rmr

is the main rotor radius and air density other available hand, knowing the lapse becomes SHPav h =

P3000

On the horsepower

rate (;ka000)

of the takeoff

at that altitude

Laooo(SHPTO)o power be higher than the trans-

where

SHPTo

is the takeoff

power at SL, ISA. Should the so-obtained the power available.

mission limit, then the latter becomes Equating obtained: *

the right sides of the above equations

and solving for Wgr, the sought

VTO gross weight

is

(Wgr)vT

16.05[(SHPTO)okaOO

Rm

FMoa ] 2/3

(1.2)

Hourly permits important

Fuel Consumption only some

in Hover at SL, ISA per Pound of Paylo_uL aspects

The Overall

Figure of Merit Such

one to judge aspects

of the success of design of a helicopter as the ability to carry

as a hover vehicle. payload of payload

of design effectiveness doing that, through

the highest possible per pound

(at a given and unit

gross weight)

and, when

use as litde

energy (fuel) as possible

of rime are not reflected criterion is proposed:

the FMoo values. In order to eliminate

those shortcomings,

the following

hourly

fuel flow in hover at SL,ISA per pound be computed

of payload. payloads starting

It is suggested with that corresponding Since time payload


.For tandeme

that the above quantity

for the range of hypothetical

to zero and ending at one hour of hover time. and crew number as
a con=tent coefficient of 20.22 would replace the 16.05 in Eq (1.2).

weight

empty

are known

for all helicopters

being compared,

the zero hover

can be determined
and Ilde-by-llde

configuration=,

(wpl)t=o = wgr - wewhere Wgr is the gross weight selected

Wcr,w-

wt_
i.e, either (Wgr)ma x or (Wgr)vTO; fluids. also represents should

(1.3)
We

as a basis for comparison;

is the weight empty; It should interesting in tabulated

Wcrew is the crew weight; that in addition

and Wti is the weight of trapped

be noted

to the

We/Wg r ratio, the (Wpl)t=o/Wg r ratio of design and thus both relationships

an

criterion

of the weight form.

effectiveness

be shown

and graphical

In regard to the relative to apply this criterion under

hourly uniform

fuel consumption conditions,

in hover (HFF/Wol), quantity

it is suggested should

that

in order for hover

the HFF/Wpl

be computed

OGE at SL/1SA, either at the maximum latter be lower


than (Wgr)ma x .

flying weight,

(Wgr)ma x, or at the VTO gross weight

should

the

Once the FMoa values are known, HFF However, in order to complete

the hourly = (Wgr

fuel flow can be obtained WVr-_o/SSOFMoa)Sfc indicated

as follows: (1.4) required in hover permit one

the calculations

by Eq (1.4), the power

as given by the expression to find the partial power The needed the payload

in the parenthesis

in Eq (1.4) must be computed sfc values. Eq (1.3), while

first, which would

setting and the corresponding from

(Wpl)t= 0 value is computed as


(Wpl)t =

for time

(hours)

in hovering

t > 0,

is calculated

(Wpl)t=

--

HFFt

(1.5) for the compared

The (HFF/Wpl) helicopters

= f(t)

curve can be obtained presented

from Eqs (1.4) and (1.5). This relationship

can be graphically

as in Fig. 1.1.

o
a. (/3 Z

SOVIET

(BOLD)

WESTERN (THIN)
G.

o
...]

tr-

rv

o -1-

0 TIME IN HOURS

Figure

1.1

Relative

hourly

fuel flow

vs. hover

time

for the compared

helicopters

Vertical literature, Here, climb.

Rate but

of

Climb

at SL, ISA. of that of the

Values

of vertical item may

R/C

at SL, ISA are not when quick

always

given various

in published helicopters. rate of

knowledge knowledge

performance FMoa values

be desirable facilitate

comparing estimates

again,

can greatly

of the vertical

As indicated

in Ch II of Ref 4, the total

rate

of the

ideal flow

through

the

disc

V' in fps is

V' but

550

RHPid/Wg

(1.6)

RHPid and

SHPFMoa

V' This climb total flow rate is, in turn,

550FMoa/(Wgr/SHP) to the sum of the ideal induced velocity vial and rate

(1.6a) of vertical

equal

(Vcv): V' = rid + VCv (1.7)

or Vcv = V _ __ rid (1.7a)

In turn,

Vial Can be

expressed as follows:
Vid = w/2p V' (].S)

or, in light

of Eq (1.6a) Via = for w(Wgr/SHP)/I100pFMoa V' and Vid respectively, into Eq (1.7a), and expressing (1.8a) the rate

Substituting of climb in fpm,

Eqs the

(1.6a) following

and

(1.8a)

is obtained:

Vcv

60{

[550FMoa/(Wgr/SHP)]

[w(Wgr/SHP)/llOOpFmoa]

(1.9)

It can be seen (Wgr/SHP) computed - in this and

from case,

this

equation

that

knowing

the overall

figure

of merit vertical

(FMoa)

and power

loading be

at the T.O or transmission-limited tabulated Hovering on the how graphical for the purpose ceiling abscissa well the (OGE of and

rating-the

rate of climb

can readily

properly Ceiling. plotted showing of

of comparison. IGE) in itself represents it may utilized for an important be considered for the achieving performance as a design various item. effihover is

Hovering However, ciency altitudes. depicted when criterion,

the T.O

power power

loading, is actually

available of

A scheme in Fig. 1.2.

presentation

the

hovering

ceilings

purpose

of comparison

WEST (THIN)

Fit Z
--I

SOV I ET (BOLD)

o tw > O

i.u

,-" I
T.O SHP LOADING, LB/HP

I
helicopters vs Flight ISA) and Speed. gross criterion grid the Shaft weight horsepower values (in per pound our case, of gross

Figure 1.2 Hovering ceiling vs. power loading of the compared

1.5 Design Effectiveness Criteria for Forward Flight


Shaft weight and Horsepower per Pound of Gross Weight SL,

computed

at a selected vs. speed of flight of would

altitude can

(say, be taken

maximum) and condrag, air-

presented

as a valuable An auxiliary

for comparing of the (W/De)ma weight x values

aerodynamic to the

figurational

effectiveness lines

various permit

helicopters. one to assess

equivalent compared

(W/D e) = cons& craft. As for the f(V) curves will wiU be

at a glance

of the

comparison be such plotted that

of the

Soviet

vs. Western to the thus Soviet providing [BOLD]

helicopters, machines

graphical will

presentation in heavy, candidate

of the while

(SHP/Wg r) = the Western (Fig 1.3).

referring lines;

be plotted for the

machines

in thin, ---'---"

a background

helicopters

SOVIET

.....

<

ii

SPEED Figure 1.3 Comparison

OF FLIGHT,

KN

of (SHP/Wg r) = f(V) curves for the Soviet and Western helicopters

Establishment

of the (SliPWar)

-- f(V) Relationship.

For some Western

helicopters, However,

actual

flight

test data on SHP vs. flying speed, or manufacturers' tion Soviet could be for a different rotorcraft, gross weight

predicted figures are available.

this informastudy. For

and/or altitude than required for this comparative are not available as a rule. Consequently, from one altitude there

the SHP = f(V) to recalculate

relationships

is a need

for (a) the ability condition

the (SHP/Wg r) = f(V) relationships

and gross weight officially defined pubpower given)

to another,

and (b) to reconstruct

the (SHP/Wgr) = f(V) curve from obtainable and only generally

lished figures settings maximum (e.g.,

on flying speed at various gross weights and altitudes, cruise, economic cruise). Additional information maximum

can be provided

by the (usually

rate of climb at SL, ISA and presumably, basis for accomplishment and (3.107)

continuous

power setting. by the following equation,

An analytical

of tasks (a) and (b) is provided

derived from Eqs (3.106)

of Ref. 4.

(SHP/Wg r)

2.413p

-- + 0.296 Wfp

+ pV _ Vt 550Tloa (1.10)

where loading ratio; profile ciency

V is the flight speed in kn; hvf is the download in psf; wfp = Wgr/f is the equivalent flat-plate

factor;

hindf

is

the induced

power factor; w is the disc r is the advance

area (f) loading in slugs/cu.ft;

in psf;/a = 1.69V/V

Vt is the tip speed in fps; p is the flight air density drag to the average representing Actually, lift coefficient

(Fd/'f _ ) is the ratio of the average power transmission effi-

in hover; and 77oa is the overall rotor

the ratio of the rotor there

to shaft power. (wfp, kvf, hindf, (fa/'fQ), and r/oa). It is evident should be known. However, hence,

in Eq (1.10) to determine are equally

are five unknowns

that in order these

all of them, important

five pairs of ($HP, V) points for a correct reconstruction helicopters,

not all of For

unknowns

of the (SHP/Wg r) = f(V) curve. hvf < 1.03 and probably

instance, of kvf _

it may be safely assumed 1.02 would power constitute

that for conventional a good representative

an assumption

value. Also, from an inspection in forward flight

of the configuration, For this flight

the overall

transmission

efficiency

coefficient represent

can be estimated.

regime, 0.88 < Too < 0.93 would probably It appears unknowns. can usually corresponding (see below); the maximum hence that it would

a good practical to determine

value of that coefficient*. and hindf equations

be desirable that

the values of the Wfp, (_-d/Fg), needed to work the 3 necessary (see Page 5);

Also, at first glance, it appears be provided

the information

by: (1) SHP required

in hover OGE at SL,ISA

(2) SHPmin,

to the maximum

rate of climb in forward flight at a speed Vo whose value can be estimated Vma x or maximum cruising speed (Vcr.max), to the transmission both limit. Consequendy, representing the usually quoted for

and (3) SHP at either continuous


hin d

power setting,

or that corresponding

But values of validity

in hover and in forward flight may be considerably point doubtful. in conjunction with the two remaining

different. points

of using the hovering

forward

flight at V/> lie is somewhat

*This subject is more thoroughly examined later, in subsection on Configurational Aspects.

It appears, written attempt coefficient; based kindf around to use for

hence, the this SLIP,

that

if one

wants

to use

the

3-equation following obtain

approach, speed unreasonable

all of the range,

equations

should

be

V information indicated 1.0.

available that Therefore, SHP one

at the may

V e <_ V<_ Vma x. An actual values the and of the induced power

approach

instance,

kin d _ available

a decision required

was

made

to use

two-equation SHPmi n, while

approach, assuming

on information = 1.12 to A test 1.15,

regarding for the

at Vma x or values. test for

Vet.max

and solving

Wfp and (-(d/_8) actual used flight as inputs the

case is shown air density hp),

in Fig. 1.4, where p = 0.00205 was other

data s for the (V e = 64 kn,

UH-1H SHP were

helicopter = 500 hp)

flown and

at Wg r = (V e = 128 and

8560 kn,

lb and SHP

= I000

while

for

the

unknowns

following

values

assumed:

Boa = 0.89

hindf = 1.12. Introducing tained, were and the whose the solution into above values into Eq (1.10), psf with a set of two linear (f = 30.3 the equations in wfp and ('_d/_) the values; above was obvalues r)

yielded Eq

Wfp = 282.5 (1.10) r were along

ft 2) and (_-d/Q) assumed flying speeds,

= 1/57. rloa and

When hindf

reintroduced then test

previously

(SHP/Wg

SHP = (SHP/Wgr)Wg points (see Fig. 1.4). unknowns with weights with some (say,

calculated

for several

thus

resulting

in a perfect

fit of

Once for

all the

in Eq

(1.10)

are the flying)

either

found,

or assumed, curves

it is possible of the compared

to use that helicopters

equation at the point

determining, gross

confidence, maximum gross

(SHP/Wg and new

r) = f(V) altitude values of

specified that when As copter

(SL, ISA).
Wfp

It should be used: recomputed with from

be recalled
Wfp =

at this

dealing an example

different

weights, the and

should was

Wfpo(Wgr/Wgro). the UH-1H from the helithe

of this lb and data

procedure, SL, ISA, presented the

(SHP/Wg the

r) = f(V)

curve

for those Fig.

at Wgr = 9500 flight method test

so-obtained 67 of Ref. = f(V)

figures 6. It can values

compared be seen gross

obtained 1.5 that altitudes

generalized described to be quite In

in Fig

aboveappears

of recalculating

(SHP/Wor)

for other

weights

and

satisfactory. of the the (SHP/Wg of r) = f(V) the high point relationship speed point from published performance or data by the

the reconstruction method, given. is directly

two-equation usually power

coordinates

(Vmax,SHP) n) is concerned,

(Vcr.max,SHP)should the speed nor the

be directly coordinate

But as far as the other available. can be estimated

(Ve,StlPmi

neither

The (VCf)rnax continuous

(SHPmin/Wg at SL, ISA power that

r) values

from convention

the that limit. (hpc)

usually

published x is related

maximum

rate

of

climb

and the generally (SHPmax.co so-called climb the

accepted

(R/C)ma

to the known

maximum

setting the

n t ), or transmission efficiency factor

Assuming hpc = 0.85, and

(see Sect.

5, Ch.

Ill,

Ref.

7) can

be taken

as

(Vcf)ma

x is in fpm,

(SHPmin/Wor)

can

be expressed

as follows:

(SHPmin/Wgr)

(SHPmax.cont/Wgr)

--

[(Vcf)ma/33,000#pc

(1.11)

10

DATA SOURCE: USAASTA FINAL REPORT PROJECT No. 66-04 November 1970

I
AIRFOIL DATA: NACA 0012 120(] V mQ m 1000
w
m

Cdo = 0.007

I
FLIGHT TESTS FROM EQ (1.10), APPROXIMATION / t COMPUTED TWO-POINT

0
w /3

TEST CASE 80(]

0 z <

v
60O

7/

z Z
w

P/Po = 0.8620 400 Vt: 814 fps

Wgr : 8560

200 0 20 40 60 80 100 (KNOTS)


level flight power required

120

140

160

TRUE AIRSPEED
Figure 1.4 Two-point approximation

of measured UH-1H s

vs. speed of flight-Model

11

COMPUTED 0.12

FROM

DATA

IN FIG.

1.4 USING

EQ. (1.10)

0
\
"
I

BASED

ON FIG.

67, REF.

P
/ /

0.10

\
\ \ UH-1H, \ 0.08 \ \ / Wgr = 9500 LB SL, ISA / /

2
\ \ /

U-

0 a
Z

1. trILl O-

o.
"1-

0.06

0.0_0

"
SPEED

'

Jo '
OF FLIGHT, KN

"

120

Figure

1.5

Comparison and lower

of gross

(SHP/Wg weight

r) with

= f(V) flight

deduced test data

from for

flight

tests

at

higher SL,

altitude ISA.

Wg r = 9500

and

From (V e) is still approach, kvf , kindf,

Eq

<1.11)

the

ordinate this high

of

the

[Ve, can

(SHPmin/Wgr)] be remedied

point through

can the

be

obtained, first

but

the

abscissa

missing. based

However, single

situation speed point,

so-called

approximation in Eq (1.10)

on the

say [Vmax,

(SHPmax.cont/Wor)]. is solved that the

In this case, for Wfp only. last value term of in that the speed

_oa and (_d/E_) Eq

values

are all assumed, respect to zero, to one

and the equation V, while finds as: that assuming an

Differentiating constant, sponding and

(1.10) the

with result

equation V e corre-

is

equating

approximate

to (SHPmin/Wg

r) can be obtained

in knots

Ve

0.448"_/'k2v

kindWWfp/p

2'

(1.12)

Figure levf, kindr

1.6

and

Table

1.1 was values reasonably 1.6). Then

prepared would affect

in order the

to find V e value.

to what Here, that parameter the

extent

the

variation = f(V) kindf was

in the curve, = 1.15,

assumed based on

Boa and "(d/'dZ data 8 was 1/45 all (Fig.

(SHP/Wor) = 0.88, variation or minimum

manufacturer's and 1.1) (_d/_)= and then

approximated the influence at either

by assuming of a single their

rloa

kv = 1.02 (Table It can

investigated (Fig. 1.6).

the parameters

were

taken

maximum

values

12

SHAFT

HORSEPOWER VS SPEED SA-365N, ASSUMED SL,

PER LB OF GROSS OF FLIGHT ISA, GW = 7055

WEIGHT

LB FROM psf psf psf EO (1.10)

COMPUTED =

f/oa = 0.88; _7oa = 0.93; 11oa = 0.83; 0.14

kindf kindf

= 1. IS; "Ca/_

1/45

wfp = 366.2 wfp = 322.2 wfp = 429.3

= 1. I0," "_diE_ = llSO 3dl_ = II40

hindf = 1.20;

0.12

0"101

SPEED OF FLIGHT,

KN

Figure 1.6

Example of approximating a given (SHP/VVg = #(V) curve through r) and various assumed values of noa; kin d and _d/_

the single-point

approach

'

13

be seen
o
eq

from

this figure and the table from minor the "good variation

that

even result

large excursions
II

fit values" of the

z
,d

o o

in a relatively while somewhat


the (SHPmin/Wg significance = f(V)

Ve value, in

greater differences
r) for levels. the However, two-point

can be noted
this method fact of

is of the since

<
Z

o _q
Ll

little

< z_

o o o

(SHP/Wgr) the

relationship values are

reconstruction obtained from

(SHPmin/Wor) rate of

the

c .-r [

maximum Small

climb

considerations. of assumed as because the V e values results of the far Ve with values as it the permits computed "first rather of the two-point one to large pa-

variations of is the

o fluctuations

<

>

rameters approach

encouraging

is concerned, confidence based on

4.1

use Eq

with (1.12)

from approx-

<

the

E
z <
r_

El

imation." o J Fuel Consumption Related to Gross Weight.

E Although in the
o ii ._,

the (SHP/Wor) evaluation

= f(V) curves can be used of the aerodyof various

< >
r_

and comparison

namic designs,

and configurational

effectiveness

q
o

they do not contribute the effectiveness

to one's knowledge

>

regarding plant

of the airframe-powerrespect, plots of

< a. o ii

combination. consumption

In the latter per hour

fuel
o

and pound

of gross

weight can be quite instructive. Knowing setting and the sfc variation having = f(V) the curves, versus engine power established fuel flow be

previously the hourly

(SHP/Wor)
H U H H

(HFF)
computed

per pound
for the

of gross weight
whole speed range

can readily
as

><
(HFF/Wgr) = (SHP/Wor)Sfc (1.13)

and r_

the As

(HFF/Wor) far as the

= f(V) comparative that be

plotted. study the above in bold is concerned, curves lines, in thin for the while lines,

"i

it

is again

suggested

Soviet those

helicopters of Western

plotted

rotorcraft,

presented

14

SPEED

OF FLIGHT,

KN

Figure 1.7 Scheme for comparing would SL/ISA An gross form the background (Fig. 1.7). As in the

hourly fuel consumption. preceding case, this comparison is also limited to the

conditions. auxiliary grid of straight 100 n.mi, lines would a means separate expressing permit various one to judge precise constant values of fuel those of the (Fig. consumed per pound machines. levels of

weight

and say,

at a glance comparison

values

for various

However,

in order

to provide helicopters,

for a more plots of

FF = (HFF/WgrV)IO0

for the compared

FF = f(V)

are provided

1.8).

SOVIET
illlll I m e

zz

WESTERN

ts

tw
J

Q. _Z wO
ii

SPEED

OF FLIGHT,

KN

Figure t.8

Scheme for comparing fuel required per lb of gross weight and 100 n.mi of Soviet and Western Helicopters

15

Fuel section still

Consumption fail to serve

Related

to Payload. for

The fuel

utilization of design

aspects

discussed with tools

in the respect

preceding to the

sub-

as a criterion

a comparison design

effectiveness to obtain

aerodycomplete

namics-configuration-powerplant-weights design (time) comparison, payload both hourly fuel flow

combination. fuel required values

In order per (plotted

for a more

and

100 n.mi vs speed r ratio;

and one of flight) where

pound

of the zero-range obtained

can be used.

Graphs in Figs.

reflecting 1.7 and

these

can be readily range

by dividing

the data shown

1.8 by the (Wp/)e=O/Wg

the zero

(_) payload

(Wp/)_= 0 :- (Wp/)t= However, tance flown. Defining takeoff

0 is as defined interesting

by Eq (1.3). to see how purposes, as (Wpl)o; as the fuel weight to payload as follows: (neglecting reserves and fuel for ratio would vary with the dis-

it is more Strictly payload

for comparative at zero range

this can be done the payload

for distance

and maneuvers)

can be expressed

(wp_)_ =
where (Wfu)1 is the weight Dividing both sides of fuel required

(win) o _.

(Wfu)_

for distance by (Wpl);

of the above

equation

and rearranging,

one obtains

(Wf_)_
(Wpl)_ Further HFF _ const; assuming the that for short distances,

(Wot )o
1 (Wpl)2 _ the hourly fuel flow at a given speed remains (1.14) constant,

(Wpl)o

can be expressed (Wpt)Q

as follows: = (WoD o -(HFF/V)_

and

Eq (1.14)

can

be rewritten

as

(Wfu )e

(wpl)o
= (Wp/) -(HFF/V)fZ -I (1.14a)

(wo,)e
Dividing one obtains the numerator and denominator

of the

first

term

on

the

right

side of Eq (1.14a)

by (Wpt) o,

(Wfu)_
(Wpl)

I 100 HFF f_

(1.15)

(WOt)oV
In analogy the relative fuel to the FF quantity per discussed one pound Eq (1.14) in the preceding of the zero-range

100
subsection, payload as I00 and HFF/(Wol) one hundred o V can be called nautical miles,

consumption by the symbol

and designated

(FFpl)o,

can now

be written

16

=
(wpl)e
Using the optimal values of the

-1

1 - (_1)o_11oo
(FFpl)o quantity (which is readily obtainable as (FFpl)oop

(1.16)

t =

(_-f)optl[(W_)olWg,l fromgraphs such asthatin Fig.1.8for thecomparedelicopters), h agraph showing


the (Wfu) l /(Wpl)g = f(_) relationship can be prepared for the Soviet and Western helicopters (see Fig. 1.9).

a z D 0

SOVIET

O.

WESTERN 0 <

uJ m 0 ,,,

U-

FLIGHT

DISTANCE,

N.MI

Figure 1.9 Comparison

of Soviet vs Western fuel weight-to-payload

ratios, shown as a function

of flight distance.

Using the hovering

the

presently the

described important

methods energy

for forward aspects of

flight, and

plus

those

discussed helicopters

in subsection can be examined

1.4 for and

case,

Soviet

Western

compared. Productivity not also only how the fast cost this index Index_ in fuel task (PI)t can PI. In a comparative a unit evaluation weight To of various can helicopters be delivered in that it is of importance over a given the to know but of the

at which

of payload establish that some

distance, notion

be accomplished.

yardstick as follows:

respect,

productivity

is introduced

by defining (PI)j =

quantity ] V

[(Wpl)g/We

(1.17) to flight distance 2, V is the speed of

where flight

(Wpl) _ in knots, But

is the and

maximum

theoretical empty

payload

corresponding units as Wpl).

W e is the weight

(in the same

w_ = (w_) - _(_/mo)%,
17

and Eq (1.17)

can be rewritten

as follows: {[(Wpl)o/Wgrl per pound -(_t21100)_ weight Vl(We/Wg and 100 r) nautical miles, and (1.17a) distance

(PI)I " = where FF is (as before) miles. (1.17a), O, 100, can the 2O0, (PI)I and the fuel

required

of gross

is in nautical

Using Eq
distances result (say,

values 300

are computed n.mi) and then,

first the

for the whole

compared range

helicopters from

for 0 to

several

flight

of speeds

Vma x. The

of this phase

be graphically

presented

as in Fig.

1.10.

x
ua Z
O.

SOVIET 2=0 / x Z WESTE_j ''_

O.

_,_
SPEED OF FLIGHT, KN

_
SPEED OF FLIGHT, KN

Figure 1.10 Proposed

scheme for comparing helicopters.

productivity

index vs speed for selected

flight distances

of Soviet and Western

Now

the maximal vs distance

values

of the

productivity indicated

index

corresponding

to various

selected

flight

distances

can be plotted

as schematically

in Fig. 1.11.

e_

<

FLIGHT

DISTANCE,

N.MI

Figure 1.11 Maximal

productivity

index values vs distance 18

scheme

for Soviet and Western helicopters.

1.6

Some

Aspects of Design Philosophy and graphically presenting the most important the design philosophy design parameters of Soviet

Merely listing side-by-side, and Western helicopters However, considerations in order

should give one some idea regarding

trends of the two groups. additional

to get a deeper insight into some particular

aspects of design philosophy,

may be indicated. Aspects. It appears that helicopters designed in the West generally than their have much better

Power Loading hovering performance

under high altitude-elevated

temperature conditions actual

conditions

Soviet counterparts; operations. This trend

to a large extent, can be predicted compared

due to the climatic from a plot

and geographic showing

of their anticipated power

(Fig. 1.12) required

shaft takeoff

per pound

of gross weight

with the ideal horsepower

per pound =

of gross'weight X/_o/SSO

in hover at SL/1SA.

(HP/Wgr)id h

NORM GW
flo .J t,, "1-

MAX GW y V SOVIET WESTERN TRANSMISSION LIMITED 2.0

(.9
LL

O O grO"

o 13 z o
n," a. "1"

J
i/"

j.-

o I"1" _1
, / t

<
uJ 13
I ,,

DISC LOADING,
Figure 1.12 Comparison of takeoff and ideal specific

PSF
powers for Soviet and Western helicopters.

Disc Loading whose

and Tip Speed.

Lifting

rotor disc loadings imprints

and tip speed represent

design parameters These quanti-

values may be considered

as important

on the helicopter

design philosophy. form.

ties are listed hence in the comparative 'Average to maximum ophy. Lift (or CT/O) Coefficient. flight and normal values

tables and simply presented

in graphical

Values of the average lift _e) or CF/O coefficients also represent an important means that aspect greater

corresponding of design philoscontrollability

or VTO gross weights SL/ISA

If these

are low under

conditions,

it obviously

19

(maneuverability) ture conditions. on the profile

margins Also other power blade

would stall

be available aspects

for

operations flying could

under speeds

high and

altitude

and/or would (-Cd/_)

ambient be more ratios; thus

temperafavorable. resulting of rotor-

at higher values may power

altitudes

However, in higher craft with For

hand, levels.

low _ This

(CT/O) aspect specific average

lead

to less favorable important value.

be especially to its ideal

for hovering

capabilities

low ratios comparative

of the

takeoff the

purposes,

lift coefficient

in hovering

will be defined

here as

_._ where #v is the download Using helicopters two scales, the factor. magnitudes shown in Fig.

6Cr/a

6kvw/aPo

Vt 2

of both 1.13.

and

CT/o

will

be presented

for the

Soviet

and Western

in the manner

}-

u___.
-J z
UJ UJ

Q'B (9"
NGW _I MAX. V GW SOVIET

t-_ c9

5,T
nn

O"

ULU

_o
<

WESTERN

DISC

LOADING,

PSF

Figure

1.13

A scheme

for

comparingE

and

CT/a

of

Soviet

and

Western

helicopters.

Producibility regarding aspects vide the

and skill-level

Maintainability. of servicing philosophy. figures with very in and

Producibility manufacturing

and

maintainability, definitely for the

including represent compared

some two helicopters or

indications important to pro-

personnel, desirable

of helicopter either actual

design statistical

It would this few respect

be hence or,

at least, this type the

operational-handbook of information is not

sales-brochure on subject the to

projections. Soviet a general presented the necessary

Unfortunately, Consequently, (which

exceptions, necessary in Part actual

available of this

rotorcraft. discussion

it became will be while conducted limiting

to limit

main trends

considerations and goals

II) of such quantitative

as, for few

instance, cases

those wherein

in Tishchenko's data

work,

comparisons

to those

is available.

1.7 Configurational Aspects


There alities and are many differences configurational of Soviet aspects vs Western wherein design comparison may be important one in assessing commonof

philosophies.

Obviously,

of them

is the selection

20

theoverall helicopter configuration (single-rotor, tandem, coaxial, andside-by-side). However, aspect this
will only be thoroughly to some considered in Part topics tail III of this study. single-rotor management power/main-rotor as one such of the tail topic. can be defined by two coordinates forms. (x and y) Consequently, scheme, of in this part, attention affect will be called aircraft perwith selection configurational of the of the rotor tail-rotor be cited especially the main-rotor ratio those which torque through

formance. emphasis of the

Thelocation on minimization design

and

compensation, the proper

of the can the

power

related As shown

parameters, 1.14,

in Fig. should

location in absolute

rotor

whose

values

be registered

as well as relative

(_ = x/R),

(if=y/R)

Figure 1.14

Tail rotor Coordinates.

With design

respect

to the have

main-rotor the most

torque important

compensation influence numerical

aspects, on the values

it would

be of interest

to indicate power ratio;

which as well for per-

parameters

tail-rotor of that

to main-rotor ratio, since it may

as to establish formance Ratio in pounds

a simple

method To achieve (RPtr)

for finding this goal, ' to

be needed

comparisons. of Tail-Rotor (Trr) required

the following

approximate

relationships at SL/ISA.

are developed. The tail-rotor thrust

Main-Rotor

(RPrn r) Powers torque

in Hover

to compensate Trr

the main-rotor =

can be expressed

as follows: (1.18)

(RPmr/Vrrnr)(Rrnr/Xtr)

or denoting

x tr/Rmr

= "Xtr, Ttr = RPmr/Vtmr_'tr (X.lSa)

where

Vtrnr

and

Rmr,

respectively, center

are the from

tip

speed

(fps), shaft

and

radius

(ft) while

of

the

main

rotor,

and

Xtr

is the distance

of the

tail rotor

the main-rotor

axis (ft),

RPrn r is in ft-lb/sec.

21

Thepowerequired y thetail rotorof r b


(ft-lb/sec) as:

the

open-airscrew

type

at SL/ISA

can,

in turn,

be written

RPtr

(Ttr

3/2

/_trPo

FMtr)kblo

(1.19)

where

Rtr

is the

tail-rotor effect -

radius

(ft),

FMtr

is the tail-rotor on which

figure

of merit

and kbl o is a coefficient

account-

ing for the

blocking

of the structure assuming that

the tail rotor

is mounted. of the slipstream,

For the

Fenestron

there

is no contraction
3(2

(RPtr)

F = ,Ttr

/_

FMtr

(1.19a)

In turn,

RPmr

appearing

in Eq (1.18)

can

De presented

as follows:

where

hVh is the figure

helicopter of merit. Eq (1.20)

download

factor

in hover;

Wor is the

helicopter

gross

weight;

and FMmr

is the

main-rotor

Substituting expressions

into

Eq (1.18a)

and the latter, tail rotor

in turn,

into

Eqs (1.19)

and (1.19a),

the

follow-

for the RP of the

open-airscrew

is obtained:

RPtr

(lev3h`z WgrX/Wmrl2Po'll/tm

r FMmr

Err) 3,2 kblol_

FMtr

(1.21)

and for the Fenestrone-type


t 312 3/2 .]"'-'_'_

(RPtr)F

(kVh

Wgr_/Vtrnr

FMmr

Xtr)

/x/TrRtrP

o FMtr

(1.21a)

Writing modified

Wgr/rrR2mr

instead

of power

Wmr ratio

in Eq

(1.20) open

and

then

dividing becomes

Eq

(1.21)

and

(1.21a)

by

the

so-

Eq (1.20),

the sought

for the

airscrew

(RPtr/RPmr)

hVh - 3/2

blo

(_/Vtm

r _

tr)

3/2

(Rrnr/Rtr)/FMtrX/FMmr

(1.22)

and for the ducted

one,

(RPtr/RPrnr)F

(kvh_/Vtmr

Xtr)

3/2

(0. 707Rmr/Rtr)/FMtr

(1.22a)

It

can

be

seen values of the

from are:

Eqs the

(1.22) ratio of

and the

(1.22a) ideal

that

the

most

important at the main

parameters rotor these disc

influencing

the

(RPtr/RPmr) and the the One the 3/2 first can ratio power; power).

induced main-rotor

velocity radius radii figure

to its tip speed appear (both to to

tail-rotor in importance lesser that

distance

to the

(Xtr), and of

as both the tail-rotor

quantities of merit to the

next Of

are the main-to-tail-rotor is the design main-rotor philosophies

figure

significance

merit

as it appears it may

1/2

power. to

see hence

in comparing

of various

helicopters,

be of interest

22

present configurational such


(ViOmr/Vtrnr) This The available indicated still better, Estimate giving can values, be done where in tabular, (Rtr/Rmr)

aspects

as the

(_tr/Rrnr) induced

and vdocity

(Rmr/Rtr) of the main

ratios rotor.

as well

as to

indicate

the

Viclrnr is the ideal

as well as graphical and on (Viamr/Vtm various the values described There T (lb) static

form. r) ratios can readily be computed to complete They from the data usually

(_'tr/Rmr); in the by Eqs

published (1.22)

material and (1.22a),

helicopters. of FMmr below. are and

However, and FMtr

in order

calculations or

are required.

can be assumed,

approximated of Rotor

in the FM =

manner RPid/RP. rotor

available rotor

results power RP

of

many

tower for

and/or full-scale

stand lifting

tests and

a relationship RP = [(T) thrust

between

thrust

(ft-lb/sec)

tail rotors: Rotor

or Cp = (C 7) under in terms

conditions average

OGE. blade lift coefficient _,

can be expressed

of the

(I/6)oTrR2pVr

2_

(1.23)

while

the rotor

power

can be given

in terms

of the total

blade

drag coefficient

(_D):

RP

(I/8)olrR2

pVt 3 E D

(1.24)

With cient and

respect rotor

to the solidity

ideal ratio.

rotor

power,

it can be expressed that

as a function

of the

blade

average

lift coeffi-

Remembering

Rpi , =
and substituting it into the above equation (1.23) for T, and simplifying, one obtains

RPia

O.048(c;-_

)3/2nR2

p Vt 3

(1.25)

Dividing

Eq (1.25)

by Eq (1.24),

the expression

for the figure

of merit

becomes:

Fm

0.385X/_(_

3/21Co)

(1.26)

From numbers, given formed The type given rotor (Fig.

available blade airfoil

test-established sections, For The instance and

RP blade

= f(T)

or

Cp

= f(C T)

relationships = f('c2 tests

at various ) curves can

blade be drawn rotor

tip

Mach for the per-

Reynolds

numbers, at which the available

FM tower results

solidities. 1.16).

at o = 0.0996, is how to transfer ratio Mach

of

the

UH-61A

were

question

to other

solidities. that for a given at any

influence (similar the

of various blade

rotor Reynolds between

solidity and

values numbers, and ideal

can be accounted airfoils, total drag twist,

for by assuming and planform remains

of rotor E value, t

distribution) constant:

difference

the actual

coefficients

ACol_l=eonst

CD

--

C--Did

const

23

Oo = 0.0996

_-'-_i

" FOR

COMPUTED 0.7 02 = 0.0734

0.6
......... 'j f_'"' ' ............. 't .... .... '

0.5'

:::-:-iT ": ': 7: - :J

;_dl_*_"t

,t"

+.7 *TI:*.*: " ,?* ;T'_rI. 'TrT-:-_-tt-t:'-:t;-:tTt:TT."

I-

E
I.,I.I

0.4
Ii

:i

_:

__'_

;i!:l?:

_t :_.:

',1_?'_': iii,tZit!:i:i:?i:

O
LI.I

eI.D 0.3 {.9


I1.

. , , ]

, ] _ , ,

] t ] _

, ?i i

_ _t ;

r; ; ,

i ,

, .

. ;

h _, i

_ *! ,

p,

, d

_ ,

, 0.2

'.11_ II

! .: I::'11;;: I:. ...... _.....

';'.;.

I..

'i _....

'11.1.11:';1: , .......

::'.::I;.'.._

:':

, l , _1' " .,,. .....

'!

/ [

. ..........

'

:,

;:

_i _4+ _+

; ' -_

! .,_,

::

,." .T_*

' ,-++.

' t

i_; _-+-,

: .

........... 0.1

..

.I

....

t,

:El:: D,
#' ,:;:_l,
..... ....... "

N !
,_ _.H[_i, It,,
" "_

r
l_,
_-_'_,

: .
'.l
_+-_

t: !
J|Ll.,i_I
+_ _ 7 r'_ '-

I t
l',lll,;q
_,*

',t
'i"

,
+

l
........" '+-

I
r

......

"-"_

' *_

0.1

0.2 AVERAGE

0.3 BLADE

0.4 LIFT

0.5 COEFFICIENT,

0.6 _'I_

0.7

0.8

Figure 1.16

Example

of the FM = f(El) relationships

at various rotor solidities.

In turn,

making

FM = ] in Eq (1.26),

CDi d can be expressed

as follows:

C--Did Assigning different


as

O.385-_t

3,2 X/r_ and but 1, 2, 3 .... with to those _, representing can be written

o subscripts the total

to the drag

available coefficient

_O

= f(_

) relationships, say, o_ value,

o values,

at this new;

the same

_0,

"CDid,

A_O

0.385g_anx/-d_

CD o --0.385_'/_X/'_o

Substituting

the above

into

Eq

(1.26),

the following

is obtained:

0.385"_ 3_
FM 1 =

coo +
of the value above (o_)

- V o)
equation by C'--D while o, as multiplying by _/-_o,

Dividing the figure

the

numerator for a new

and rotor

denominator solidity ratio

of merit

can be expressed

24

FM o FMI = O_o/O_(1 -- FM o ) + FM o (1.26a)

Determination (RPtr/RPmr) mission ratio

of Overall are factor

Rotor-Power by the

Transmission above described

Efficiency. methods, can

Once then

the the

approximate overall with

values

of the transas

computed

rotor-power some confidence

efficiency

(r?oa -= RHP/SHP

= RP/SP)

in hover

be determined

rtoa

_Xmtot/[

(RPtr/RPmr)]

(1.27)

where (gear) average

rlxmtot losses value.

is the and power

total

mechanical for

transmission runiaing the

efficiency accessories, and

accounting rlxmto

for

the

actual

transmission a good

utilized

t = 0.96

would

represent

Determination can be computed as

of the

Overall

Figure

of Merit.

Knowing

r/oa,

hVh, and FMmr

the overall

figure

of merit

FMoa and the so-obtained described Ratio rotor (f) hub and values in Section may 1. to Main-Rotor is accounted main-rotor Power for be used

1?oaFM m r/kvh/2 those resulting from the OGE hovering data, as pre-

for checking

viously

of Tail--Rotor and attachment is no the rotor "help" power

in Forward in the

Flight

at SL/ISA. of the whole

Assuming helicopter flight from

that flat

the plate

tailarea

drag in the

estimates

there

torque in that

compensation regime of flight

in forward at SL/ISA

a fixed

vertical

empennage;

of the tail rotor

becomes

r
while Ttr is given by the Eq (1.18a) right-hand

Tt,

Jr

3 (, + 4.Z_%,)(Z_/ae),, v,,,]
in fps. the following expression

(1.28)

as in hovering side of Eq

and V and Vtt r are both for Ttr in Eq (1.28),

Substituting power ratio

(1.18a)

for the

is obtained:

e__,, _ e,.r/,
Further assuming that

= [2_R_r Rpm, z,, pov v,_,


Vtm r = Vtt r = V t and hence

3(i 4
Eq (1.29) becomes

(1.29)

Idtr =//,

RPtr

), =

RPm r

vt3), t.
25

+ -4

4. 71a2

(1.29a) tr

It should benotedthattheexpressiontheparentheses in in thedenominator thefirsttermof of Eq(1.29a) represents ahypothetical which power remains constant forunvaryingand V rp
In the order of to get the some idea regarding t ratio the may be magnitude calculated engine power of at the Ve setting. they may be used in the (SHP/Wor) = f(V) detail-rotor power losses in forward n and flight, Vcrrnax values (RPrr/RPmr) corresponding to 5HPmi

(Vma x) achievable Once termination. The available, actual hence the

at the maximum in forward

continuous flight

_?oa values

are estimated,

procedure by using

is facilitated the assumed

by

the

fact

that the

SHP

corresponding RPmr

to

Vcrrnax

is usually

directly as

_?oa values,

approximate

can

be readily

calculated

RPmr

550

SHPma

x conrrloa

and substituted Having Cabin philosophy, cabin. present weight; the

into

Eq (1.29a). (RPtr/RPmr) Cabin Floor i values, Area into Tloa in forward With aspects aspects flight to can be computed from aspects Eq of (1.27). design

so-refined and

Volume it may

Loading. such

respect as volume

configurational

be of interest one

to look

and floor basis,

area of the it is suggested to the

cargo/passenger to graphically maximum flying

In order figures

to permit regarding

to investigate b and

these

on where

a common

(Wpl)o/Vca volume

(Wo/)o/Scab

(Wpl) corresponds floor area in sq.ft.

Vca b is the cabin

in cu.ft;

and Sca b is the cabin

1.8 Concluding Remarks


The of the introductory general items considerations of the out led presented Soviet in this chapter provided Various an outline for various and two aspects perfordesign Conse-

comparison were This, singled in turn, of the in such

vs Western entities identification

helicopters.

design

parameters of the

mance

as special to the

facilitating of basic tables

a quantitative data necessary

comparison for that

philosophies. quently, were

procedure.

for each

considered a way

gross-weight

classes,

of principal information

characteristics (see Table 1.2).

and performance

constructed

as to include

all the necessary

26

Z [,,.
el) r_

z [.-

t _4

Z Z

,,,J

,-1

e_

Z _u b, ;>

uO

Z z 0

o
Z 0 _ ..a o

r_

Z, 0

z zo_ r-.
27

_.,,

Z Z

,-

" _.

ee

28

Chapter Powerplants

2.1

Introduction A comprehensive comparison the present of the study. state of the art of the are Soviet some helicopter engine powerplants with about those which

of

the

West

is outside

However, in order

there

characteristics

some

approximate

knowledge in the

is required preceding engine (2) power

to perform

the general

comparison

of the two

helicopter

technologies The partial are ology two

as outlined most setting, available

chapter. characteristics lapse rate and with for that comparison and are (1) variation Both these of the sfc with

important and for

power not

altitude

temperature. engines two as well.

characteristics a method-

usually

Soviet

engines approximate important,

for some estimates but usually

Western of these they

Consequently,

had to be developed Engine power ratings

for even are also

items. be directly found in published litera-

can

ture. Although, there are some as mentioned additional to the above, this study is not directed toward comparison about which may specific of engine some shed weight technologies, knowledge some light may on the

readily-available designer, groups. be defined discussed helicopters and

powerplant whose such

characteristics comparative

be of interest engine state

rotorcraft

presentation

of the art of the two which may

Two

items

may be (1) engine width chapter, the four

(Weng/SHPTo)

and (2) compactness, Similar to their to the

as SHPTo/(length in the belonging preceding to

X height). are also grouped according the

proceedings to the

all engines gross weight

application groups Engines Soviet (1) (2)

classes.

Consequently

following 1.

of engines installed

are considered. in the up to 12,000-1b gross weight helicopters.

lsotov/PZL Vedeneev

GTD-350 M-14V-26 (reciprocating)

Western (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Allison Allison 250-C20B 250-C30 Arriel T53-L-13 LTS 101-650C-2 1C

Turbomeca Lycoming Lycoming

29

2.

Engines

installed

in 12,000

to 30,O00-1b

gross weight

helicopters

Soviet (1) lsotov TV-2-117A GTD-3F Similar to TVD-10

(2) Glushenkov

Western (1) (2) Turbomeca General Turmo Electric 1VC & Makila 1.A (3) (4) General General Electric Electric T58-GE-16 T700-GE-700

T58-GE-5

3.

Engines Soviet (1) (2)

installed

in 30,000

to 100,000-1b

gross

weight

helicopters

Soloviev

D-25V

(TV-2BM)

Hypothetical

Western (1) (2) (3) Lycoming General General T55-L-712 Electric Electric T64-GE-415 T64-GE-413

4.

Engines Soviet (1) (2)

installed

in the over

100,000-1b

gross

weight

helicopters

Soloviev

D-25VF

Hypothetical

Western (1) Allison T701

Tables ample, specific

of

the

principal Graphs

engine

characteristics with volume

were partial ratio

prepared power

for each setting,

of the

above rate

groups vs lSA

(for

ex-

see Table weights,

2.1).

of sfc variation to the overall

power separately.

lapse

altitude,

and TO power

are presented

2.2

Auxiliary Estimates

Relationships of sfc Variation characteristics can the for vs Partial where Power Setting. Even in the at two case SHP of levels rather only, incomplete a relationship inforof

mation

on engine

values

of sfc are given

sfc = f(SHP/SHPTo) Assuming (one of them that being

be established. engine the fuel flow power is linear setting), with SHP, and at least two points (FF/FFTo) of (sfc, SHP) are given

takeoff

a relationship

between

-- f(SHP/SHPTo),

30

1.0

---y
// J it o I/ f it kk f / _ (FF/FFTo) 0 SHP/SHPTo ! 1.0 o

Figure 2.1 Basic relationship

between

relative fuel flow and power setting.

as illustrated lished. Calling fuel flow

in Fig.

2.1

can

be developed

and

the

(FF/FFTo)

ratio

for idle,

(FF/FFTo)

o, can

be estab-

the

relative

fuel

flow

at idle ratio

(FF/FFTo)

o = _, and the slope as

of the

straight

line/3,

the relative

as a function

of the power

can be expressed

FF/FFTo while sfc = FF/SHP =

a +

[3(SHP/SHPTo)

FFTO[a

IJ(SHP/SHPTo)]/SHP

(2.1)

Dividing bering that

the

numerator

and

denominator

in the = sfcTo

right-hand following

side

of Eq (2.1)

by SHPTo

and

remem-

t3 = I - t_, while

FFTo/SHPTo

, the

is obtained:

sfc =

sfcro

[I +

c_(SHP/SHPTo I

1)]

(2.2)

Using be prepared

Eq (2.2), for each

comparative of the

graphs

of

sfc and

--- f(SHP/SHPTo) presented

for the 2.2

Soviet (Soviet

and

Western

engines

can

engine

groups

as in Fig.

in bold,

Western

in thin

lines). Relative be interesting since in the Lapse Rate in ISA. the For lapse a detailed rate with comparison both pressure under of the altitude powerplant technology levels, it would However, rate aspects

to investigate present to the study altitude

and ambient conditions only,

temperature. the lapse

performance (H) variation

is compared

standard

will be limited

at ISA only. 31

,_.......

SOVIET WESTERN
'11

0 Figure 2.2 sfc variation vs partial

SHP/SHPTo power setting for Soviet

1.0 and Western helicopter engines.

Whenever
SHP 8000 1 I_..SHP're f \!

manufacturers'

data on SHPTo

= f(H)

is available,
present altitude the

it will be used to compute


relative lapse rate as a function

and graphically
of the ISA

_, =-- (SHPTo)H/(SHPTO)o

f(H)

1 \ SHPN oR =0.917 _SHP ref , SHPTo

In Tishchenko's are also It

addition, Fig. indicated can large in the be

the 2.621 on

trends

in

X = f(H) here

deduced as Fig.

from 2.3)

(reproduced 2.4. (solid lines, (in

Fig.

anticipated Soviet Mi-6)

Fig. case,

2.3) the

that D-25V

at

s_

_ " \

\
2.",,,

least installed

the

turboshafts have a higher

this

thermodynamic at lower (perhaps flow

than altitudes due to

, I /
SH_PN.R 40OO

mechanical (/t _ 300Ore),

capacity. their

Consequently, output limit) be no at 2.3. on the in is restricted through such lower

material

temperature Should there increase line rate also be data shown based in Fig. based

fuel

limitation. then the TO by

\
power the 0 1 2 3 4 5 H, km

limitations, altitudes

would broken Lapse

as indicated

3000

so-extended the comparative

Tishchenko's drawings. are to rates available, the of two the

curve Figure Mi-6 rated power 2.62, 2.3 helicopter power: required Ref. 1). (1) for Power variation and with altitude of in = 4500 of the When they trend engines power flight values referred (2) (Fig.

will actual will

marked on in on Soviet bold

powerplants lines in addition Lapse

required at H

hover; m.

be

curves

Fig.

2.3.

32

1.o

,,
T " .J _

lu o

m--,, " _

--,. -

TRENDS ACTUAL

BASED SOVIET

ON FIG.

2.3

rrua _

WESTE R N

0 ALTITUDE, Figure'2.4 Scheme for presentation FT

20,000

of the relative lapse rate for Soviet and Western helicopter

engines.

Western

turboshafts

will

be plotted

in thin

lines

(Fig.

2.4).

2.3

Comparison Basic Data.

of The

Engines principal

Installed

in

Helicopter and

of up to

12,000-1b at SL/ISA of

Gross the

Weight Soviet and

Class Western

characteristics gross weight

performance

engines The

utilized

in the up to 12,000-1b of sfc with partial

helicopter setting at

class are shown SL/ISA is shown

in Table in Fig.

2.1. 2.5, the lapse rate

variation

power

in Fig. 2.6, The (say, design, at least takeoff

and specific relationship power)

weights between may

in Fig. 2.7. the external to the principal the relative volume an exception is taken dimensions helicopter engine bulk of an designer. dimensions of the engine and its power-producing in every width, and case height) by capacity of a particular is required, their

takeoff

be of interest of regarding to the the

Although, (length,

a careful some shaft

examination idea

general horsepower of Here, the the

engines the for

can be acquired external volume having (SHPToIoverall

comparing

external

ratios.

Where

is defined a distinctly

in general circular ratios

as a product front view.

overall overall

dimensions; volume

is made

powerplants These

as (7rD2/4)

length.

volume)

are shown

in Fig. 2.8. The of up to that fuel 2.5). engine Isotov PZL GTD-350 gross engine is the sole representative from the of Soviet turboshafts that (Fig. of installed the specific 2.7). Also powerthe

Discussion. in helicopters weight its of

12,000-1b

weights. twice

It is obvious as high as that

presented

material counterpart group engine

is approximately is decisively refers to

of its Western the comparative of the (Fig. overall 2.8).

specific (Fig.

consumption The appears same

inferior

to that per

of

Western

plants GTD-350

power

extraction those

unit

volume,

where

engine

to be on a lower

level than

of the West

33

Fromtheavailable onthepowerapseatewiththe1SA data l r altitude, appears it thattheGTD-350


at SL has a slighdy curve higher is located thermodynamic between capacity. Western counterparts. above-discussed specific weight and sfc characteristics, by the of that is 1000 Allison it should 250-C20-B It should be of no surprise the than two mechanical capacity (420 curves, the lapse on, the vs. but 395 closer hp). For this reason, no its X = F(H) excess what in the lower limiting Tishchenko to that Soviet curve showing

thermodynamic than for the

While

up to H = lO00m, from that altitude

rate slope

of the of the

engine is quite

is somesimilar

counterpart;

to those In (as will resulted

of the Western view of the

be seen in Ch. 3) that in a dramatic

replacement in the

of the GTD-350 performance engine

in the Mi-2 helicopter also be noted the TBO that the

improvement TBO

helicopter. while

presently-recommended hours. However, engine presence on-the-spot is really of actual

for the GTD-350

hours,

for the Allison,

is 3500

operators and

of the Mi-2 can successfully and may that

helicopters operate not

have under require

indicated artic highly

to this investigator as well as skilled sandy-desert

that

the GTD-350 in the the little

"rugged"

conditions

abrasive maintenance of

agents, that two to

it does

personnel

to perform

be deemed

necessary. reciprocating of using engines on on the Kamov Ka-26 helicopter heli-

Utilization is definitely copters. The and 2.17. Some in the 2.5). Another parative data case contrast

the

Vedeneev the general

M-14V-26 trend

an exception

turboshafts

contemporary

multiengine

in specific

weights

of

these

two

types

of

powerplants

is quite

evident

from

Figs.

2.7

compensation of M-14V-26

of that engines

high

engine

weight low,

can

be

obtained

through with the

a more Western

favorable

sfc which, (Fig.

is indeed

even

in comparison

turboshafts

argument on that

for subject

the

utilization Vedeneev

of reciprocating engine

engines

may

be cost.

Unfortunately,

no

com-

for the

is available.

34

_.a

u o 00

1= I v o

o S. v< v,.,,., '..,-. ,z',


v o'-.

_vv

j ",o

OO

E,.3

8,4

",O o..

oo_

O_vv

,
A A

7--,

g
u'_ "o I I . 0

_<
Z =

,_

m.o

.<

<6
U Z q _

z_
_

H_7,6

e4

u-_ ,_

_01

_'_ O0

t_ ,,.-i

O E'-, Z

_.

_ _ .__,_

',,O

,,,_
-4

e,i

<_
Z _-.

#,

--o
e4

-_
0

R_

o_

_"

+-__

[.,

r,1 [--. > r,1

35

I
CC

Z
.J
t_

0.8

Z 0
I-Q.. rj

0,6

0
0 ..J LU 14. C..) L/.

0.4 [REClPROc] PUBLISHED 0.2 ESTIMATED DATA

LU {tJ

0 0 0.2 SHAFT 0.4 HORSEPOWER 0.6 RATIO: 0.8 SHP/SHP.ro 1.0

Figure 2.5

Variation of sfc vs power setting for Soviet and Western engines installed in the up to 12,000-1b gross weight class helicopters.

36

"ISCHENKO z

% T53-L-13
O

LTS

250-C20B
0. -w

6
m

ee _e w

0.4

O
0.

0.3

0_

0.1

0 0

......

10

12 1000 FT

14

16

18

20

ALTITUDE:

Figure 2.6

Relative lapse rate in ISA for takeoff engines, installed

and military powers of Soviet and Western

in the up to 12,000-1b gross weight class helicopters.

37

qp_

I .J I

o o i.o

e-

"l

e-.

U qc,m _U lu.I i,o 04 t00 I-.J

,=,

,=_

('4

P_

II

II

II

IJ

II

II

i 0

v-

0 01=110=ldS

dH/8"l

:IHOI3M

38

,yu

(= ql

_=

i,i

,-r,
O

'N

u.

P= E
0

C'_

O0
:3Wf13OA

L%I
S

"N'no/dq

"I'IYEI3AO/J['dH

39

2.4

Comparison Class

of

Engines

Installed

in the

12,000

to 30,O00-1b

Gross

Weight

Helicopters

Basic Data. turboshafts The is given engine utilized variation in Fig. volume Discussion. to the GTD-350 power

The

principal

characteristics to 30,O00-1b power in Fig.

and

performance weight also and

at SL/ISA class helicopters is given S/L

of the are

Soviet shown

and

Western 2.2. rate

in the

12,000

gross

in Table the lapse

of sfc with 2.10, specific

partial weights

setting, 2.11,

at SL/ISA, ratio

in Fig. 2.9, takeoff

the

of the

power

to overall

is shown With engine, class

in Fig. 2.12. respect its (Fig. to the Isotov TV-2-117A and is on turboshaft, the level one of the should older note that in contrast powerplants

sfc is much 2.9). 1,10

lower

Western

of the same As can engine acteristic parts.

be seen than

from

Fig.

showing

_. = f(H), power rate with

the thermodynamic (at ISA SL,ISA, altitude 1775 than

capacity

of the TV-2-117A This char-

is higher leads

its fuel

flow-restricted lapse

limit the

hp vs 1480hp). for the Western

to a more

favorable

counter-

However, is much remains flagged higher true, symbol

perhaps than even for when

due the

to material Western

temperature turboshafts is based the

limitations, (Fig. on 2.11). the

the It can

specific be seen

weight from

of Soviet this figure

engines that this

specific 2.11). (Fig.

weight

thermodynamic appears

capacity relatively

horsepower more bulky

(singlethan

in Fig.

In addition, 2.12). at this only. speed

Soviet

engine

much

its Western

counterparts

It should engine apply When of the

be emphasized to the civilian

point

that

all the

above-discussed

aspects

of

the

TV-2-117A

version helicopter the

the

absolute in 1978,

record

was rating

established of 2170 was

by

the

Mil A-10

(specialized this hp.

version is

Mi-24) not

TV3-117 but

engine the

used _. However, rated at 2170 suitable

turboshaft

probably

an updated to provide to 30,000-pound

TV2-117, an example gross

standard recent the was

Mi-24

powerplant

In order the 12,000

of more weight class,

Western basic added data

powerplants on the 2.2,

for helicopters Makila

of

Aerospatiale

1A engine appropriate

powering graphs.

the

AS332L

Super-Puma

helicopter

to Table

as well as to the

4O

cli

IE ,-_ O0 o

a.i

--

_i"
0 O0 CO 0 _1 _ _ 0,1 I.O 0 04

o_>

o r" ILl Z

0 0

O0 P_

z
I.U

nI.I.I

e-

z__
o z
O0 _ li3 l"O

,,,__
_ _ ne 0
C_ LU --I m

w m 0 a:

,_, _I

0 0

tO

<_
E_

o0

t_ 0

--

I-0 0 O_

_g
I-_ z

"I'- ,j _ J J _
_ 0 qD

I-

O.

O.

-1I.i,I

_,.

I--

_ m

z o

j 0

I-i_

,(
rr
--I

-- _c
u. "T 0

14.1

_.-

_:__
E E _8 u o-_

_.
"_

-8=.
'
o

_.
'"
_ "r _ _"

_
E

_-_
'3

__
O"l I"_, (.0

_uO

41

1.2

1.0
T58-GE-5

0.8

'

_ " "_

TV-2-117A

\ 0.6

"" ,_

,."_'_"'_--

TURMO

IVC

MAKILAIA/

"--,__

8
T700-GE-700 / f -

,,_
0

0.4

,"r

0.2

0 0.2 SHAFT 0.4 HORSEPOWER 0_6 RATIO; 0_8 SHP/SHPTo 110

Figure 2.9 Variation of sfc vs power setting for Soviet and Western engines installed in the 12,000 to 30,0004b gross weight class helicopters.

42

e_ "I-

"Te, /)

6
m

tw tw LU

T700-GE-700

0 0 2 4 6 8 ALTITUDE, 10 12 14 16 20

1000 FT

Figure 2.10

Relative lapse rate in ISA for takeoff and military powers for Soviet and Western engines installed in the 12,000 to 30,O00-1b gross weight class helicopters.

43

CIVILIAN 0.8

TO SHP RATING

THERMODYNAMIC CAPACITY OF CIVILIAN VERSION

a.

9"
=0

0.6 TV'2-117A

uJ

0.4
D

g=
m

TURMO

Ivc,._

MAKILA

1A TV3-117

uJ o. O

0.2

\
L

T58-GE-16

0 800

II

10'00

"

1:;;00

'

1400

"

16"00

'

1800

_'

2d00

2200

SL, ISA, T.O SHP

Figure 2.11

Specific weight of Soviet and Western turboshafts

for 12,000 to 30,O00-lb gross weight helicopters.

44

O 0,, 150

CIVILIAN

T.O SHP RATING

THERMODYNAMIC CAPACITY OF CIVILIAN VERSION

T700-G E-70.0

100

3
O MAKILA 1A TV3-117

o o ' lo"oo 12oo" 14oo' " ' '

1600

'

' 1.oo' "

2000

"

" 2;oo

SL, ISA, T.0 SHP, HP

Figure 2.12

Takeoff

SHP to overall engine volume of Soviet and Western turboshafts class.

for 12,000 to 30,O00-1b gross weight helicopter

45

2.5

Comparison Gross Weight

of Engines Class

Installed

in the

30,000

to

100,000-1b

and

over

100,000-1b

Helicopters

Combination there weight is only one

of Two

Engine

Groups. engine

Since, (T701)

in the that

over not into

100,000-1b appear a single in

gross the

weight 30,000

class to

helicopters, gross

nonhypothetical from both

does

100,000

class, powerplants Hypothetical Engines. some the of

categories to the

are combined actual

study

group. engines by "constructed" et al 1 from output

In addition the characteristics study. there that Soviet design engine 1 that 44 that (i.e., to The is no

turboshafts,

two hypothetical assumed in the book

on are

the

basis

of in

and overall indication

performance picture of the

Tishchenko is far and

included complete;

present

so-reconstructed physical very on shape

powerplants of the engines

being rpm. may

for instance, it is believed light on to the their

regarding

the

Nevertheless, shed some in

incorporation projected

of even these trends (or at least

sketchy the

"hypothetical of the

powerplants" Soviet helicopter applications.

desires for

designers)

regard

philosophies concepts all 60 12 to metric

concerning is done 24 ton metric gross

turboshafts

rotary-wing

Formulation It is clearly engine 3-engine called type. type. installed

of these stated in

sketchy Ref. the

as follows: ton gross weight helicopters may here are of the twinor sobe

It appears It is also reference

that stated

weight

helicopters selected per

be of either as a test case,

twin, the

for the engine

single-rotor T.O SHP

configuration, available

power

at 500 m)

kg of gross

weight

should

(see Fig. 2.631 )

SHPredWor Consequently, the installed takeoff SliP related

0.45hp/kg ISA would be

to SL,

(SHPTO)o/Wgr

0"45/_50o

rn

hp/kg

where curve 2.10), ft-lb/sec

Xb00m

is the

takeoff

power with

lapse matched that

rate

corresponding and

to

500m

= 1640

ft. Assuming (broken to 0.986 in English

Tishchenko's line in Fig. 550

of X = f(H) X500m

for engines

mechanical theSl*

thermodynamic (75

capacities

= 0.965.

Remembering SL,

horsepower SHP per engine

kg-m/s).amounts

of the units as

horsepower,

the nominal

ISA takeoff

can be expressed

(SHPTo)

0.21

Wgr/neng

(2.3)

where

rleng is the number The (SI-/PTo) o values (SI)

of engines. as given of Units. by Eq (2.3) are shown in Table 2.3.

*International

System

46

TABLE T.O SHP AT SL, ISA PER ENGINE AND 44 TO 60 METRIC

2.3 FOR HELICOPTERS TON GROSS WEIGHTS OF 12 TO 24

GROSS Metric 12 16 20 24 44 52 52 60 Tons

WEIGHT lb. 26,460 35,280 44,100 52,920 97,020 114,660 114,660 132,300 No. OF ENGINES

T.O PER

SHP;

SL, ISA HP

ENGINE, 2778 3704 4630 5556 10,187 12,039. 8026 9261

Two assumed (SHPTo) engines The

engines to be

are

selected

from

this hp

table: (same

(1)

hypothetical the The D-25V), referred

engine and shaft

A with (2)

takeoff

power

at SL,

ISA

(SHPTo)

o = 5500 as that

as for

hypothetical (in

engine SI units)

B with for these

o = 8080 would

hp (same

for the T701). hp, respectively. according

horsepower

be 5383

hp and 7908

weights

of the engines

in kilograms

to Eq (2.57)

1 can be expressed

as

Weng

keng(SHPref)

0"7

Assuming that of engine

an average B, 1170

value lb.

of heng = 1. I, the fuel consumption =k


0.9

weight

of hypothetical rating

engine (p.

A would

be 901.8

lb and be

Specific

at takeoff H Ol Pref)max

1231)

in gr/hp-hr

would

SfCro

Ce/(S

Taking lb/hp-hr,

an average

value

of hce --- 495 = 0.445 power

gr/hp lb/hp-hr. setting in the

-hr, the following

is obtained:

for engine

A, sfcro

= 0.462

and for engine of sfc

B, ShPTo with partial

Variation the results

is given

by

the

following

formula

(Eq

(2.1611)),

where

are in kg/hp-hr, sfc

and SFcTO = {SfCro

is given -

same units: ]}/(SHPISHPTo)

O.16[ l -- (SHPISHPTo)

47

The normal rated power

is assumed

as

SHPN. R _

0.92SHPTo

(p.119 x)

Basic Data.

The principal

characteristics

and performance

of the real and hypothetical of partial power

powerplants setting (also at

at SL, ISA are given in Table SL, ISA) is shown

2.4. The sfc consumption

as a function weights

in Fig. 2.13; lapse rate in Fig. 2.14; specific by its external dimensions) that

in Fig. 2.15; and TO SHP per cu.ft

of the engine vol_ame (defined Discussion. the specific terparts.

is shown similar

for real engines in Fig. 2.16. previously discussed engine classes, coun-

It can be seen from Fig. 2.13

to the

fuel consumption

of the D-25V (TV-2BM) hypothetical

turboshaft

is higher

than that

of its Western

However,

for Tishchenko's

engines,

it is practically

the same as for the advanced

powerplants

and is even better for the new D-136 disclosed the previously

at the Paris Air Show in 1981. design philosophy of providing a larger

As can be seen from Fig. 2.14, thermodynamic fuel flow shafts. than mechanical is even more the so-called

mentioned

engine capability visible

at low altitudes

and then restricting

the power through Soviet turbo-

limitation

in the D-25V (YB-2BM) engines power apparently

engine than in the other would have matched should

By contrast,

hypothetical

thermodynamics be similar to those to the in

and mechanical of the American D-136.

capabilities; turboshafts.

thus their relative Unfortunately,

lapse rate vs ISA altitude there

in this respect,

is no available

data in regard

However,

the goals regarding

specific weights

as set up in Fig. 2.15 have been closely approached

the D-136 turboshaft. Fig. 2.16 clearly shows that, as may be expected, the D-25V (TV-2BM) engine is much more bulky

than the Western ones. Again, no data is available

as yet on the D-136.

2.6

Concluding

Remarks material powerplants presented in this chapter, it appears that from the performance point Whether ease of

From the comparative of view, Soviet helicopter those performance

have been definitely are compensated,

inferior

to their Western counterparts.

and weight

deficiencies reliability,

if at all, by such aspects as ruggedness,

maintenance,

and operational that

are outside designers

of the scope of this part of the comparative their present powerplants

study. to those

It appears

Soviet helicopter

realize that

are inferior

of the West (which is clearly discernable hypothetical concepts, they assume

from such comparisons and weight

as depicted

in Fig. 2.17) and thus, in their representing the current West-

performance

characteristics tend to indicate program.

ern state of the art. Characteristics hypothetical

of the D-136 turboshaft

that the general

goals of the

engines served as milestones

of the actual development

48

tO

oooo
_ I_ _" 0

_%
_ 0

o
I_

co o o o
0

_
II 0_1

13

_o
w w

IN

",.0 t..O 00

',.0 _.

CO t.O

CO

"7.

0 ol

_
II

0o
CO

Z o c_a ,--I < Z


0000

,:sZ

O.

s_
t.O

00

_ U m

o'J _r

g_s
',_, _ _

Z Z_.

_o 00_
W

_
OOc_d

o t"r

<
O --

e.iZ.1

g_
o
7-

I.,0

Illl c_ ,5

._ ._ o_

gg_,

--

o
"I"

go

t,.O

_5

_g
5;
em

00

<
O O

mmm_

I,.0 0

,.4 < Z
eL

6
N N

ii

_
w

rr Z
_1

I--r"

o >
nill

.i=

.._. " -_ 0

_ _ o _

<%

+_ .

>" rr _

..

o
CO

E
Z-"

ILl

o
.
O

__. o u. i,-

"

8_._
E

* ___ o

_ ,,,
W '_ "_

E "6 o

._- ..z

_=_ ._o,_

m. z * **

49

1.0

\ % %. T55-L-712 %= -. _._ D-25V(TV-2BM)

0.8
HYPOTHETICAL

,.

..
_

/
_'

......

A _"t

HYPOTHETICAL .T64-GE-415
, .

B ,_."_, /" -*"- _ __._._


'=... ___
m

_ "_

_
4

Q u

T64-GE413 0.4 D 136

,,-I,
u_

0
m m

0
ul Q,.

0.2

0 0

| J _ vt9

0.2

0.4

0.6 SHP/SHPTo

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Figure

2.13

The sfc vs partial 30,000 to 100,000,

power and

setting over

of Western 100,OOO-]b

and gross

Soviet weight

turboshafts class

for

helicopters.

50

I 1.0 D-25V(TV-2BM)

iO

4GI
.. "..........

0.6 o

i-_0, !...... .----__ ....... ,,........ _ ...... I _.

f ......

........

L/..... ._'__ 1 '

__
0
m

' T6,_-o_-4,_, /
0.4 "- !
......

I
i

'
; ;."

I,-

<C
ee LU 0

:
_.L !
i

i
I

!
0.2
i

i
i

i 1 i
i i

t
.... i i i

i ! ......... _.......... ,+

f
i

1 r
I :

8 ALTITUDE,

10

12

14

16

18

20

1000 FT

Figure 2.14 Relative lapse rate for TO SHP, ISA of Soviet and Western turboshafts for 30,000 to 100,000, and over 100,000-1b gross weight class helicopters.

51

TO SHP RATING TH E RMODVI_IAM IC CAPABI LITY 0.6 D-25V(TV-2BM)


o.

-!..I

_" -r"
IJ.I

0.4
T5_ L-712

D-136 u.
J I,IJ Q.

0.2

(_

T64-G

E-415

T 701

A 0 3 5
|

CTHETICAL

SL, ISA TO SliP, 1000 HP

Figure 2.15

Specific

weights of Soviet and Western turboshafts

for helicopters

of 30,000

to 1OO,O00, and over lOO,O00-1b gross weights.

52

O 3OO

TO SHP RATING TH ERMODYNAMIC CAPAB! LITY

T55_L-712

200

o
(_T.64-GE-413 _> 1.00

0 I0 3
gl w

SL. ISA TO SliP; 1000 HP

Figure 2.16

SL, ISA Takeoff

SHP to overall engine volume for Soviet and Western turboshafts and over lO0,O00-1b gross weight helicopters

for

30,000 to 100,000,

53

M-14V-26 [RECIPROCATING]

0.8

-_r

(3TU-3bU

0.7
0.3

0.6

O. '1"

D-25V (TV-2BM

0.5
m -r rn .-I

O
V I _jr_Astilzou

TV-2-117A

III

I_Gazelll}

,.,

0.2 _[;;L,A"'=_- c2o" _o


0.4 (j
LL iii 0.

V_."'._
_/./_:

L_con,,nQ 3(Ho,, _,,) T-s3-L-_ C


BS-3C:W:)(V-/3

,v
C4 E'6 (Puml) T_4

Un.)

_ "1'

0.3
'

%',_I///,'_ _TT_(AGs:EAA2H) _

"_ Turmo "_'-_ s-

Ill

( H'53A -GE-3

| (HH-53B) I HYPOTHETICA _.._...._._--._.,_m__

A I .

(U _._

$ :A A H |///'_l)_

I.Y OT. T,CA',


ir-'-T--. _n
"f4

-,om'_ O o
0.2

1400

"

"

, /

-.,

,
b L T-SS-L-7C(CH47B) T.6,4-GE-I(CH-53C)

/r
T'7OI(HLH}I

IRenal " 1"0

0 ENGINE

5 000 REFERREDSHP

10 000

Figure

2.17

General

comparison

of

specific

weights

of

Soviet

and

Western

helicopter

engines.

54

Chapter Helicopters
3.1 Basic Data drawings of the are given 3.7. From this figure weight but it class can compared in Table helicopters 3.1. Some

3 Class

of the Up-to-12,000-Ib

Three-view principal presented Disc belonging Western here

are shown of the data

in Figs. contained

3.1a

through in this table

3.1h,

while

their

characteristics in Figs. Loading to the up

are graphically

3.2 through (Fig. 3.2).

be seen only

that much

the

disc

loading than that

of

Soviet of the types

helicopters more recent

to 12,000-1b of the helicopter. (Fig. that 3.3). based same

gross class,

is not

lower

helicopters

is also lower

than the

disc loading

of the older

represented

by the UH-1H Power Loadinl_ than

In contrast on the

to the

disc loading, inst_lled limits, tip those speeds of the

the power (unflagged or engine of the Western the 800 flat

loading symbols), rating

of the Soviet hut (flagged

rotorcraft than

is much

higher

takeoff

power

is also higher symbols). of the

the Western Main class are

power Rotor

loading Tip over

associated (Fig.

with 3.4).

transmission Main rotor while or even and of the

Speed 600

Soviet

helicopters

considered in the 700

of slightly with some

fps magnitude, reaching, Radii radii Ratio ratio

helicopters fps limit. Distance (Fig.

are usually

fps class,

Bell helicopters

exceeding,

TaR-Rotor from this figure ratios

to Main-Rotor that of the rotor

Relative Soviet

Tail-Rotor helicopters

3.5). higher

It can than since

be

seen correradii

is only

slightly to this

the the

sponding ratio

Western lower distance

counterparts.

SA-365N tail-rotor tail-rotor

represents

an exception

rule,

is significantly The relative

for the Fenestrone (_) of the Mi-2

configuration. location is practically the same as those of Western

helicopters. Weight figure and time) indicate maximum payload Cabin respect range While way tion to Empty that and the Zero-Range weight gross empty Payload to gross than of to Gross weight Wei[ht Ratios (Fig. 3.6). Trends are higher visible from this

ratios of Soviet counterparts.

helicopters

for both the

normal (or

flying to gross Volume

weights ratios

for their the Soviet

Western helicopters (Fig. possible Soviet for

Consequently, than those

zero-range helicopters. that

weight

are lower 3.7). It can

of Western this

Loading of is no provide practice),

at Zero-Range cabin common a large Kamov's volume trend cabin

Payload for the

be seen payload

from

figure

with zeroclass.

the

provision there

maximum helicopters the possible

(as expressed considered (resulting

by the

payload), the below

in the volume

of the payload the

gross-weight in a cabin with the

Mil designs Western

loading excep-

design

is more

consistent

with

Western

trend,

of the BO-105.

55

O CO M') 0 _- )

O _1

.,.n e-- 0 e,n _ 13_

_o
.',n

,,5

c5_. z

'1"

E.3
C)

oomm

o_ _ _

_CC

o _

_0
0..

lr

""

,,-.l

I'-

"E

2P= 8
c._

80
m ,._o"

"O O) ('_3 t.O

#:,._"
ii

es_

#<
< >co _"r, o o
C)

.q

m d
_,

m_
x m.

_'
co

_00

E _o.

e_ o

r"_

P'-.

O)

u_

00cm

N<

.iJ

.-/

er

_SZs
Z

rZ_e4 _r _ e_ I _ c5 c5 _

Z 0

a.

o__ t.n,W I--

a_:=
= E .,-; E O

{c

o 0
"O O

.a

_"
_.

-0

,,
Z 0

._,_ _.,!
.

""

,.._-,,._ mrO

e-

, _

"s_

.o ,.

_ =_'

'_

'_

_,,

_- _ _=_z_<_'_
56


CO ',.0 _" ,,_4 ('%1 _J eO

b-

E
('9 UO ,_" C'4

_5_o
0

o6

0 Z

bE
O

E
"q ('%1 _1 "_. C,I O_ C,4 i-,. 00 O

"5 @ b-

O O0 CO I,O (.O CI.

r-

E
IX) _J (_9 U_

I o @ A

+ "O 0 ,'q ',, e6 mo O _" _ e_ -T O (%1 O

b-

_
("9

('%1

m
O F00 O_

("4

>

_ N66_ _ mm.

o me4ddo_

o_ D
_- c6d o bee-

"_

Z O Jl UJ (.9 Z _ * ,'_ .. _

,.J

'-

_'.
Z

n"

< z
n-

__ _, ,_'_ z _ _:___

_ '_,

,,.,,_

z g

,,,.[._-

E
O

q_-_ -e

<

e-

_=EE
u -, :m _"

,,,

,-. E E E

_
57

,,o.._-_:._
z_

_ _._

66
U.I I-O Z

-- o_>

(a)

PZL-Swidnik

(Mil)

Mi-2

twin-turbine

general-purpose

light

helicopter

(Pilot

Press)

(b)

PZL-Swidnik two Allison

Taurus: 250C-20B

Mi-2 engines

with

Figure

3.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the

up to

12,000-1b

GW class.

58

(c) Kamov

Ka-26

twin-engined

flight

general-purpose

helicopter

in passenger-carrying

form

(Pilot

Press).

(d) Figure 3.1 Three-view drawings

Aerospatiale of Soviet

SA-365N and Western

Dauphin

2 of the up to 12,000-1b GW class (Cont'd).

helicopters

59

(e)Bell UH-1H Iroquois.

(f) Bell Model (two Lycoming 101 222 Avco LTS turboshaft (Pilot engines)

Press).

Figure

3.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the

up to 12,000-1b

GW class

(Cont'd).

60

(g)

Bo

105

CB five-seat

light

helicopter

(two

Allison

250-C2OB

turboshaft

engines)

(Pilot

Press).

(h)

Sikorsky

S-76

eight/twelve-passenger

commercial

transport

helicopter

(Pilot

Press).

Figure

3.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the up

to 12,000-1b

GW class

(Cont'd).

61

u.I

CO ,.J o o o

e_ 0

143

-ISd :gNIElVO"I
62

OSI(]

dHS/9"I

:ONlaVO'I

Id3MOd

63

_J

,.Q "r' 0
i

e_

-I o o o I

0
u u

"I"
m

ILl

O 0: r_ <C

.E E

E 0 u

Sd"l

:CFI3dS

dll

64.

EI/X = x '30NVISIO
Q _'I__ _ I

I:10101:1--IlVl
i) d , , I

3AIIV'13EI

,,=, ,>
0 e-rE

TM FLU

O0 0

e., 0

IX)

0o

'-J 0 C_ 0

,I(.0 UJ

0
GO
LO

co

X
0 0

oo

"_, _
I) O _

e_

I 0

SNIQVH

EIO.LOI:I NIVIN/SNIQVI:i

t:IO.LOU--IIV/

65

1HOI3M C]VO'IAVd
O , I I

SSOI:I O :IONVI=[
O i I

OId=lZ
O

z=
o. C3

S_o_
W

I
_-x,l_(_l i _

cb _1_ _l

cr_

.=

nn _1 0 C3 C3 00 _'o

-r" (.0
U.I

2:

o 0 o
o

o
I,D

i
I
! I I 0

1.0

It

o ',q. e_ |

c5 1HOI3M SSOIdO/AldlAI3 66 1HOI3M

m 0 z z c_

x '<

ot>
IJJ

o z
LU

6
0

o o (,y,) o3
eL

(v)

l=3 ..J 00 o
0

"I" 3 uJ I_ /) /)

o
n..

e-

(D

,>

143

"0
e_

I
N

e O

J.=l'l'lO/t]-I

:qeA/'ld

:_)NIQVO'I
67

=IINN'IOA NIt]V:)

3.2

Hovering Table 3.2

and was

Vertical prepared the largest

Climb using the

Aspects data of contained hovering in Table and vertical 3.1. This was done by selecting terms could those gross

weights

for which

number

climb

performance

be found

in published

documentation. from this aspects rotor table that, following Once the the the approaches figure outlined of merit in Ch. of the 1; first, rotor the and main-rotor the overall power heli-

It can be seen and ratio copter then of the

tail-rotor to main

are considered. is estimated,

main

the tail

overall

transmission

efficiency,

as well

as the

figure Next,

of merit, the estimated the

is computed. values of the overall OGE compared 3.2. overall published from Eq figures of merit OGE the are more data, so-called the nearly vertical gross correct rate than either the estiISA from data figure of merit of the helicopter are compared the power means with lapse those rate.

resulting The are given

from

published FMoa overall the

hovering values are

and engine with the

characteristics, values,

including and

obtained as average that

estimated

arithmetic

of both

FM in Table so-compared from

Assuming mated and TO ones

or those rating

computed

hovering (1.9), and

of climb

at S/L,

power

is computed

VTO

weight

determined

Eq (1.2). Some presented Power figure power for that than those of the items either directly 3.I4. GW in Comparison in general counterparts. which power exhibit This with the Ideal ratio Power (Fig. 3.8). specific It can power gross fiat-rated helicopters. The trend in hover indicated at SL, in this ISA at be seen to ideal weights. engines from this appearing in, or easily obtainable from, Table 3.2 are graphically

in Figs. per Soviet their Western

3.8 through Pound of

helicopters Western

a lower

of takeoff

specific However, (flagged

is true

at both

normal limits,

and maximum or have

helicopters to ideal Lift all

encounter ratios (or become

transmission similar

symbols),

the takeoff Blade that

to those at SL, ISA

of the Mi-2A (Fig. class) This 3.9).

Average figure higher probably high shows average

Coefficient

CT/O) (in the

in Hover up to the of the to operate

Soviet

helicopters

12,000-1b Western Soviets

GW ones.

operate aspect

blade two

lift coefficients facts: (1) lesser and FM which,

(CT/O)

than

of their

design

philosophy and/or correthan

reflects

concern

regarding values

operations as close

at high as possible

altitudes to those higher

ambient

temperatures; maximum loadings

(2) a desire values. in turn, This may

at the _ becomes that

sponding Western weights

to the power

latter reflect

aspect

a necessity Soviet engines

because exhibit

of their much

the fact

higher

specific

than their high

Western c'/7 (CT/O) altitudes

counterparts. values and/or may elevated be detrimental ambient as far as controllability margins are concerned,

These especially

at higher

temperatures.

68

Main-Rotor all other numbers in the FM of

Figures values were

of Merit estimated,

(Fig.

3.10).

Except

for the airfoil tower

manufacturer-given tip Mach,and

FM value representative on isolated rotor

for the

365N,

trying with basic

to match available data

sections, test

Reynolds resulting using

the

investigated

rotorcraft This

measurements to the actual

rotors;

FM o = f('_)

relationships.

was then

corrected

solidity

ratios

Eq (1.26a). It can be seen from the Fig. (3.10) as those The that the so-estimated machines of the Mi-2 helicopter same was figure vintage of merit (UH-1H), as being values but on in hover than

are approximately those Western of modern level,

same

of American figure of merit

of the Ka-26

lower the

helicopters.

estimated

modern

due to the counter-rotating Thrust that to Gross the Weight.

rotors. and Power to Rotor-Power ratios power than Ratios of the ratios that of (Fig. 3.11). A glance are quite lower than at Fig. similar those 365N

Tail-Rotor 3.11 would

indicate

tail-rotor (about

thrust 0.065). and

to gross-weight However, the lower

Mi-2 helicopters appear the slightly

to those of

of Western

helicopters

conventional

Western

helicopters

considerably

Fenestron-equipped

helicopter. Overall the overall Figures figures the test of Merit (Fig. of merit published data were 3.12). computed ceiling For the compared as an average OGE data. between gross :weight of Boeing value and shaft horsepower (Fig. 3.13). required This in helicopters between those (excluding estimated the BO-105 and UH-1H), and those

independently

deduced

from

hovering showing

However, hover one figure OGE

a relationship for the

at SL, ISA FMoa

was obtained directly from

BO-105, and the

courtesy

Vertol

enabled overall

to compute of merit. 3.13 FMoa also

Eq (1.1),

so-obtained

was taken

as the

"actual"

Fig. that the

made

possible

the

plot

of FMoa close

= f(_'g) to that between

as shown obtained

in Fig. 3.14, from flight

from tests. OGE

which

one can see

value

derived

in Table

3.2 is very relationship

Generalized for the UH-1H where

hovering helicopter C w is the

data on the are given weight

SHP required form

in hover

and gross coefficient

weight CPE = as

in Fig. A-9

of

Ref. those

8, in the

of engine Wor and

power SlIP

f(Cw), follows:

coefficient.

Using

coefficients,

can

be

expressed

Wgr =
and SHP =

C.,

(3.1)

rtR2 p V_ CPE/550

(3.2)

Using

Eq

(3.1),

the ideal

power

can be expressed

as

RHeid

0.7071rR2 pVt a CJ/2/550

(3.3)

Dividing

Eq (3.3)

by Eq

(3.2),

the sought

overall

figure

of merit

is obtained:

69

_o

_ d

_d

o_g_ _d

d_d

_ _ o

LO

o __o _d

_ g d_d

_d

-r

_)

_d

d_

_ d_d

m o

<
c_ nt.I.J

o.

_dd_d_

O_omd

_d_

Oo

_._
0 --1

,_ _. ,g_0_.o
_

_,_
0 "

_R_
_d

_o
_

_
d

<
nn

c._

<

F-o
>6
0 0 0

zo
;> 0
..= 0 _ C, I_

._

_o

_Odd

c_

_" _

c5 o

c:5

Q; 0

o
Z Lt.J U_ .--I _1 1.1_ n" .-I

-r

_r

_.-

__

nr0

o
I--

""

I-. 0
n-.I

0 r_ _ o _---m >o-_ I.n,"

0 _ -o__ _c_ _ _u-

70

o
c_

t_ co o c_

oo

odd

.M

,, _dd

oo
0

._=
0

c9
Ill

0 -

J -_

E -_o

_._ _- E ._
.,_

_
.E_

'__
n" "r _ ,w" 0

_ _- _-_68
-r -r

0
Z * +44-

71

{3

i3

-1-

-1-

-1-

,_

\1>12,/ \ rr. \ ,t_

./

'_

tq

,-:

, ,

, I
_D

.o

LO

',

._90
N--

Q.

_
if)

,
I

Z t_ 0
,-I

c
0

(.I

.'2.

_J

_ _ X

z -

, , \

"\' \
\

o
"C,

,
\
_ "J I-W 0

\\
\

_o_

L_ _ _ "

',,,\, ,\

_,
I l I | l _ I I

0 e_

ql/dq

:M'9:10

(]NnOcl

U3a 72

U3MOd

e_

,<

<

1N3101-I:1300

1-117 :IOV18

30VI:I::IAV

*--

73

,o1>
ILl Z ,,, _LU

o
e", 0 0

o
r4 ,.q

o
crJ

c_
|

o
al .-I o o o ,e"II

j
co

ILl

<
i

r_ 0
CC
0

D E

}
0

II

LO I_

0 _

LO _0

0 CO

LO LO

c_

c_

c_

c_

c_

m.
o

II_131_I -I0 3_INOl-I

1:10101:1 031VI_IIS3

74

.I.HDI3M
1.0 I,!

SSOEID/.I.SI')EIHJ. _10.1.01:1"IIV.I.
0 t,.II It') 0 I
e-,

C3

o t"" P4

m., ,..i

O_
e-.

.=
IZ) -.I 00 C_ C_
0

-1N IJJ f_ r,,/) 0


0

0 e-,

n,-

E ,?

n.. X 0 z =E z
n," u.I cO

0 lz.

oD
W

,?o
I.q
0

PP_

I:l:lMOd

IdO.LOl:l NIVIN/Id=IMOd

I:lO.LOId "IlV.L

75

_-01_
I.u Z Li.I I-ILl

_1 _,L _

,-I 0 o

"I"
w

ILl

_a
0

_a

_a

t_

111:131Al 3UnOl-i -I0

TIV_I3^O

76

5,600

5,200 fl) ..I -r


m

4,800

tu

tJ

4,400

ee

4.000

o_
0

400

/
Correlation

/
Q TEST DATA, 600 700 800 900 1,000

500

SHAFT
Figure 3.13

HORSEPOWER:

LB
of Boeing Vertol Co.)

of theory with BO-tOS flight-test

data in hover (Courtesy

FMoa An expression for the average blade

O. 707CwS/2/Cp_ based on C w can also be obtained from

(3.4) Eq (3.1) as

lift coefficient

_
Using results all figure In the data presented 3.14. in Fig. Here, in Table A.9 s,

= kvh 6Cw/O
the FM o = f('3_, ) curve as in the to those curve was calculated for the UH-1H,

(3.5)
and the

are shown of merit the case lb.

in Fig.

it can be seen that, 3.2 is very a SlIP close

case of the BO-105, from ISA flight

the value tests. in Fig. The

of the over-

as obtained of the 365N

resulting as SL,

helicopter,

= f(V)

is shown Eq (1.1).

5 of Ref.

9 for =

Wg r = 7055 0.523 since

Taking

advantage lower than

of this data, the average

FMoa value

was computed of 0.534 shown

from

so-obtained this may

FMoa be expected

is somewhat FMoa The = 0.534 three

in Table corresponds in the

3.2; but

corresponds cases

to-d I = 0.534, should give some

while degree

FMoa = 0.523 of confidence

to _e = 0. 72. accepted method of providing

above

the

FMo= values Going back the

of the compared to Fig. level As far than 3.12, it

helicopters. can be seen BO-105 is concerned, that the FMoa values lower figure for the than Mi-2 helicopters S-76 and are approxi222, but higher

mately than

on

same 365N.

as those

of the

and UH-1H, its overall

for the (due

for the

as the Ka-26 those

of merit

to the counter-rotating

configuration)

is higher

of Western

helicopters.

77

r_ i.u

let) ILl

t) Iof) I.U pI"I" _1 IJ..


0

O
nr I1 u.I I-_) a.

ann

0C

IL Z 0 a

U_

O
C.)

I I I I

IlEI3W

40:11:11"1014 -I'IVI=I3AO

78

VTO Gross 3000-ft altitude

Weight.

VTO gross weights

(defined

here as the Wgr corresponding helicopters using Eq (1.2)

to hovering and listed

OGE at

ISA) were calculated

for the compared

in the last VTO gross

row of Table weights

3.2. Here, it can be seen that their normal

for Soviet Mi-2 and Ka-26 helicopters and are below the maximum

the so-called

are lower than By contrast, (BO-105,

gross weights,

flying weight of the Mi-2-A flying gross

helicopter. weights

the VTO gross weights UH-1H,

of the Western rotorcraft or, at least,

either exceed the maximum equal to the maximum

Bell 222,

and SA-365N)

are almost

weight values (S-76). Vertical Rates of Climb. from Eq (1.9) are listed Vertical rates of climb at SL, ISA and T.O engine power setting as computed row from the bottom in Fig. 3.15. on of Table 3.2. These values refer to the gross

in the third

weights indicated In addition, this figure. 222,

in the first row, and are plotted the vertical

rates of climb were also calculated for the VTO gross weights and indicated to note that engines for helicopters having transmission-limited power inputs

It is interesting

(BO-105,

and UH-1H)

or flat rated exhibiting is about

(Mi-2), the vertical rate of climb at (Wgr)Vr decrease of power with altitude,

0 is about 180 fpm;

while for powerplants the VTO gross weight 3.3 Table numerical Energy 3.3. values

a continuous

the vertical rate of climb at

500 fpm.

Aspects in Hover The most important of hourly inputs required in the study of energy aspects in hover, as well as payload are in-

fuel consumption

per pound

of gross weight

and zero-time

dicated in Table 3.3. The results Hourly to note fuel Fuel Consumption

are also graphically per Pound GTD-350

presented

in Figs. 3.16 and 3.17. It is interesting relative hourly turbines, should

of GW in Hover, OGE, SL, ISA (Fig. 3.16). the Mi-2 helicopter Through installation has one of the highest of the Allison

that with the original

engine,

consumption

of all compared is brought

helicopters.

250-C20B

this consumption

to a lower level than that of the Western fuel consumption engines.

counterparts.

One's attention

also be called to the low relative from the utilization Hourly of reciprocating

of the Ka-26-resulting

from its high FMoa values, and

Fuel Consumption that the original

per Pound of Payload in Hover, Mi-2 helicopter helicopter. placing that exhibits much

OGE, larger

SL, ISA (Fig. 3-17). fuel consumption turbine in that

This figure to the in as

clearly indicates payload than

related

any other compared improvement,

Installation machine

of the Allison

aircraft results fuel economy

a very considerable several Western It should Western

on the same level of hovering

helicopters. be noted that the hovering


low

fuel economy WPlo/Wg r ratio.

of the Ka-26 aircraft

remains

close to that of the

representatives,

in spite of its

79

:_z

>
0

_Do,q
g')

t
._ _o4
B

i..,

_-

.=_

a\+ .e+.

_=.=
t_

<_
--

+L
s i ii ii | i iii |

_._

,,ml"

Q 0 1.0

laid-.! :glNI'lO

dO 31VU

-IVOIIEI3A

8O

_. _, _, o

o
o

=_.,

8
,-I

aS

_ ._"z

_a

o_ _

_ _

_ _

,_ ,_

_ .

_ _, _ - . _

.<

_S z _B
00 ,_. _.. _ _

.,I

_ _

,-_ "

.__

_ o

_ '_,

_'_, o_

__ _ _ _ _ _

__

-_.
_

_ _
_ "_

- _
._.
_

-_
_
"_

81

<
Z OC LU w _

o
Z o

r_
-T" O

"DO

,,,
1.1,1 ,.,,.I 0

o')

..c

a2 -J o

00

8
O

3:: C,.0 LU

.<

O r_

O c-

_O

o
Tm i,o

I 0 rn

14")

E
e,

CO

t_D

_1"

{%1

c_
dl'HH/8"I :MO dO 81

o
U3d

o
NOIIdlI_NSNO0

o
-13Nd A1UNOH

.__
rr.

82

en -/ "r .J
_o

0.40

Mi-2 0.30 $76 365N

.j
o.

ai
.J

Z 0 i
kQ,,

UH-1H 0.20

_
Z 0 .J w

u.
.J e_

0.10

'

'|

20 HOVER TIME:

40 MINUTES

60

Figure 3.17

Variation with time of hourly fuel consumption per pound of maximum payload in hover OGE at SL, ISA for Soviet & Western helicopters of up to 12,000-1b gross weights.

3.4 SHP Required Aspects in Level Flight at SL, ISA


(SHP/Wgr) the compared " = f(V) helicopters publications, gross weights ISA Relationship. is established or published of up to 12,000 was direcdy As indicated on the basis in Section of the 1.5, SHP the = f(V) Refs. (SHP/Wgr) = f(V) relationship from In the flight case for tests, of helir) =

data obtained 2 and 3).

manufacturer's copters having

performance

figures

(e.g.,

lb, the manufacturer's by Aerospatiale $76

data under Company

the form 365N

of the

(SHP/Wg

f'(V) relationship 8488 lb, and by

at SL, the 3.4, flight

given for the

for the

helicopter

at Wgr = in columns

Sikorsky

Company used can be

at Wgr = 10,000 and f estimates. the UH-1H

lb. These

inputs

are shown

4 and 5 of Table Published Cp = F(CT) lb) and flight

and were later test results which ISA) the

for the wfp found for

helicopter at the

under desired

the gross

form weight

of generalized (War = 9500

graphs altitude

from

(SHP/_r)

-- F(V) relationship calculated.

(SL,

can be directly

83

80O

700 THEORY Q 6O0 TEST DATA

Q.
"I" 5O0

f
60 80 TRUE 100 AIRSPEED 20 KNOTS 140 160 in level flight at air density P = 0.00199 slugs/cu.ft, the BO-105 curve SA-365N helicopter is given for (courtesy Wgr = 5005 using inputs of Boeing lb, and from for Vertol air Fig. Company) are shown in Fig.

3OO

Figure 3.18 SHP = f(I/) for the BO-105 helicopter and average Wgr = 5005 lb.

Flight 3.18, Here, where

test the

data SlIP case then

for

= f(V) of the the

density/9 3.18, wf

= 0.00199 and-Cd/_

slugs/cu.ft. values were

as in the and the

helicopter, = F(V) the curve

computed For rate

(SHP/Wgr) helicopters, flight values,

was established based in Sect. of the on the 1.5 was (SHP/Wgr)

Wg r = 5114

lb and SL,

ISA conditions. and maximum

remaining in forward steps It can

procedure

known used. = f(V) consisted flying

Vma x or (Vcr)max

of climb Various

as outlined

leading be seen

to the establishment that values the computational at

relationship first cruise (Ve) very of

are

clearly

visible the

in

Table

3.4.

procedures maximum

determining speed on the

overall of the

"transmission" known indicated at power that

efficiency at those under Vcrrnax" (SHP/Wor)

(rloa) Check

Vma , or the

basis

speeds. those

calculations the only

performed

at the ratios computed

speed

corresponding close to those

to SHPrnin established used in

conditions,

(RHPtr/RHPrnr) the rloa values

remained for

Vma x and

Consequently, = f(V)

Vma x and

Vcrma were

the subsequent

calculations.

84

CN

"T

_0

_ r_

.O_o_O. o _- _

_ o

uJ

--

k-

be)

E- u_
o _ _

o_= _o_O-_K

_o_._o_

_._. ._;_

ILl

l-

5 ,_ 2 ,_ o

_
-_ _

o o o o o_
c_ rr rr n" rr rr

:_

_ _ _ _o

85

00000 0000000

o
d

,,

_o_ o _5

= 6

_00_ 0 _0000_ 0

dddddd

0000000

,,

o_
d

___ o d

00000

ddddd

00000_

_o

6dddod

"D co

c_

__o_ qqqqq_
e0 o 000000

E
<
A C 0 0

_o -oOOO_ o

-_
. o=

_6

This

_oa

estimate

was

done

through and assumed

the

so-called values

"first

approximation" and _d/_. and the

based Here,

on

a single

data

point for

of SHPre q at Vma x or Vcrma, w_ and then the flying speed

of kvf,

kindf,

Eq (1.10)

was solved

Ve was

computed

from

Eq (1.12),

corresponding

SHPmi

n obtained

again

from In the rate were It can

Eq (1.10). "second of climb next approximation", at SL, ISA, with Table and those 3.4 the latter SHPmi assuming from that for n was climb estimated efficiency approximation. both results are close. and It should be noted helicopters, in Jane's for by calculating = 0.85. the excess SLIP, using the

known values

_7 climb

The

so-obtained

SHProin

compared from

the first the

be seen that

Mi-2 helicopters, = f(V) relationship

at this the the

point

in developing data of the

(SHP/Wgr) (as given

for Mi-2 in preference

Mi-2--Allison to those in Ref. data on given 10. the

performance Mi-2. With This

in Ref. consistency this

10) were used

was done to the

because Ka-26

of a better helicopter, ceiling that minimal of the

of the performance could not find

figures any weight,

respect

investigation

rate

of climb inoperahp, and

at SL, tive

ISA.

However, in Jane's the power

a service 2. Assuming lapse, the the

500 m (1640 remaining

ft) at 7165-1b engine ratio of operates

gross

and one engine power hp/lb flight, = 0.96 of _20

is given

at its takeoff

neglecting When losses actual of

power-to-weight efficiency for.

of (SHP/Wgr) the Ka-26 assuming

e = 0.045

was obtained. engine (to cooling cover the

estimating 24.6 hp per

overall had

transmission to power be

in forward that rlxra

engine

accounted losses),

Further

transmission

and accessory

the following 49.2)/640]0.96 separation must

is obtained: = of the in Eq 0.89 rotors (1.10). (3.83 This ft), the slipstream cross-

rloa It should section loading area (w) also loading becomes the above be noted that of the

= due disc

[{640to vertical loading

instead w'=

be used

slipstream

cross-section

4.5 psf. additional in Table results, using inputs, further calculations approximation. assumption appear loading too (wtp that the Ka-26 _d/ff! This can be flown = 1/86), means that 6615 in horizontal and somewhat the published for for in the the of the wfpand _-d/gp values follow the

With two-point

outlined outlined so-obtained

procedure the

3.4 as a second based only flat on 320 the shp, area

However, flight at a gross

weight

of 7165 the

optimistic = 176 psf). gross higher

pessimistic performance hovering), this "first" and

regarding figures or that the 222

equivalent probably can (where

plate

should the engines

either operate large

be related

to a lower rating

weight than

(perhaps 320 shp. values used

lb, given

at an emergency differences

Consequently, computed in establishing

helicopter

also appeared of the two 7 rows

in Wfp and_d/_'a_ computations 3.4, were

and

"second" = f(V)

approximations), appearing for the

the

averages

(SHP]Wgr) The direct

relationship data

in the last 365N

of Table

and shown

graphically figure.

in Fig. 3.19.

manufacturer's

and S-76

helicopters

is also shown

in this

87

0.16 nv BO-105 5114 Ib

0.14 222 '850 Ib UH-1H 9500 Ib


/ ,_1 0. -r'

0.12 ,_

365N 8488 Ib

/ / / S-76 10,000

0.10 Ka-26 7055 Ib 0.08


/ /

(3 EL

O Z 0
a,, n,, n

0.08 M i-2 & M i-2-A 7826 Ib 0.04

0.02

0 20 40 60 80 KN 100 120 SPEED OF FLIGHT:

140

Figure 3.19 Comparison of shaft horsepower per pound of gross weight vs speed of level flight at SL, ISA of Soviet and Western helicopters of up to 12,000-1b gross weight class.

88

Because weight However, large average The the UH-1H With a maximum for about the in the

of the low-speed

lower

disc

loading regime are

of Soviet below values level

helicopters, those of their

the

power

requirements counterparts, rise sharply

per

pound

of gross

flight

Western

as shown because

in Fig. 3.19.

at high

speeds,

the (SHP/Wgr) by the

of the Ka-26 of equivalent

helicopters flat area

of its relatively psf (taken as an

flat-plate

area

as witnessed and second (SHP/War) but

loading

of wfp _ 200

of the first high and respect gross speed

approximations. values of the those Mi-2 helicopters 365N, figure of are approximately especially, indicate that on the same level as for

BO-105, to

are above

of the at this drag

222 and, would

S-76 helicopters. the Mi-2 helicopters which is one the of the lowest achieve highest level of

(Wgr/De)max, to the

a glance equivalent class.

weight

ratio

(Wgr/De)ma Mi-2, the

x _. 4.5, Ka-26

considered 3.75. Of the

gross-weight Western at

In contrast only the In

to the S-76 attains Fig. 3.20,

represents

helicopters, High

a level the

of (Wgr/De)ma r values cubic points

x _ 5.2. at high V's are shown vs

(SHP/War) corresponding on speed are lie below the

Values speeds. also on The

Velocities.

SHP/Wg the

third-degree in this

parabolas figure. the

representing

so-called that the 365N, the the

law of power for the passing

dependence UH-1H the S-76 half cleanness they are

marked the the two same other

It is interesting Ka-26 is above the

to note it, while BO-105,

Mi-2 and through

helicopters lies way well

parabola, one. Points This

parabola and degree reaches 222

representing distribution 3.4) which,

are

approximately

between by the

parabolas.

of points for the UH-1H

reflects

of aerodynamic 560 psf, while

as given

wfp

values

(see Table of that level

S-76 helicopter, helicopters.

approximately

at one-half

for Mi-2 and

3.5

Energy

Aspects

in Forward

Flight

Fuel of fuel 3.5. f(V) and This values

Requirements per

per Pound pound

of

Gross

Weight. and

The numerical one hour; or 100 row

inputs nautical

needed miles,

for are

a determination shown in Table -3.4

requirements table was

of gross

weight weights of

prepared in the

for the gross last flying per grid seven

shown that table.

in the first All the

of Table weights

3.4, and the considered

(SHP/Wgr) in Tables

as listed

rows

gross

3.5 represent The resulting The the

maximum fuel auxiliary of flow

weights. pound of gross figure utilization fuel weight and hour for the compared how and weight helicopters those distance and helicopters flown 100 n.mi is shown com(selected is shown

in Fig. pare here

3.21.

in this of fuel this

permits per

one to judge pound per 3,22). of

at a glance weight

from as 100

point

view

gross

n.mi). of flying

In addition, speed

consumption graph (Fig.

pound

of gross

as a function

in a separate

89

-J

c,)
0

.=o
" Z _
O

i
"1

'-.\)
e-,

.0
O

o_

": _

_--_ I-w
e-, o

,,,

,,_
o

o e_

0
o

r,r.

.I.HOI=IM

SSOIdO

dO C]NNOd

_l::ld dHS

90

o000oo0

oo000o

_o

ooooooo

ooooooo

......
0000000

_oooo_
000000

= z

o0oo0o

o0o0oo

0 =
b9 _. 0

_ooooo z < o =

S5
_u

8
_o

_ z D 0 m Z o
_

oN6N6oN

_ o _

666NNo

0000000

_00000

__
_000_

' '

__,
00000

,
_ 00000

_
N _.i ,. 0

z o u M N

_ D _

0000

__1
000000

Ooo_oO

......
000000

_q_
00_00

< M t_

o
_oooo_ oo_

91

X-

.,.o

o o
e-,

Z v,
e-

:
"1.J u. u. O C_

"F,
iO

t,j f
O

Q eL

g
o

M'O :10 8"1_' UnOH El:ld NOIld_nSNO0

"l::lNd

92

Z
O
O

"T

O
O

r-

Z v

8
,-I U.

o
uJ W O.

O N

J"

!W'N

d 00L-8"1/81

d d _ o d o "'!IAI'N 00L _ "M'O -IO91 U3d "13n-i

93

Looking higher relative

at Figs. fuel

3.21

and

3.22, per

one pound

would

note

that weight fuel

the with

original

Mi-2 helicopter to time improve

shows

one

of the

measurements Allison 250-C20B

of gross these

reference

and distance. considerably,

Through and in the

installation low-speed The of that gross

of the regime Ka-26 weight. it

turboshafts,

requirements

become helicopter It can

one of the lowest. appears be seen as especially from these interesting figures that with thanks fuel respect to the to energy reciprocating per that may pound the optima aspects related to pound installed weight atlow in with flying

engines of gross occur a serious

helicopter, to time (about productivity). Fuel

becomes

a champion are concerned. respectively)

as far

as low

requirements however, operations,

respect speeds (low

and distance 50 and

It should which,

be noted, in some

70 knots,

represent

drawback

Requirements of are fuel

per required

Pound per

of

Zero-Range of zero-range

Pa;cload. payload case, and

The and

numerical one hour,

inputs

required

for

the

de-

termination of 100 n.mi. flying

pound 3.6.

and a hypothetical are performed indicate that shows installation rotorcraft. It should are but

distance maxi-

shown The

in Table results to the

As in the

preceding 3.23

all calculations These the figures

for the when

mum

weight.

are shown hypothetical

in Figs.

3.24.

the fuel the

consumption worst engines, still sized energy these

is related characteristics

zero-range

payload,

Mi-2 helicopter through as the regimes Ka-26 VTO influence the

decisively

of all the are

compared

helicopters. on the same

However, level

of Allison The Ka-26

characteristics the champion that gross weight the

approximately utilization

Western of flight. helicopter gross

remains at this

of low energy favorable which at SL,

in the low-speed of than the the

be emphaat the exceeds

point

energy is not ISA.

characteristics only The higher

achieved even the

maximum the gross looked. Fuel one of pound the hovering weight

flying gross of

weight, OGE helicopter

weight,

importance to energy

of the aspects

of increasing to payload

operational not be over-

a given

with

respect

related

should

Required of

per

Pound over

of various Using

Payload distances the

vs Distance. can provide outlined

Even an

approximate important

values insight

of fuel regarding

required energy inputs

to fly aspects required

payload

compared evaluation

helicopters. are given seen from

approach

in Section

1.5,

the

numerical

in that

in Table this figure

3.7, while that the

the results Mi-2 with

are graphically the original over fuel any

presented engines distance.

in Fig. 3.25. the highest of the identical energy Allison to that

It can requirements turboshafts of the

be

represents

for transportation leads to considerable

of a unit

weight

of payload making the

Installation practically

improvements,

requirement

BO-105 It should

and 222. be remembered, to the so-called however, VTO that gross a change weight) This discrepancy will may in the ground rules affect true for selecting gross position the flying Ka-26, gross weight (say,

making helicopters already

it equal

considerably

the relative case of

of Soviet for the

vs their mentioned

Western reasons

counterparts. of a large

be especially between 94

in the and

its VTO

maximum

weight.

000000

e_ o ,..1 < z, o

< 0
--1

o N

o <

>. <
;,a.1

_:

_;

,,, _.,
Z

z_
e_

0
N

I 0
N

o _

M
.._ Z

0 b.,

_
<

-2: D
eL

e_

ua

<

gg
Z b.,
e_

g--

0 ,1 la..I

o' c_ o

c_ d

"_a o ,.I D t=

U M

=--gg

,2. _

,.., ,.,

,.., ,..,

.8 .

a::

g, 0
t_

E <
I-

o z

95

0.10

"\

/"

20

40 SPEED

60 OF FLIGHT:

80 KN

100

120

140

Figure

3.23

Fuel

required up to

per

hour

and gross

pound weight

of zero-range class

payload

of Soviet

& Western

Helicopters

of the

12,000-1b

96

C_ e,l

O N

-i

z
) CO
O

"r" C9
.J u.
e_ O O

1.1=

O r_
U.I I.U
O

O ,'r

O N

..i

-I

o :!IN'N 001. "I'd 3DNVI:I-OI:I3Z

o 40 CINFIOd 1:13d"131-1 &

"!IN'N 001. -- 8118"1

97

ooooo

0 m

,.0

c_

_ ooooo

=z < [-

"1"

g
m c_
0 0 0 0 0

o_,!
>

D
D

>U <

g
._Z

--1 r._

_ o< _

_oo 66666

,-1

<
D u_

zg
Od
v 00000

5
_ c

.-_',.-1

"=.

,__
00000

r,

=_,

_
o

o__._
0000_

_._
Z ooooo o <

98

) N

r_

o ) N

i_

"_

_J
.)

o 1.0

m _1 m ._1

OVOIAVd

:10 (]NnO:l I:l:::ld (]3UII1031::I 7311-I

er_

99

3.6

Productivity Productivity Index. from Productivity 40 knots maximum to index values were computed plots speed, made which from Eq (1.17a) for various that distances maximum cruise PI values This figure

and

flying

speeds occurs

Vcrma . Auxiliary operational of the flying

of PI = f(V) is assumed

indicated

productivity speed

at the

to be the maximum only the

as listed

in published to

specifications computed index lowest but

compared 3.8, Soviet and

helicopters. graphically

Consequently presented that made

corresponding indicates parts; ment such the that Mi-2

Verma x were

in Table

in Fig. of their

3.26. Western

the productivity showing the

of all three P1 values. still failed

helicopters of Allison it comparable

is below engines

counterimprovehelicopter

Installation to make

a considerable older Western

in the productivity as the UH-1H.

index,

to an even

3.7

General The original of the than the

Discussion Mi-2 high

and

Concluding appears and

Remarks to have well-selected fuel ratio, basic consumption the design parameters. GTD-350 of the Figs. 3.23 aspects Mi-2, and with However, turboshaft when chiefly plus referred

helicopter weight

because higher

specific

high to gross

specific weight

of the

Western much

weight inferior

empty

performance (e.g.,

to payload,

becomes

to that

of its Western considerably the relative

counterparts improve fuel

3.24). respect to gross and either

Installation weight, hour tivity of the

of Allison

250-C20B and

engines makes

the energy

but especially or unit referred of distance

to payload, similar empty,

requirements Nevertheless,

per pound when

of payload it comes the

to that

of Western

helicopters.

to the producAllison version

to weight

the values

of the so-called counterparts. helicopters philosophies BO-105), lb vs 2070 because lb-kn/hr

productivity

index,

including

Mi-2 are below A comparison

those of the

of the Western Mi-2-A different and

BO-105 design

may be of special (e.g., disc loading in the Mi-2-A slower than the

interest,

as both

have

the same weight of

powerplants, 4.37 greater maximum

but

represent Mi-2-A payload speed

at maximum being larger,

flying heavier,

psf for the zero-range cruise

vs 6.25

psf

for the (2689 derivation,

resulting lb), but

and with lower

capacity

BO-105.

In spite productivity the

of the

of the Mi-2 would

of a higher vs 273,240

(Wp/) o, its absolute for the BO-105. 3.26).

[ ( Wp/)o productivity

X Verma x] at zero-range index tion respect The of the Mi-2-A per pound

be 303,857 than

However, The hourly This

is much

lower payload per

for its German is quite

counterpart similar in forward for

(Fig. both

fuel is also

consumptrue with

of zero-range consumed

in hover

helicopters. (Fig. 3.25). philosophy

to the energy Ka-26

pound

of payload departure to 12,000

flight

represents having gross utilization

an interesting weights of up

from

the

general only

design

of the entire configuration,

range but

of helicopters also because

lb; not

because

of its coaxial

of the

of reciprocating

engines.

100

140,
91

120

__

365N

..I

Ka-26 P" o (3 O 2O 40

_"

"_ -_. Mi-2-A /

"_' "_

Mi-2

0 0

i " I_ | ' II

ii I

50 DISTANCE:

100 N.Mi.

150

200

Figure

3.26

Productivity of the

index

at maximum weight

cruise class.

speed

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

12,0004b

gross

101

At helicopter competition However, ing low operational energy


-I o

first

glance would with

one have

may no

expect chance

that at

such all

a in

turbine-equipped that this in applications helicopter of to require ambient of the its

rotorcraft. requircan find an

it appears speeds only, niche aspects those with

because respect

favorable But at

payload. hovering temperatures,

should elevated the

applications and/or

c_ _c_ altitudes

relative

advantage

Ka-26

may

dis-

appear.
LC) oq rr tad CO 0

At sized that

this

point under were or weights. exhibit

it

should

again ground

be

empharules, weights all

accepted carried almost out

comparisons
i,i

at gross to compared

bo0

L_

-r
0 O0

either flying

equal, gross

equal,

maximum Soviet

All of the a hovering

helicopters
.a ee_

altitude_elevated to that of

<

temperature

performance counterparts. rule at the

inferior

>_..a
C2

their should ment

Western the of ground OGE

Consequently, the requireand/or of the

emphasize high gross

hover then used

altitudes weight

e_ e_

temperatures, Soviet would their Western machine go

in the

comparative in a with worsening respect

study of to

down;

resulting position

comparative rotorcraft.

ooo
h.l

102

Chapter Helicopters of the 12,000

4 to 30,O00-1b GW Class

4.1

Basic

Data

Three-view principal

drawings

of

the

compared in Table the 4.1.

helicopters

are

shown

in

Figs

4.1a

through

4.1b,

while

their

characteristics the this compared rotorcraft

are given

Of all tions that

helicopters, represents

least

is known

about

the

Mi-24-D.

However, having

there similar

are

indica-

an evolutionary rated (to 2170

development hp), and

of the Mi-8; apparently in the blade

powerplants rotor as can system, be seen its char-

(TV-3-117), but when of smaller

although radius. Figs

possibly There 4.In

higher also and

having root

a similar section, the

appear 4.lb.

to be some Because of the column

differences many

comparing

uncertainties 4.1.

regarding

Mi-24-D,

acteristics Some Disc modern estimated and even

and performance of the Loading Western data

are listed

in the last

of Table

contained 4.2).

in Table The but Mi-24-D

4.1 is graphically of the different on are the

presented Mi-8 helicopter from same that level The

in Figs 4.2 through is somewhat of the older for the

4.7. than that of its the

(Fig.

disc loading not much

lower CH-3E.

counterparts, of the the

By contrast, helicopters, is not

disc loading higher from when the disc

2 appears weights

as that

UTTAS-type of the Ka-25

normal of

gross the the even

compared. single-rotor

disc loading Western

much

different configuration swept area Power power

loading here

contemporary CH-46E

helicopters. that

As for the based

tandem on the

- represented is quite Loading of Since, whether as discussed It is also 2200 the low

by

-- it should flying Ka-26

be noted weight in the SHP,

its disc loading lb. gross

(w --- 5.7 psf) (Fig. Ka-25, 4.3). based

at its maximum the case "official" of the

of 23,300 up to

As in

12,000 the

weight

class,

the

loading

on the little

takeoff about of the that

appears

highest

of all the compared turboshafts, it is also By

helicopters. unknown contrast, capabilities. ratings these into of higher account,

at this the

writing,

is known capabilities

characteristics engine have exceeds higher

of GTD-3F

thermodynamic in Ch. known 2, the that

its mechanical thermodynamic

capabilities. than engines mechanical operate

TV2-117A under

turboshafts

record-establishing which for the Mi-8

conditions equal ratings

2 the TV-3-117 to 2170 of hp.

at

cv (metric

horsepower), capabilities

is approximately Mi-8, and higher

Consequently, engines and

when are taken

thermodynamic the power

the Mi-24-D counterparts,

loading level

of

the

would

be closer machines.

to its Western

that

of the

Mi-24-D

would

be on the

of the U.S.

UTTAS

103

(a)

'Hip-C' military version of Mil Mi-8 commercial version (Pilot Press).

twin-turbine

helicopter,

with

additional

side

view

(bottom)

of

(b)

Mil

Mi-24

assault

helicopter,

in the form

known

to NATO

as 'Hind-A',

with

original

tail rotor

(Pilot

Press).

Figure

4.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of

12,000

to

30,O00-1b

GW class.

104

(c) 'Hormone-A'
at base

anti-submarine of central tail-fin

version of the Kamov (Pilot Press).

Ka-25

helicopter.

Scrap

view

shows

option

of

blisters

(d)

Aerospatiale

SA 330

Puma

transport

helicopter

(Pilot

Press).

Figure

4.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and

Western

helicopters

of

12,000

to 30,000-1b

GW class.

(Cont'd).

105

_,

l.------6a o' OIA.

,
(e) Sikorsky CH-3E twin-turbine engine transport helicopter.

(f)

Boeing

Vertol

CH46E

(Sea

Knight)

combat

assault

helicopter.

Figure

4.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and

Western

helicopters

of 12,000

to 30,O00-1b

GW

class.

(Cont'd)

106

(g) Boeing Vertol

YUH-61A

Utility Tactical Transport Aircraft

System

(UTTAS)

(Pilot Press).

(h) Sikorsky

UH-60A Black Hawk combat

assault helicopter

(Pilot Press).

Figure 4.1

Three-view drawings

of Soviet and Western helicopters

of 12,000 to 30,O00-lb

GW class

107

o o

=4-

o Z

o o

R
I.-

-6

8
b
ku 0 0

82_
.ED 130

Z_

#
El

_5_
r_

co

<
ill

d
-,.m

_m

-_,

o
o

=a?

_
F-

OoOoOo

.E
e,i co o _.o co

z 0 lz _J o

i,M _E

_1

"N

E
0 u. 0

o_

108

0 o

o.

_'
@

88

_'_

O_ 0_o_

,.2

r-.

r, @

x_
o

8_
@

CO

CO

Z 0

J_

uJ

r_

'" 9 uJ o

.-_
'_

"
-.I

_ _

--

E E

N
_ _
W

..

,,

_
w I0 Z

0
_

109

,'7

r. e! _

_n

o {0
..J

,e

(J
J

_m

_,

r_

w pZ

E 0 z w

11o

C_ 0 0

0 0

.=

\
\ \

\
\ \
\

\
\ \
\

0 :/3

_o

'd-

-ISd :E)NIQV01

OSIQ

111

(N

\\

__ o_ _I> o _
_j ,-I ii

__o.--_

"T' 0 0

_,_-----_
_1

O;, _ o

_--_,
,_, _1
\ _\ =1
CO
\

"1" f3 iii ft') /)

o
E:

.__
0 ffl

\
\

\%
\
0

_0

_.l _ '_

| I II | |

_',
_ E)
I

&

0o

(.D

dHS/g'l

:E)NI(]V01

ld:lMOd

112

Main level able Vt _ as that to this

Rotor

Tip

Speed

(Fig.

4.4).

The main of the same speed of For the

rotor

tip speed

of the Mi-8 helicopter class (about it is probably 700 fps).

appears There

on the

same availthus

of the Western writer regarding

rotorcraft the tip

gross weight Mi-24-D, but

is no data of the Mi-8;

close

to that

700 fps is assumed Tail-Rotor

for the Mi-24-D. Radii ratio showing

the Ka-25, and Relative

V t = 650 fps is postulated. Tail-Rotor and their ratio: appear Distance Western (Rtr/Rmr) to quite highest 4.6). (Fig. 4.5). In general, the

to Main-Rotor main-rotor radii

Ratio

tail-rotor magnitudes; The 1.176

to

of the the

Soviet highest compared represented

helicopters values

counterparts = 0.229. uniformly

are of similar

with relative

the Mi-24-D distances with and

of that

CZ) of all the the lowest Zero-Range value

helicopters

within

the limits

_< x'_< 1.305 Weight Empty

by the Mi-8 and the Weight Ratios

by the Mi-24-D. The weight that ratios the shown weightof

Payload flying weight Ka-25 version least

to Gross gross ratios those

(Fig.

in Fig. empty the

4.6 and

are related zero-range counterparts; fact appears of the that

to the maximum payload while the to gross for the

weight.

A glance

at this figure roughly

indicates represent

of the Mi-8 helicopter ratios are close helicopter and

an average

Western

to the extremes represents

of the Western the crane

designs

in spite The

of the

considered the

of the Kamov (We/Wgr) class. rotorcraft

configuration. compared point folding =

CH-46E

to

exhibit to only

favorable weight

(Wpl)o/Wg it should

r ratios

of all the

helicopters that and the other

12,000 is the

30,0004b one which (WplJo/Wg at of the

gross

However, that

be emphasized with automatic

at this blade

CH-46E special

compared

is equipped For instance,

equipment and

is counted r = 0.413.

as weight

empty.

for the CH-46D,

(We/War)

13,067/23,000 Cabin group, payload of the less the

= 0.568 Volume Mil Mi-8 the

Loading helicopter Ka-25

Zero-Range to have

Payload provisions

(Fig.

4.7).

Similar cabin

to volume

the

preceding respect the relative

gross

weight

appears design.

of larger with the

with

to maximum roominess slightly but more

than Ka-25

Kamov

In comparison level as the

Western while that of the

helicopters, cabin

is on practically with that respect of the to

the same maximum

UTTAS weight

class, than

of the Mi-8 appears and CH-46E,

spacious than

payload

the

CH-3E

spacious

UTTAS

helicopters.

4.2

Hovering Table 4.2. using

and

Vertical to the

Climb procedure data

Aspects established to maximum using the best except in Ch. 3, the first weights data estimates contained available and factors computed of FMoa in Table related were sections in Table 4.1. 4.2 were

Similar the

performed estimate, First, Fig. 1.16

primary were of merit

related

gross

In the second weights. using

computations the figures

performed for

hovering the

to gross estimated

all helicopters from that

YUH-61A

SA-330J as airfoil with

as a basis, were

and deviations The

relationship of the rotor

due to such solidity was

and Reynolds

numbers For ship, the

also estimated. Fig. 1.16

influence

the help of Eq. (1.26a). FM m r = f(_ n ) relation-

Y UH-61A,

obviously figure

represents was used

the tower-tested

and established

while

the manufacturer's

for the SA-330J.

113

GO N

u_

..o

N
C_ e_

00 .-I O O

e_

8
I.U

F O
re

C_

CO

00

0 0 r_

0 (D

O O I.O

Sd-I

:0:13d8

dll

1:10101:1

114

=.q.
I

l:I/X X 33NVJ.SIO = q
|

EIO.LOEI-"IIV.I. "-131::1 m.
I00 N
_J

e_

.o N

o
O

o o o
O

"13

t_

o
re

co

=.
O :=

T
I | | | |

,D E

-g
'd"

LO

I.o
v,--

o
_

I.O
0

d Snl0VEI

o I:IOIOEI--IIV1

tlOIOEI-NIVIN/SnlOVI:I

115

.LHOI::IM SSOUO OVOqAVd


O I 0 I I

BONVU-OUBZ
0 I I O CO

,O (N

C_ C_

C_

o
(.q

iii nn ,..J 'N O C_ O

..g

-r" (,O
I,,I.I

O r_

O
n,,, (.9

.o

00

>.
|

(,o

,q. u.
| 1

c_ O O

IHOI3M

SSOUO/AId_3

IHOI3M

116

8
.

8 E

_r
1,1,1

Q m

g
'v

a
N

.g

z4"no/a_

:E)NlaVO-I

31/_13-1OA NISYO

117

to

dg_o6_

_, i3

-,D

g F._
o _

_.

_g

-8

_gogggg&
d_qg6_
.-

g>

X?

_g=_gggg

o
...I

o
,.-1 0
,..a

_ oo_

r,.) _

<

o_ z_
Z o

_,<

__o_OO
"3

o
g
5-

=co

__o_

_o_O_o

o_ ._.1

-r

rr 0

-_

u_
o
rr _9 .-LL

rr

j _ _" o _

i:

0 Z

118

(5

o
_

_
0

_
Q

_ _

_ o

_ o

Cr_

_6

(5

_
0

tr uJ 0 Z u_ u.

o_

._

'_

119

Since wasdifficultto establish it values f all theparameters couldinfluence o which thetail-rotor figures f meritlevels, wasdecided assume o it to a common of FMtr value
copters. assumed helicopters The Eq. the (1.27), coaxial It is believed figures studied. overall power transmission = 0.96, efficiency which (Boa) for the the single-rotor actual helicopters was computed losses. from For of that merit this level approach would is justified have little by the fact influence on that the possible results = 0.6 for all single-rotor deviations rating from helithe practical

of the

comparative

of the

assuming configuration

rlxrntot

would

cover was losses

transmission while for the

and accessory tandem represented

of the value overall

Ka-25,

Boa = 0.95 the overlap

assumed, (Bop

by the

CH-46E,

the Boa = 0.92 3, the

included figure

= 0.95). by the step-by-step from procedure flight in Table assumed flight test 4.2 are compared results. In the

As in Ch. either first FMoa while with case, those an

of merit hovering

values ceiling

computed data

deduced of

from the

the

or those results flight to those

obtained

average In the

step-by-step case,

and hovering computed

ceiling from

are shown test data

as "official" to be correct,

values. the

second of the

the values

were from

closeness one's

step-by-step

obtained

FMoa'S

resulting UH-60A,

tests

seems

to

strengthen

confidence be added

in the established at this point [FMoa that

procedure the gross

(see CH-46E, thrust

and YUH-61A). from which the FMoa

It should of the CH-46 Having vertical R/C Power called gross the The of all civilian weights power

weight-rotor )] gross is shown weight

relationship

was computed the FMoa values

='SHPid/(RHP/rTxm the VTO

in Fig. 4.8. was computed from Eq. (1.2), and the

established, from

at SL,

ISA was calculated of of Gross

Eq. (1.9). with the Ideal the Power ratio (Fig. of the 4.9). Based on and the so-

per Pound rating for the for

Weight of

in Comparison the TV2-117A

1500

SHP

turboshaft, than rated

maximum

normal

Mi-8 the

helicopter with

appears TV3-117

to be lower engines x ] ratio weight class

for its Western at 2170 Ka-25 1.5). known. as the SA330J, on hp would

counterparts. be on the appears the

By contrast, Western level. lowest of the

ratio

Mi-24D

[(SHPTo) the

o [( Wor)ma x ] [ [SHPid/(Wor)ma helicopters o -- 900 that such of this gross

for the (about is not

helicopter Whether

to be the rating

compared

assumed

GTO-3

engine It should

of (SHPTo) be noted gross

hp is routinely recent a power gross (or the Western ratio

exceeded helicopter of about

designs 2.5

UH-60A,

and

YUH-61A and

exhibit, about

at normal

weight, flying Coefficient weight even

(based

transmission-limited

power),

1.75 at the maximum Average Blade Lift gross OGE,

weight. CTIO) majority in Hover of the OGE Soviet blade-lift and those at SL_ ISA helicopters coefficients assumed (Fig. 4.10). Similar here their also to the appear counterto be closer developed preto

viously operate parts. to into

discussed in hover However, of

class,

depicted then

at SL, 1SA, at higher the _ rotorcraft, UTTAS-Super value but

average

Western

in the Mi-24D, Western

(at least is still Puma)

at NGW above types.

Ii"t = 700

fps) appears (later

those

the older

of the UTTAS

and Puma

the so-called

European

120

B'I O00t-_l _-_--_ i _-9"q..913_


121

SSOUe O_uua:13U

o "r

I,D
m

.!
_! /
C_ //

/,.
O')
p /

_ \

/ I/

IL

O..

._.

L_
Z

0
.J

\
\

o \,
_O

ea

e_

Z W

__

_oD_
UJ

I_ I.O

_ _o t_,_
\
\

e, 0

\
! I

\
i i

e_

U'J

'B'I/dH

:IHOI::IM

SSOHO dO C]NFIOd H:ld H-dMOd

.__

122

"('_1

ill

,--O_
ILl

o
,,D

'

_ _- I_

"r" nil

I=

o re
ID <:

to

,,,D

' 'v <

1N::II01-,n=n300 1-.11"1::IC]V"IB 30VI::I:IAV


r=

V' I"" _

1 '_ q O O O o

123

Main of the

Rotor

Figures helicopter the the

of Merit was

(Fig. computed

4.11). from all other

As

previously test

mentioned, data s. The the FMmr values of the

the FMmr were whole type.

main value

rotor was

figure supplied A glance while that

of merit by the

YUH-61A for that

tower

manufacturer 4.11 indicates

SA330J, Mi-8 of than to Gross OGE

while probably attaining

for

helicopters lowest as the

estimated. group, The

at Fig. of the Ka-25

exhibits the same but

the level

Mi-24D would

has the probably

potential be higher Thrust in hover

UTTAS-Puma type. Ratios

FMmr

of the

for the CH-3E, Weight and

below

the UTTAS

Tail-Rotor Fig. 4.12 that

Power

to Rotor-Power

(Fig.

4.12).

It can be seen of the presently ratios

from invesr

at SL,

ISA, all of the compared uniform tail-rotor

single-rotor thrust

helicopters to gross

tigated 0.076.

gross

weight

class

exhibit

surprisingly

weight

of Ttr/Wg

With respect Western lowest gross helicopters power weight Overall CH-46E pared overall UTTAS Mi-24D ratio and Figure

to the having

power the

ratios, same

the type 0.10, all

Mi-8 with of operational but on

RPtr/RPmr gross

_ weight.

0.12

at Wgrmax Mi-24D occurs this for the

is on the same appears at the

level

as the

The this (at

to exhibit assumed

of approximately furthermore, of Merit were the that (Fig.

it is emphasized this helicopter figures (Refs. of

that are merit

normal

inputs The flight

writing)

highly

speculative. UH-60A, other and com-

4.13). from were of its

overall test results

YUH-61A,

helicopters helicopters, figure of

obtained values

8 and that

12, and Fig. 4.8); the Ka-25 and

for the

FMoa

estimated. coaxial level.

Fig. 4.13 configuration. The Mi-8

shows The and

probably Puma, but same

has the highest especially level, while the the

merit the

because next

UTTAS appear

represent

highest level. lapse

FMoa

CH-3E

on the

is on a somewhat Gross engine Weight. power

higher The available limits and

VTO and with from was which weights, VTO the the

rate

of takeoff altitude

power was

at 3000-ft The was used

altitide, obtained

ISA,

was read from were then

Fig. 2.10 compared weight

at that the

computed. powers

values

transmission

lower

of the two For the

in calculating a constant values than the

the VTO coefficient are listed

gross

Eq. (1.2) used in Eq.

for single-rotor (1.2) instead

helicopters. of 16.05. The

tandem

configuration, VTO gross weights weight

of 20.22 in Table 4.2, gross The is in

so-calculated the VTO they

shows while

that

for the SA330J CH-3E the

and CH-46E,

gross

are higher UH-60A their than gross normal

their weights

maximum are equal. This

for the for

and YUH-61A Ka-25

are lower, lower

and for the than even

gross

weights

Mi-8 and

are even weight 4.14).

gross

weights. gross

contrast

to the

Mi-24-D

where

the VTO at SL, ISA the

gross (Fig.

is much Using the

higher VTO

the assumed weights, at SL,

normal

weight.

Vertical flying

Rates

of Climb gross weights, The

as well as the computed

maximum for the

and normal

corresponding in Table the low.

vertical 4.2,

rates

of climb

ISA were

compared

helicopters. at this

results

are shown that

and plotted rate of

in Fig. 4.14. climb character of the TV2-117A-equipped lapse-rate curve Mi-8 of this

A glance helicopter

figure gross

indicates weight

vertical This is due

at its VTO

is very

to the

of the

124

co

co ('41
,.O '7"

C_

,-4

"-e

(_1

0O -I

.,...

"Ira I.LI

(/)

O
E: 3 I-uJ L_ O co
O .1=

,<

i,

f.o

I--

O
Z
I i

LO

If) CD

o r,O

LO I.O

111:131N-IO 31:IFIOI:I I:IOIOU

NIVIN

125

IHOI3M
tO

SSOI:IO/ISflklH.L
_

I:IO..LO_I-'I
If)

IV.I.

c_
I

o
i

o
I

0 0o N

e_

<

O
t_ O

111 .J O O O (N

.o

/:
-v
N

UJ

o
C/)

O e_

O e_

co
T'--

{/)

,-I

I0 Z
11

0 N O

I._

1.0

d l:::l:lMOd

d I::IOIOI::I-NlVl/_/I:I:IMOd
126

o I:10101::1--IlVl

CD

,q.

8
I:0 --I

e,

O
n,,.

CD
o

'7 \\
cD g o 4

6
w

"I" tDCD

z***
ID fD Lo o

c5

IlEI31N

-IO 3EIngl=l

-I"IVU3AO

127

_t>o<q
o

-J
b b / ./ c_

/ / /

S
e_

..(3
/ / d o

o
.'

<r.-o

d,

I/ f/

(-_

6
[-,

<

> 0 0 0 0 0 LO IAIdd 0 0 0 :fllAIIlO dO 31VU 0 0 I_ I'_:)I/I:I:JA 0 .,Y.

128

engine

- showing

an takeoff

increase power,

of power the

with

altitude rates of

(up climb

to about at the

4000 VTO

ft). gross

For

rotorcraft are

having also low

trans(Vvc m.

mission-limited 200 fpm). With vertical equipped of the respect climb

vertical

weight

to Soviet

helicopters, at either their normal gross

it should maximum gross weight

be noted or normal would

that

the

Mi-8 and weights,

Ka-25

at SL,

ISA the

have TV3-117-

no

capability

gross have

By contrast, climb capability

Mi-24D UTTAS

at its assumed at their

a vertical

similar

to that

types

normal

weights. all of the The compared UTTAS-type Western helicopters show show some vertical climb at

With capability their normal

the

exception

of the

CH-3E,

at their gross

maximum weights.

flying

weights.

helicopters

very high

rates

of climb

4.3

Energy Table

Aspects 4.3. The

in Hover most important fuel inputs required per in the study of weight energy and aspects zero-time in hover, payload as well as are indi-

numerical cated

values 4.3.

of hourly

consumption

pound

of gross

in Table For

all of the gross

Western weights altitude the Soviet

helicopters, since, at these

with

the

exception weights,

of the CH-3E, they have not

the calculations only OGE

were

performed at SL, ISA,

at maximum but also

flying VTO

capabilities

at 3000-ft

(definition Mi-8 and

of the Ka-26

gross weight). at their maximum engines). gross weights can not hover at

By contrast, SL, ISA (at least for these

helicopters ratings

at the two

accepted helicopters

"civilian" were the taken

of the TV2-117A

Consequently, study of energy weight

the VTO aspects one

gross

weights performed computed The

as a basis for the the fuel required

comparative per pound

in hover hour was

in Table at its normal results Fuel Fig. fuel that an

4.3.

For gross

Mi-24-D,

of gross

and

weight,

assuming

the same sfc variation presented of Gross in Figs. 4.15

as for the TV2-117A and OGE 4.16. at SL_ ISA SA330J of flight. of the

engine.

of these

studies

are graphically per the per Pound

Hourly be the seen from

Consumption 4.15 that

Weight Ka-25,

in Hover and the

(Fig.

4.15).

It can show be noted Mi-24-D

Soviet unit

Mi-24-D of gross in the

and weight estimates

Western regime values

helicopters It should Ka-25 and

highest

consumption error at this available. somewhat of gross may

in the of the

hover

however, helicopters turboshafts

be present no

lb/hr-lb

since, were

writing,

"official"

data

for the fuel

consumption

of the GTD-3F

and TV3-117

In spite consumption The

of the per unit

inferior weight. UTTAS

sfc of the TV2-117A

engine,

the

Mi-8 appears

to have

a good

fuel

T700-GE-700-equipped

helicopters

exhibit

the

lowest

lb/hr-lb

values

of the entire

group.

129

o .._

: m

0_

,d

-8 < *

._ __ _
_n

o _ _ o o

o. _ o

c_ o o o

'_ _
m 0

_'E.

_o
LU

>

o_

zo
[-

00

L
m
o

o 6

_ _o

_ o

_ ooo

,v

0 [.
0

.=_.

_ _

_-

d _ o o

_,

. _. _.

_
.__

E
N

o
g
k-

-_
_ =

o_
u__

__p0_
E _o ._ _:
UJ I-0 Z

._ _ _: = -_,: _.

oo

_,_

"1"

130

d 00 t'N

.o
,.Q ) (D

_N

o.
) e_

o
o

tN
eL

_n --I O

2:
r.

CN (N "1T,
O

(.9
u.I _) (/) C_ tN

O
nr

J
c/)

(.9

b_

eD
e_ 0

0 v-0 0 0 _ 4

BI-UH/BI

:ME) 40 B-I U::ld NOI.I.dlAInSNO0

-131"1::1 AII:IFIOH

.._

131

Fuel Consumption is insufficient

per Pound of Payload

in Hover OGE, SL, ISA (Fig. 4.16). to include it in this comparison.

Unfortunately,

there

data regarding the Mi-24-D helicopter are concerned,

As far as the other two per unit weight of

Soviet helicopters

the Ka-25 appears to have a higher

fuel consumption

payload (based on the assumed sfc) than its Western counterparts, Mi-8 also shows slightly higher fuel requirements SA330J helicopters. aspects, The UTTAS-type exhibit helicopters,

with the exception

of the CH-3E. The

per unit weight of payload than those of the CH-46E and due to the low sfc of their engines and favorable strucof all the comfor land opera-

tural weight

by far the lowest fuel requirements

with respect to payload

pared helicopters. tions,

It should once more be pointed

out that should the CH-46 be configured its relative fuel consumption

as are the rest of the compared rotorcraft,

referred to payload would

be lower.

0.40

CH-3E 0.30

..- i

_/"

CH-46E 0 0.20

_.

YUH.61.Ak_

oo
D u. >. ..J fl: 0 -I0 0.10

..........

Iw

0 HOVER

20 TIME:

40 MINUTES

60

Figure 4.16 Variation with time of hourly fuel consumption per pound of maximum payload in hover OGE, SL, ISA for Soviet and Western helicopters of the 12,000 to 30,O00-1bgross weight class.

132

4.4

SHP

Required

Aspects

in Level

Flight

at SL,

ISA

Establishment to establish Flight different the results

of the (SHP/Wgr) r) = f(V)

= f(V)

Relationship. for the CH-46E

Flight

test

results

(Fig.

4.17)

were

directly

used

the (SHP]Wg test than data the

relationship

helicopter (Fig.

in level flight A-8, that of Ref.

at SL, ISA. at gross weights

was also (Wgr)ma

available

for the YUH-61A cases, and not

helicopter lower

5); but

x and in two to the for rotor

at air densities shaft = F(V) horsepower. relationships,

than In vicw was used

at SL, these

ISA. facts, the

Furthermore, the two-point f, and F-a/_

were (Sect. curves results

referred 1.5), shown

approach from the The f(V)

modified

(RHP/Wgr)

to find

wfp,

in Fig. A-8 s . calculations ISA and and the average values assumed 4.4. from the Cp = F(CT) curves in Ref. 12, for establishment of the SHP/Wg r =

of those at SL,

relationship The

Wg r = 19,700 UH-60A for the

lb are shown was directly

in Table computed

(SHP/Wgr)

= f(V)

for the

and was given

by the manufacturer

SA330J. TABLE 4.4 FROM FLIGHT TEST RESULTS s

VALUES

OF

VARIOUS

PARAMETERS

COMPUTED

War: lb

p, slug/cu.ft

va
1/51.5 1/43 1/50 0.513 0.413 0.50 0.010 0.0096 0.010

w_,psf 436.8 462.0 500.0

f, sq.ft. 42.85 35.83 39.36

18,720" 16,572" 19,700

0.00208* 0.00238* 0.00238

*See

Fig. A-8 s

For

the

remaining 1.5 and

helicopters 3.4) was used. at this for the f and and point Mi-8

(both

Soviet

and

Western),

an approach

based

on

performance

figures

(see Sections It should flight taken

be noted

that

no reliable

data

regarding

the maximum

rate

of climb

in forward was

at SL is available to determine fiat plate the area

helicopter

at this writing.

Consequently, at which values were

the single-point The

approach so-established

Fd values average

at We r = 24,470 drag coefficient

Vma x is quoted. taken to calculate

equivalent

blade

the (SHP/Wg

r) --

F(V) relationship No data

at Wg r -- 26,455 at all regarding approach rates

lb at SL, ISA. of climb Could be found for the Ka-25 helicopter at this writing; hence,

the single-point

was also used is concerned,

in this case. no performance figures are known to this writer.

As far as the Mi-24D

133

2800

2600 VNR

2400

2200

2000
W

0
W

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000 _ 40 60 80 100 KN 120 140 160

TRUE AIRSPEED:

Figure

4.17

SHP

= f(V)

relationship

in level

flight

at SL, ISA

for

the

CH-46E

helicopter.

(Courtesy

of Boeing

Vertol

Co.)

134

The using = f(V)

computations

indicated figures the

in

Table

4.5

as the required

1st

Approximation Then, the

were taking wtp,

performed advantage

for

the

SA330J (SHP/Wg in the r)

manufacturer's relationship,

regarding

the SHP technique

at 134 knots. to determine

of the

two-point

was

used

f, and _d

values

shown

2rid Approximation. In tionship 155 knots, the very 1st Approximation close to those based for the UH-60A, the single-point Then results produced a (SHP/Wg figures t, and_ r) = f(V) relaat

on flight

tests 12.

using the manufacturer's to determine the wto,

for SHP required a values shown

and SHPmin,

the two-point

technique

was used

in the

2nd Approximation. In the case of the lb, and CH-3E the helicopter, results were the used two-point to establish approach the was applied r) = f(V) in the curve calculations of fand C-d lb at

at Wg r = 21,247 SL, ISA. All of in Fig. 4.18. Fig. helicopter flight begin 4.18. shows ISA. the

(SHP/Wg

at Wgr = 22,050

above-described

calculations

are indicated

in Table

4.5,

and

the

results

are graphically

shown

A glance the

at Fig. 4.18 power as the

indicates per flying pound speed

that

similar

to the up-to-12,000-1b weight higher requirements than 70 kn,

gross in the the

weight low-speed

class,

the

Kamov of level

lowest

of gross becomes

range

at SL,

However, quite sharply.

SHP/(Wgr)ma

x requirements

to increase The Mi-8

helicopter It also

appears appears

to exhibit that

generally

good

characteristics with the

with SA330J

respect

to the

SHP/(Wgr)ma show the highest

= f(V) gross

relationship. weight

this helicopter,

together 4.4).

and CH-3E

to equivalent noted that,

drag ratios in general,

(approximately all of the within

It is also in this gross UH-60A, f(V) values ance curve shown figures;

SHP/(Wgr)ma narrow

x --- f(V) band.

curves

for

the

compared that

helicopters

weight

class are included helicopters, represents The the

a relatively shown the

It should based the were

be recalled on flight

for the CH-46E, The (SHP/Wg r) = V

and for

YUH-61A the

the results a fit for

in Fig. 4.18 points other

were

tests.

SA330J 4.5. in mind of climb

into

representing helicopters knowledge

manufacturer's deduced from power

SHP/Wg published

r and performspeed

in Table keeping rate

curves

all of the

uncertainties in forward

as to a precise flight.

of engine

at the quoted

of flight,

and the

values

(SHP/Wgr) sponding are speeds.

Values The

at

Vma x .

In Fig. 4.19, parabolas

the

SHP/Wgr

values

at Vma x or cubic

Vcrma x are

shown

vs correon speed

third-degree figure. same lies

representing to note parabola parabola. gross lb.

the so-called that the points through

law of power

dependence UH-60A the

also marked lie on The of Mi-8 points gross

in this the point in the weight

It is interesting Another

for the YUH-61A, the point

and SA330J Ka-25 3.20, helithe

helicopters copter. scatter considered

parabola. close

passes

representing contrary than

to the lower to 30,000-1b

It should

also be noted much

that, smaller

to Fig. for the

12,000

weight

class appears

previously

class of up to 12,000

135

--

Q "_t

0 0

_2

o_
m

z '8 r_
0 o

oo

Oo

<

"r

<
m_

e
IO

r,
gm

o!. o

ddff

"

o 0

o E

"

_ _ _ ,e,_,_

_- _ ,.uJ
0 Z

o _
_

_ _ = _- _ _ _ _ _ _

=_ooooo
_ o .....

136

o
0

o.

._.

_
0

c_

c_
_

"_. 0

_. 0

o.... o
0 0

o
0

o
0

"_. 0

_c_

_00_

__o_o _o6

.
0000000

___'
0000000

00000000

000000

0000000

A "0

E
o " "

q. h0 Z

.,

I--

137

0.16

_v
//

0.14

SA330J YUH-61A

CH-46E UH-60A

0.02

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 KN 120 140

SPEED OF FLIGHT:

Figure 4.18

Comparison of shaft horsepower per pound of gross weight vs speed of level flight at SL, ISA of Soviet and Western helicopters of the 12.000 to 30,000-1b gross weight class. 138

_l.

\.
o

_a_ 6
o

0 t_ c o 0

o
D

8
c

,-4

c/)

:E w z _lw Z _
o

L_

o c_l

ffl

e,

o o

o o

c; 81/dH

,--

o.

L_

:J.HDI:JM b"SOI::ID-IO QNNOd U3d dHS

139

4.5

Energy

Aspects

in Level

Flight

at SL,

ISA

Fuel for 100 was

Required of

per fuel

Pound

of

Gross per

Weight pound

in Level of gross

Flight

at SL, ISA. hour,

The

numerical

inputs

needed and there Ka-25 of the could

determination n.mi no in level

required at SL, ISA

weight 4.6.

and one It should the

or pound that

of gross at this installed

weight

flight

are shown

in Table the

be noted

writing, in the curves flight

data available nor helicopter. the

to the

investigators figures for

regarding necessary

sfc of

GTD-3 of the

engines

helicopter, Mi-24D

performance Consequently,

for determination helicopters, no fuel

(SHP/Wg r) = f(V) in forward

these

two

requirements

be determined It should were performed The Fig. from 4.20. the

at this time. also be emphasized maximum flow per that flying pound all considerations weight. of gross permits per pound weight one and hour for the compared how helicopters these helicopters flown is shown compare here in of energy aspects of all the compared helicopters

at their fuel

resulting The point

auxiliary of view In addition,

grid in this of fuel

figure

to judge

at a glance weight weight

utilization

of their

gross of gross

and distance and 100 n.mi

(selected

as 100 n.mi). tion of flying Looking per the pound CH-46E

this fuel

consumption

per pound

is shown

as a func-

speed at

in Fig. 4.21. Figs. 4.20 and 4.21, one and would pound note that the weight better fuel and consumption 100 n.mi. that of the Mi-8 similar helicopter to that of

of gross and

weight

and hour,

of gross

is very

CH-3E U.S.

helicopters. UTTAS with than

Furthermore, helicopters the Makila

it appears (YUH-61A engine,

than

of the also

SA330J, be pointed figures

and is only out that

inferior for the

to the

latest

and UH-60A). the relative fuel

It should

Super-Puma

equipped better

consumption

are approxi-

mately

15 to 20 percent Fuel Requirements required

for the

SA330J. Payload. payload case, The and numerical hour, inputs and are required for the determinadistance for the of 100

per Pound per pound 4.7. As of

of Zero-Range zero-range in the

tion n.mi. flying

of fuel are

one

a hypothetical performed

shown

in Table

preceding

all calculations

maximum

weight. A glance

The results at these the

are shown figures Mi-8 would

in Figs. 4.22 indicate shows UTTAS that

and 4.23. when of the the fuel best consumption energy is related to the hypothetical of all the compared

zero-range helicopters,

payload, and

helicopter only by the

one types.

characteristics

is surpassed it should be

However, the OGE common hover

recalled

at this

point the to get VTO

that Mi-8

although and the

the

present

comparison gross fuel CH-3E

is carried weights

out

on have

basis

of

maximum (Fig.

flying

weight,

CH-3E

at their the

do not

capabilities

4.14). say,

In order for the

a better weight.

balanced In the into

picture, case

requirements and especially, thus leading

should the to might low be

be recalculated CH-46E (Wp/)o/Wg desired.

and compared; some Here,

gross

of the

helicopters, r ratios.

special again,

equipment a revision of

is incorporated the weight empty

the values

weight of these

empty, two

helicopters

140

"F _

"i. o

0000000

OOOOOOO

ooqqqqq
OOOOOOO

_OOOOO

Ooo_oo

-8

I--

ooooooo
.o

ooooooo
O

o o

_
7 I-(5

e_ _, _0,_ _ o o o

_ o

_ o

L9

e
OOO OOO O

o_
'_
.1

_0 or

O_

_
o

O
_

O
Z O

OOO

OOOO

e0

00

_D

I/'_

1,0 ID !

4_0

"_ mm

03

_-

NodNd_

_:

NNN_Nd

B
_

_
o
m 7 (j

dg6_gd_

_q

,,,
[-,
M

_,,_

_OOOOO

_OOOOO_ o

OOOOOOO

qq oo

qqqqq ooooo

_qqo_q oooo

oO

g0

_F
I,I. ILl I"-

I'O

141

o .,D "T' O

\\

n_

e.:

<

r._

,J

_u

.=.

_J
o

a o

MO

:10 Bq

ldH I:l:Jd NOIJ.dlNNSNO0

"1::11")-I

142

LI.J UJ

O q

q I I ! ! I I o c'_

/
I

o o Z

8
E

/ I I / /
I

"I> 0

/ /
/ /

I,.I., 1,4.

o
/ I.IJ crJ

<

o N
0

II

o o

!IAI'N 00L-81"1/8"1 :'!IAI'N 00L ME) =10 QN('IOd EI3d "13f1=1

143

_d
< o >.

o666ddd

000000

Z 0 0

_6
m

__
Z < 0000000

< o <

000000

< 0
,.4

o
ft. w N

>, <

oddoodo
0

, o
N

6ddddd

6_

o
J

if2 <

_w

g
Q
-1" ff. _J

oododd

u m < _

Z 0

.5
o

_6

0 .J

0000000

E.- z b., _ q

<

o000oo

U _
M

r,,.

_6

dd6dd6d

Z v

Z v

P.
0

#
"r ..J ooo -r .J U-

o
I.U LLI LU

E < I.0
Z

144

0
\
\ \ ..o O O

ff_

.=

"1-I I.I. I.i.


O

O 3

<

I.U U.I a.
O

o 'S
C # 0

8"1-1:1H/8"I

:ld

3ONVI:I-OH3Z

dO (]NrlOd

81"IOH 1:13d O31:111"1031:1 131"1d g N

145

e.,

r,!l l

o
C, e_

o
o (%1
C, 0

o.

o o
.C

o= -,u

-I LL LL

0
l.IJ uJ o.,

<
r_

f/2

C_

o N

:2 0

o o

!IN'N 00L-8"1/8"1

:!IAI'N OOL Id 30NVI:I-O_I3Z

dO ONl'lOd tdgd 13nd

146

Fuel in Sect. evaluation It can of the passed

Required 3.5 for

per Pound

of Payload up while that to

vs Distance. 12,000-1b gross

Using the weight

approach class,

outlined

in Sect. inputs

1.5 and applied required in that

helicopters in Table from

in the 4.8,

the numerical

are given be seen energy

the results in contrast

are graphically to the original of a unit

presented

in Fig. 4.24. 3.25), the Mi-8 represents over any distance; one sur-

this figure

Mi-2 (Fig. weight

lowest only Remarks

requirements UTTAS type

for transportation helicopters. subsection about regarding

of payload

by the U.S. made

in the

preceding

the

gross of the

weight type

basis for comparison of weight-empty

(WOrma x vs of

Wgrvfo), the CH-46E 4.6

as well

as observations helicopters

unfavorable

results

bookkeeping

and CH-3E

also apply

to the comparison

shown

in Fig. 4.24.

Productivity Productivity Index. 4.9. to the The However, specified inputs necessary of to calculate the experience speed only. at this and the the productivity in Sect. so-obtained would but index 3.6, the from Eq (1.17a) are

indicated case 4.9, index CH-3E. was and

in Table limited graphically Mi-8

in light maximum in Fig. of the 4.25.

gained The figure

PI evaluation are listed the

in this in Table

cruise

P1 values indicate above that that

presented is below that

A glance types

productivity and

of the

UTTAS

SA-330J;

of the CH-46E

4.7

General At this

Discussion writing, class

and

Concluding discussion

Remarks of design be limited aspects to the of Soviet Mi-8 helicopters only, of the since 12,000 there to 30,000is a lack of

an indepth must,

lb gross engine helicopter.

weight

unfortunately, engine,

helicopter

characteristics

for the Ka-25

and incomplete

data

on weights

and performance

of the Mi-24D

However, be made with

on the basis of the respect to the to the latter Ka-26

presently two

available

limited

information,

the following

general

remarks

can

rotorcraft. discussed in the preceding chapter, the climb Ka-25 appears to be underConsequently, similar coaxial to the con-

Similar powered its VTO Ka-26, figuration Therefore, hover, tudes one by gross the

helicopter resulting

Western weight

standards, of 15,300 philosophy as much its average high

in limited

hovering

and vertical flying weight Ka-25: limited

capabilities. lb. Again,

lb is below is visible

its maximum in the

of 16,100 take

same

design

case of the from the

advantage installed rotor

of the in the figure

and derive although

performance blade

as possible

power

rotorcraft. of merit in alti-

lift coefficient

may be favorable margin per pound but grows

for a high

it appears and ambient of the lowest Lack

to be too

to provide The power

a comfortable required

for maneuvers, of gross rapidly weight at higher of energy

especially in forward flying aspects

at elevated flight

temperatures_ in the low-speed of engine data

appears

region unfortunately

(V < 70 kn), prevents 147

speeds,

due to low of

wfp values. flight.

any discussion

in all regimes

,._

o_ -r

o
o
do6od

-6

>,_ g>
Ld Z <

_
00000 _3 .< 0 .J >. <

= "r
< < 0 .,J < < ao _d a_ < h, Z o o _D 0 b3 -_m

O z

._m_ 00000

r w 121 w 00000 0 .../ w m i.i.

o_2

00000

0 0

-1

00000

00 z LU (J Z 1-00 _3

_
c_

_o
u.

N _

:_ o

148

..o _5 o o I.o N
C_

\ \

o O N I.I.I

e_

o I.O
0

.<

G,i

?.n
m

r_

o I.O

O o

8"IIB'I:'lddO B-Il:13d G31:IIFIO:II:I "I=11"I=I


,q-

149

_D

-5

m
_.1

z _w
_.1

<

_
o

'_
I-X

__ <

Ill

, 4 < 0

o.
I.> 0 0 0

>

e 8

_,_

_,_

_s _

00 . _I" O.

Ill I-

s
u_

0 Z

150

150

__--""-m, 100 -'-"-Q Z

___

U H 60A

Mi-8

-_--

_ CH-46E/

"_CH-3E

V-.
J a

O
ele P,

0 0

ii

50

100 FLIGHT DISTANCE:

150 N.Mi

200

Figure 4.25

Productivity index at Vcrmax, SL, ISA vs flight distance for Soviet & Western helicopters of the 12,000 to 30,O00-1b gross weight class.

From in line psf with

the

limited

information Western weight trends, represents solidity

available, as reflected

it appears in the from

that

the

design types.

philosophy Its estimated

of the

Mi-24D

is more of w = 9 weight. and

current gross the

UTTAS w -- 6.39

disc loading gross

at normal

a departure Mi-24D

psf of the Mi-8 at its normal closer to that of the

Consequently, the Puma

rotor

of the

(o _ 0.09)

becomes

UTTAS

types

(o = 0.0821

to 0.101). the than tip speed the blade of the Mi-24D fps is not known to these investigators, but it is probably tip speed those at

Unfortunately, least result slightly in lower higher

V t = 692.1 lift

of the

Mi-8.

The higher higher

solidity disc

and higher than

should Mi-8

average

coefficients

(in spite

of the

loading)

of the

or Ka-25. The higher should TV3-117 the turboshaft = 1480 of the installed rating UTTAS in the Mi-24D helicopters has a rating of 2170 hp, which is much

than

SHPTo to that

of the Mi-8 engines. types. the and

Consequently,

the power

loading

of the Mi-24D

be similar With respect the Mi-8

to aerodynamic disc loading than

characteristics, is slightly that of lower the

Mi-8 helicopter the The This power

appears

quite

similar

to the

CH-3E, engine are per

although rating) quite pound

loading

(based x = f(V)

on the for both

"civilian" helicopters

is somewhat similar in spite weight

higher of the

CH-3E.

(SHP/Wgr)ma is also true

disc loading

differences.

with

respect

to the fuel required

of gross

and hour,

and pound

of gross weight

and 100 n.mi.

151

When sumption (probably range

comparing per due pound to the

the energy of zero-time weight-empty appear

aspects payload

of

the

two

helicopters, helicopters

one is quite the

would similar. energy

note

that

the hourly in forward per pound

fuel

conflight,

of both

However, aspects

bookkeeping somewhat that when the superior

of

the

CH-3E), of the basic

of zero-

payload In general,

of the Mi-8 it may

to those the machine

CH-3E. aspects of the Mi-8 helicopter same level with

be stated in many being only

comparing Soviet

design

its Western counterparts,

counterparts, seemingly area or

respects inferior

appears

to be on the

as its Western

to the

UTTAS

types. OGE be noted of the and vertical that TV2-117A aspects this climb capabilities stems Should would a

The only at its maximum from rating

where even

the Mi-8 normal

is probably gross weights. based on

inferior

is in its hovering it should rating VTO

However, the "civilian" the

inferiority engines.

chiefly higher improve.

the be

high

power in

loading some

permitted

operations,

then

performance

of the

Mi-8

152

APPENDIXCHAPTER -Mr. W. Coffee, the Mil-8. helicopter with Test Pilot, is being Boeing Vertol Company, gave the to the His evaluation its Western included as a supplement

4 following general pilot's design impressions comparison of flying of the Mi-8

counterparts.

MIL-8

FLIGHT 4, 1971,

EVALUATION Mr. Coffee has been was seen given a 30-minute years flight except in the that Mil-8 it was aircraft. fitted out This aircraft with a VIP did not differ His

On June from report A. B.


C.

the Mil-8 follows: He The The signal. flew

that

in previous

interior.

with

Mr. seats

Pelevin

who

had flown

the but with

Chinook do not

with have arm

Mr.

Coffee

at the

1967

Paris

Air

Show.

Mil-8 pilot rudder

are very are mounted

comfortable on the a bar autopilot

rests. 3 X 5-inch pads that incorporate event a foot-

pedals switch

approximately coming into

operated

for releasing arrangement the cyclic

when

a hover

or in the

of a hard-over

A similar

is installed

in the Mil B-12. sticks position each have centering and does springs not that appear function like those as the

As reported installed Chinook.

earlier, in the

and collective their

Chinook.

However,

is strange

as practical

E.

The higher spring

control than button that

breakout the the

forces

with

the centering

springs

engaged

are estimated

to be about when holding pilot

4 to 5 times the centering with Mr.

Chinook. down, breakout the

It was an uncomfortable cyclic forces stick are too motion high

feature is very

to Mr. Coffee The

"sloppy."

Russian

agreed

Coffee F

on all the Mil helicopters. was not annoying even though the engines are located

The cockpit was very quiet and engine directly above the aft of the cockpit. A six-inch The blade between days of aircraft tip diameter flown damage the the C-5 fan had from Galaxy, panel to hover speed. The is provided a strong a parking the In cruise above 1 per

noise

G.
H.

each

pilot's

head. in hover verify while and but this the pilot stated there aircraft knots that was on this was due to collision early low

rev vibration We can the

accident. and per

because the

a minor one

Mil B-12, the one The

Mil-8 cruised

parking high

of the was very

Air Show.

rev vibration

frequency at 120

vibration IAS. in the center

and the instrument The transition

was steady. revealed

aircraft

comfortably high frequency but the

strong panel

to moderate shook very

vibrations on the

last

10 knots

of forward pit showed J. The pilots the engine The ment L The high wide M.
N.

instrument

little

autopilot

of the cock-

movement. are separated by about and other switches. Most panel with is not extended forward sides 3 feet of open of the switches across space. A flight engineer are located overhead. The pilot sits between and operates

K.

instrument panels visibility side cockpit response

the cockpit.

and copilot

have

individual

instru-

a clear

opening and to the

in between. was very good in straight in the in the and level flight, but the pilot This on the

forward and lack

of a bank

has poor of high

cross

vision

to clear such

himself

direction Chinook.

of a turn.

is due to the

windshield

as is provided

Power

to thrust controlled grlp.

movements

was very positive. bicycle handle 153 bar type brake grip located on the forward side

Wheel brakes are of the pilot cyclic

by a long

Chapter 30,000 to 100,000-1b

5 GW Helicopters

5.1

Hypothetical

Helicopters

Selection Tishchenko, is probably which most emerge likely et the

of Models al 1 should most

for

Comparison.

An

analysis insight

of the into

hypothetical the current designers. study

helicopters design Types discussed design efforts

discussed

by

provide

an additional group successful of Soviet from for

philosophy and

of what

important the most

rotary-wing the current comparative

configurations in Ref. of the 1 would former

as being serve

as conceptual

"prototypes"

or near-future

Mil group. Within a study of the 12 to 24 and tandem ground indicates only rules, the this metric-ton gross weight helicopters presented in pp. 129 to 134 was reached the tandems.

of Ref. 1, only that under This the

single-rotor accepted clearly

configurations the single-rotor

were examined, helicopters the Tishchenko was

and the conclusion were superior team to to for

decision

preference type of

of

design selected

single-rotor the hypo-

configurations. thetical helicopters respect

Consequently,

configuration

represent

in this comparative to size, close weight lower it appeared to the upper

study. advantageous limit included in the of the that of the to select gross weight two helicopters; scale. makes For one being close to the

With lower, there and

another

a 15 metric-ton especially

helicopter, suitable helicopter

is a detailed the

statement gross weight

in Ref. current

1, which comparative

this rotorcraft The

to represent was selected All similarly ments

study.

24 metric-ton class. type and

as another

representative helicopters (Fig. 5.1c) of

12 to 24 metric-ton class are of the while

gross weight twin-engine the dimensions

single-rotor to the Mi-8

weight

are configured cargo compart-

and the Mi-6 (Fig.

5.1a),

of their

are approximately The performance

2 X 2 X 8 m. requirements for all the considered helicopters at their nominal gross weights

are (p. 1171): Hovering Service Range At 500m, Vma x = 250 are compared, helicopters. kn. to 300 ceiling ceiling Hh = Hs = _ km/h cruise this = 1500m 4500m 370km _ 135 speed _ _ _ 4900 14,750 200n.mi. Later in Ref. 140 that 1 when kn) the various rotary-wing for the is ft. ft.

to 162 kn. of 260 be

configurations pure hypothetical

a fast On

km/hr assumed

(about here

is mentioned speed

basis,

it will

requirement

Vcrma x = 140

154

x'b
(a) MIIRary version of Mil Mi-6 heavy

Q
general-I_arpose hollcoplw' (!_I!ol Pr_._)

oooee

(b)

NIII Mi-lO

flying crane derivative

of the Mi-6, with

additional

side view (bottom)

of MblOK

(Pilot IJ_ru)

Figure

5.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the

30,000

to 1OO,000-1b

GW class

155

(c) General configuration of the hypothetical 15 and 24 metric-ton

helicopters (similar to the above Mi-8).

(d)

Boeing-Vertol

CH-47D

(Chinook)

Figure

5.1 Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the 30,000

to lO0,O00-1b GW class (Cont'd).

156

MAIN OISC SL.AOE I_.AOE _,----0 5 10 1,_IFT ---It BLAOE MAml ARF.A AREA(I"OI"AL.) S_CT_ON Cm_ORD ROTO_

ROTOR

DA'I" IOgl 374 NACA

A t3G _2 _ 2e _QFT _S0 I'T

_OO 0 INC 73G5 M

OEAM

RAT_0

SCALE

72 23FT

,
I
"" ' ' 56i_l'r (llVi.ONilBLAOIEiJ,'#OI.IDIO) \/// . _:;_04 eT'( OVEmkLL L[NOtM ) U ._ "''I .

,/

W'

(..

_->

iT"

_',"

01IIUITIVl

IlIANCIMINT

(e) Sikorsky CH-53D Assault Transport

Marine Helicopter

Figure 5.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet and Western helicopters

of the 30,000 to lO0,OO0-1b GW class (Cont'd).

157


o_-A

i
i

(f)

Sikorsky CH-53E heavy-duty multi-purpc_sehelicopter (Pi!o; Prc_st

Figure

5.1

Three-view

drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the 30,000

to lOO,O00-1b GW class

In view 24 m.ton) of

of the the

above

given

high

performance should

requirements, be considered

the

specified

gross rather

weights than

(15 and maximum

hypothetical

helicopters

as normal

flying

weights. Other important Tip speed Blade Crew The weight thrust coefficient (SL, ISA) characteristics of the hypothetical Vr = tvo= 198.5 helicopters 220m/s 0.155, lb each. are: -_ orE_o= 720fps. 0.465

of 3 at 90 kg and powerplant Helicopter. text, was aspects A detailed that of the weight

two

hypothetical for

helicopters this study, the weight kg _ helicopter

are discussed is given

later. in Table

15 Metric-Ton 2.81 ; but in structural ton load 11,245 18040 18,040 helicopter for later in the

breakdown comparative account,

it is stated

in the actual this fact into

an increase empty 16,515

of 10 percent 15 metricthe paykg W e --

weight

assumed. We = 8180 is reduced payload 5.1,

Taking kg _ from checks while lb. 2.72, and

of the lb, while

becomes range

18,040 Wol370 well

lb instead = 5890 with that

of 7490 kg _ given

a 370-km lb. The

12,990 in Fig. payload

lb to 2.731 becomes

W0137 o = 5100 . Consequently,

so-obtained in Table 39.5

lb is entered 595.5 -

the resulting

zero-range

(Wo/) o = 33,075

= 14,400 2.71,

On the is assumed blade

basis

of Figs.

2.731, a seven-bladed capacity resulting


of

rotor
----

of

Rmr

--- 10.25

m = 33.63 SL,

ft ISA ft,

as assuring

a maximum

payload the

Wpl 370

5100

kg. With chord

the assumed

lift coefficient

of T0 o = 0.465,

main-rotor

blade

would

be Cmr = 1.47

and Omr = 0.0974.

158

Theso-called referred power


assumed 790/0.140 engine 24 metric-ton ing the engine installed hp. weight This of would = 5642.9

installed 790 kg,

(TO and

power a weight

at

500m coefficient

ISA) of

can

be estimated kg/hpref:

from

the

0.140

SHPre = hp per

correspond units. to the

to (SHPTO)o

= 5880,

or (SHPTo)o

= 2940

in SI units, Metric-Ton helicopter weight to results

and 2900

hp in British Similar using

Helicopter. is deduced to increase kg for

above-discussed payload to gross (Fig. weight and

case, 2.711 from the

the ) of Wfu crew

weight

empty

of the

24

an optimal

Iqo/_ 70 = 9400 = 1450 weight becomes

kg, assum15-ton = 270

of fuel Wu

proportionally the 24-ton

kg for the at Werew 25,800 lb.

helicopter kg. This

= 2320

helicopter, lb, while

taking

in We = 12,010 from Fig.

kg -_ 26,480 2.71 operate that

the zero-range diameter

payload should which

It is estimated have 7 blades and,

the main-rotor ISA

be D = 24.8 would

(Rrn r = 40.68 a blade

ft); chord

as before,

at SL, ratio

at "co = 0.465,

require

of Cmr = 1.94 ft; resulting Fig. are 2.631 can for

in a solidity that

of Orn r -- 0.1065. engines so-interpreted result in the hp; (with constant installed total takeoff power power up per to 2000 kg m altitude) weight =

be interpreted transport _ 0.39 hp

flat-rated The would or SHPTo to

visualized

helicopters. hp/kg, which

of gross

amounts 0.39

to Neng

power

installed:

SHPTo units.

X 24,000 rated hp.

--- 9360 power

in SI units,

_ 9230 92

i.e., 4615 of the

hp per engine value;

in British i.e.,

Normal 8490

is estimated

to amount

percent

takeoff

SHPn.rat.

5.2

Basic

Data drawings point to most that of the compared 5.1c the the helicopters three-view base are drawing shown of the of the in Fig. 5.1a through 5.1f. since and It should this be

Three-view noted at this

in Fig.

Mi-8 is reproduced, hypothetical 15

aircraft

is supposed helicopters. The data

closely

represent

configuration

24 metric-ton

principal

characteristics is graphically 5.2). gross

of the

compared

helicopters through figure

are

given

in Table

5.1,

while

some

of the

contained Disc

therein (Fig.

presented be seen class

in Figs. 5.2 from this

5.7. that the real no Soviet higher process next helicopters than about (Mi-6 and

Loading

It can weight

Mi-10) design

of the trend

considered of the seems future, to

have

a maximum by the in

disc design disc

loading

9 psf. The

as is probably only

evidenced

optimization loading in the

of the hypothetical generation of Soviet

helicopters, single-rotor

indicate in the Soviet flying

moderate

increases

helicopters to the maximum

12 to 24 metric-ton approach, weight the disc

gross weight loading the

class. CH-53E of is much all presently higher, flying as it reaches transport w = heli-

In contrast 15 psf at the

of the

(probably

highest

value

copters).

159

_.o

"1" o.

e-

_s_
"I-

_.o
Z

q
0")

_._
I_ _1

'a
0 u-

0 0

__oO_
"r
Z

g_

_z__ _.
_

. o
Z

o
_ r_ ,_

_0

c_

_x 0
M_ m

_> _

r-

m.

c_ _
..{3

Z _4 <

rr

"I" 0

_8

"1"

I"

I"

112

<o
--_0 rr _ ko O

"1" n

_S
A 00 ' o o

rC o Lo

_ _

> E

-r n _4 o 00 3::"

_n

>
"1"

Z 0 Z o_ "r

Z 0

E
a. _ rr 0

Z nO I'0 re ,,,.,.I

rr
us D i, Z 0 0

< _J

,,, .__ ._
,,,{
_
Z

o_

.9
0

"o

_g

121

s8
_
0

_
'_
I-

'S t.g

'S_ -

.-

o g

I-: _
I.I--

==oS_

"

160

00_

d_g

_o
Z

8o

_
Z

ze

_m

8oo_o
o.r.,--._

rr" Z

o.

o d _ M_

0 0_, to "o o. 0

o
Pl

_
o
r_

"_
O

.oo
Z

('N

<_ r,. t_

0 _I" 113

0 r,. t_ P_ L_ LO

O 0_ 0_

r_

II

_ g

M m

-m

_o

ff._
4

Z O

--

__o

z 0

..I 0 0

rr 0

_ IT

_..
z3

_" e__.-

,< Ld I-

_o

_o_-,

-= .

161

Lf_

,o _'_ C_ '_ 0

-6

_o

>_
0

_o _0 I 0 0

_o_

_d

"_

0q
| "1" !

o_
"I-

0 0q _

_"

m_

_o
P_
<

--

v 0

.=o

O_oo

_'. e0 ,A

_o_

o r- _ _c_ _ 00

. o"

e_

o
IW

%
--

>

.a

z_
162

Z I--

o
t'-

,.,.,_
LU o 03

.-I o 0 m .-I o o o \ \ 2
e_

g
0

/.:
e_

\
\

N
O

e_

-_/

,/

o Lo

_o

+,l+, +
| |

o 1"

o 03 o OSIC]

o dSd :9NI(]VO'!

I,o

163

As may that

be expected types. (Fig.

for a tandem

configuration,

the

disc

loading

of the

CH-47D

is lower

than

of the single-rotor Power Loading

5.3). of the

A glance considered (based CH-53E.

at this weight

figure class

would

indicate than

that that

the

power

loading

of the counter-

actual parts. level plant on SL,

Soviet However, as that assumed ISA loading

helicopters power

is higher of the

of their helicopters

Western is on

loading and

on TO

power)

hypothetical

the

same

of the

CH-47D

It should

also

be remembered rated. Consequently, amount power

that

the hypothetical the power 83 loading percent would

powerbased of the be below

in the thermal shown

hypothetical capacity in Fig. of the 5.3

helicopters hypothetical

are flat

engines 5.1.

would These

to about loading values

power those

and listed

in Table

of the CH-47D

and CH-53E.

Main-Rotor as well those

Tip

Speed

(Fig. Soviet

5.4).

It can

be seen

from

this figure the same

and Table tip speed

5.1B

that

the actual,

as the hypothetical of their U.S. counterparts

helicopters, vary from Radii Ratio to 699.8

have practically (CH-53D) Relative

V t ._ 720 fps-while

to 740 fps (CH-53E). Tail-Rotor radii the ratio relative Distance of existing (Fig. Soviet location 5.5). It can be is the

Tail-Rotor seen lower from than this those

to Main-Rotor figure of the that the

and

tail-rotor and

main-rotor However,

helicopters (x-)of

CH-53D the same

CH-53E.

longitudinal

tail rotors For

is practically the hypothetical notations,

for all four the

helicopters. tail-rotor radius can be computed from Eq (2.141) 1 which,

helicopters, can be written


3

in the present

as follows:

Rt, + (Rm, + aJR_, where assumed 6 is the gap separating that _ = 0.25 as (MO)mr the the main-rotor ft.) (Mo)mr

[(MO),,,I_%,]
from the

= 0
tail-rotor which, tip radius. in turn, (In Ref.

(5.1)
1, it is may

tip radius

m = 0.82

is the main-rotor Vtr n r" indicated found

torque

in hovering

be expressed Using rotor values

= Rrnr(k3v_

Wgr Vid m r)/FMrar and the

above-outlined hypothetical

procedure helicopters

tail-rotor

disc-loading 5.1A. Their

values,

the

tail-

of the

were

as shown

in T_ble

x and x-values

are also given in this table. It can also between distances the Mil be seen from and the Table 5.1A and the and Fig. 5.5 that the and so-determined CH-53E of the Rtr/Rmr helicopters; same class; ratios while i.e., the are _"

Mi-6

Mi-10, same

Sikorsky

CH-53D

are practically

as for

all single-rotor

helicopters

_ _

1.2.

164

o o

o 00

v-q

[,I.I

ILl

E>o

6
o L_
0

o .J

o
| I | I I en e J |

dH/81

:gNl(3'q'01

_13MOd

165

0 0

_0
nLn

__o

e'_ 0

?,

0 L.O

1
0
0

"t.

.._
0
|

0 0

0 0

_ 0

0 0

Sd-.I

:C]:I::IdS

dll

I:10101d

166

.=

._

J_

?,

==
0 _

'r

F-, 'q,

SNIQVEI

EIO/OEI'NIVIN/SnlQVEI

EIO/OEI"IW.L

167

Weight seen from gross

Empty

and Zero-Range the weight Mi-6

Payload empty Mi-lO

to Gross

Weight gross

Ratios

(Figs.

5.6 and

5.6A). empty CH-47D,

It can be to normal CH-53E,

Fig. 5.6 that ratios

to maximum helicopters

weight, than

and the weight those of the

weight

of the

and

are higher

and CH-53 D. Contrary the so-called ratios to the trend represented helicopters generation by existing reflect of Soviet Soviet helicopters of the that be equal the to, considered weight weight empty class,

hypothetical of the new

at least

a possibility can

to gross than, their

weight Western

helicopters

or better

counterparts. 5.6A supplements from this figure and are Fig. that 5.6 by showing zero-range Soviet payload to normal gross weight lower helicopters their Western ratios. than at

Fig.

It can be seen for their the CH-47D, normal

the ratio

for existing that

helicopters but their that

is considerably hypothetical is better than

CH-53E, weights

is still below expected

of the Ct-I-53D, a (Wp/)o/(Wgr)

gross

to have

counterparts. Cabin previously gross weight Volume discussed class but Loadinl_ gross have (Fig. weight relatively space fact 5.7). classes, more to that that A glance the existing cargo at this Soviet cabins figure would indicate of the the CH-47D, that 30,000 and similar to the

helicopters than

to lO0,O00-1b especially is even external the

spacious

CH-53 E model; in the loads. The dimensions This trend (2 Mi-IOK,

similar

of the CH-53 D. This it is a crane type

roominess

of the cabin to carry

present cargo

in spite

of the

primarily

designed

of the

hypothetical were leads weight

helicopters assumed to much helicopter for more than

in that the

respect

is not

consistent, to 24 m.ton respect

since

the

same weight

cabin class.

X 2 X 8 m) obviously gross

entire

12 m.ton with

gross

assumption

cabin

volume

to the maximum

possible

payload

of a 15-ton

a 24-ton

helicopter.

5.3

Hovering

and

Vertical

Climb

Aspects

A graph in hovering direct other

of OGE,

Vcv = f(Wgr) SL, ISA for

was the

available CH-47D (Fig. 5.8).

for

the

CH-53D

z 3, as was

data

giving

SHPre q = f(Wgr) This allowed one

(courtesy The overall

of Boeing-Vertol figures the of merit procedures

Company). were

calculation helicopters

of FMoa discussed

values in this

computed used

for all of the in Sections

chapter

by following 5.2. the and other

previously

3.2 and 4.2, Once (1.2), and

and shown the the FMoa vertical

in detail values rate

in Table

were of climb

determined, at that,

VTO gross

gross

weights were

were

computed from

from

Eq

weights,

computed

Eq (1.9).

168

P
cd

/ ..= I /

C3

.=

,.

=.
> O r_

r_

,_. .LHgI::IM SSOI:IglA.LdlN3

N. J.HOI3M

169

o o

o 03

O O

) co

e_

nm ,J o
u

"luJ

\ \

o
n-

o u3

o ,

r_

t_

<

o o

.LHOI::IM

SSO_lO/-Id

39NVI:I-O_I:IZ

170

..=

:5

.=

r_

nn
--I 0 C_ C_

.=.

'

"r"
u.I

=.
0

0 n-

=.
_r

7 o

3
u 0 v) N N 0

_l|||ll||llll|llll||ll|

.t_'no/81

:gNIOVO'I

:l_fl'lOA

NIBY3

171

0.7

0.6

o. "Io

ira nuJ

0.5
M.

/
uJ

O
I,M

/
m

a. uJ 03 nO kg.

4 SHP

0.4

LL ..I ..I

<:
I,IJ

<_
"I" 03

> O 3 0.3

0.2 50

10

20

30 GROSS WEIGHT:

40 1000 LB

Figure 5.8 SHP required in hover OGE, SL, ISA (courtesv of Boeing-Vertol Co.) and overall figure of merit of the CH-47D & CH-53D helicopter=.

172

cn "1"

o o

_.oo

_ _o_ 6d, =_d

_ _

0.8 _

_ _ _,-:o

_0_

0 0

0 0

_o=

>_
Q

0 0

q
0 tO

<

_o__=.
<_ I -'r

_<_

_o''_'_=_'_ _

_o

>o Zo
V _

z
>o 0 _

__o_

"

_0

66__66

" qD

0 0

qD _

, CO ID

, I',. r.. ' 0 _ _ 0

. 0

0 0

m ._1

"r

nO I0
n'Z

"6
n" 0 I0 rr _1

.=

u.I

_-

_
_ _"

_
_" .o_

o
I1:

.--

LL

I..-

_ "-_o_ i-= -_c<

'-i
173

00
CO LO _

Or- o
, 1.0 I..0 O_

oO

,:0 o

'1

o T _ _.,_ _
d d _ c_ d c_

o
_"

"o o

_o_
A

0'}

_o
0 0 '0

0 ,_'

p. oo _
GO 1.0 _

('0

GO

1.0 00

0 0

0') ('0 cO. 0 0 0

,to cO

0 0

_q'-''C_, o _ _
W (D 0

8
E

'"

.B(,J

E o :
A

r_
-" = = d,

_- ':q" .c_ to
E _ ._d, "6

0 (J

wg
_ .___-_.
," _3
ILl 0

__o

tO

F-

174

Installed Hover sidered pound of their OGE, gross

Power ISA weight weight (Fig.

per

Pound

of Gross

Weight from

in Comparison this figure that

with

Ideal to

(SHP/GW) the

Values

in conper

5.9). the

It can ratio

be seen of the

similar

previously

classes, to the

installed

power

(at a rating

of 5500

hp per engine) than

of gross Western

ideal Only

values the similar

of the Mi-6 and Mi-10K CH-53E to that at its maximum of the Mi-IOK. power to that OGE gross

helicopters flying weight

is lower

for most lb has an

counterparts.

of 73,600

(SHPro/Wg3/(SI-m/W_,)
By contrast, called Soviet Average Fig. 5.10 the

w
ratio

_ 1.75 of the

installed tends (or the

flat-rated to be similar

loading

to the

ideal

values

of the

so-

hypothetical Blade Lift

helicopters Coefficient that Soviet the in

of the Western at SL_ ISA weight (Fig.

helicopters. 5.10). the A glance blade-lift appear re at

Cr/o)

in Hover considered

would

indicate

presently and Mi-10K)

class, Western same

average

coefficients to be quite the

of existing similar for

(Mi-6 same

helicopters gross

and their ,..:eights.

counterparts seems

type

of _perational

The

to be true

garding

two hypothetical Rotor (both Figure existing

helicopters. of Merit and in Hover hypothetical) to the proper_ present notation, OGE at SL, ISA determined (Fig. 5.11). from using the Figures curve of merit marked equation of Soviet "Tests" given in on

Main helicopters

were

Fig. 2.60 a , and then p. 113 of Ref.

corrected using

= 3 X t v values becomes:

the following

1 which,

FM 1

FM o --

o.3(,l=ee
c1 ' and

o.zs5)

where

FAll 1 is the . figure Fig.

sought

figure

of merit

at a given

FM o represents

the

FM value

shown

in

Fig. 2.601 The copters, were

of merit 1.16 was

of the used into

CH-47D

was given base, blade rotor and

by the

manufacturer. from Reynolds the

For values

the other shown numbers.

Western in this Then,

helifigure final

as a starting consideration

deviations and using figures value

estimated, were

taking

airfoils, solidities

and Math

FM values It can are close maximum

calculated from

for the proper Fig. 5.11 rotor, that

Eq. (1.26a). of merit reaches of the compared FM ---0.74 helicopters

be seen The

the so-obtained solidity

to 0.7. gross

CH-53E which

due to its high to the and

at the helicopter's CH-47D. rotor-

weight, Thrust weight

is similar Weight,

manufacturer's Power

given

FM -- 0.745 Ratios similar

for the (Fig. for

Tail-Rotor thrust to gross

to Gross ratios,

to Rotor-Power 0.07, are very

5.12),. The all the

being

slightly

higher

than

considered

helicopters The 0.097

shown tail-rotor

in Fig. 5.12. to main-rotor power ratios are also approximately the same, amounting to

to 0.116.

175

.D

/P

"

z_

z _ _

_ ,-. _ _l",'-n_i

_. z t

O C3

C3 C3

.=

\,
& i
Ii o. Z

.=

r./3

< o
.J C3 o0
c:

/\_

_,

21

I
o')

db,-

\_,1 .
/ _ .. _

oo
O

f_

a-

'

',
\"

,l, \.,
176

_o '

'Bq/dH

:/HOI:IM

SSOIdD ::iO"13Nl"lOd U:ld _3MOd

o o

O
'7" O O

8
o 00 q
O m

e,

"N

<

.i
m

e
e_

"'

d, <

o
_4

1N31:31-1-1:IO:D 1-11-I 30V'18

39VU3AV
N

177

) o

'

_ !> o<1
0 t_ 0

0o

__o4
Q

o
o t

_
_

-,-

._

a
0 e,

c::;
IIEI::IIN 40

o ::11:11"191-11:10101:1NIVlN

178

1HOI:IM

SSO_IO/1SFII:IH1

I:1010_1"1

IV1

e.,

.=

<
cy)

,J

__

,:

O e..

_o
e..

I,.,

i o od EI:IMOd

o ,o. o

c5

c5

o
EIOIOEI-'IlVl

EIOIOEI-NlVlAi/Id3MOd

179

Overall test results

Figure (Fig.

of Merit 5.8). the The indirect CH-53E

(Fig. FMoa

5.13). values

The for

FMoo

of the other

CH-47D

is based

on SlIP

= f(Wg r) flight 5.13 were

all of the in Table

helicopters The hovering at SL,

shown

in Fig. OGE known

obtained for the

through CH-53D 13. This for the

estimates

outlined

5.2.

ceilings is also the

are given for the

and

2' 13 and the was not

hovering

weight Mi-6 5.1 FMoa "first

OGE

ISA while

CH_53D values

information

available shown this reason, the

for the in Table the so-called

and Mi-10K, represent values for

hovering levels-

ceiling not the

hypothetical

helicopters figures. For

spec-required all of the

performance-prediction shown from FMoa in Fig. 5.13 were

Soviet

helicopters be seen

obtained CH-53E the

through

approximation" tends levels to lead

only.

As can

the examples values.

of the

and CH-53D, actual overall points ISA

this procedure figure-of-merit

to somewhat helicopters

optimistic shown

Consequently, may Rates

of the Soviet

in this figure Vertical as well SL,

be a few percentage of Climb flying at SL, and

lower

than

the Using the The

ones VTO

indicated. weights computed vertical from rates Eq. (1.2), of climb 5.2 and at are

(Fig. gross

5.14). weights,

as maximum computed

normal compared

corresponding results

ISA were

for the

helicopters.

are shown

in Table

plotted

in Fig. 5.14. A glance at this figure winged, would indicate that the short vertical rates of climb versions) value latter maximum of existing at their Soviet heliflying

copters weights with climb (89,285 The

(Mi-6

in the

and Mi-10K Mi-10K, gross

in the

landing-gear

maximum

are either wings. vertically lb) gross situation even

low,

as for the wings, be close the

or have

no positive the the

at all, as in the would have

case of the Mi-6 capability normal to

Without would

weight

at which

some

to 85,000

lb - still below

(93,700

lb), and even

weights. is different at their with respect flying to Western weights and, helicopters in the which case have some vertical the climb to

capabilities, hover OGE. With provide

maximum

of the

CH-53E,

ability

respect

to the Soviet climb capabilities

hypothetical similar

helicopters, to those of their

it appears Western

that

their

designers

would

like to

vertical

counterparts.

5.4

Energy

Aspects

in Hover

Table numerical indicated

5.3. values in Table

The

most

important fuel

inputs

required per pound

in the

study

of energy and

aspects zero-time

in hover, payload,

and are

of hourly 5.3.

consumption

of gross

weight

In order the Mi-10K,

to perform CH-47D,

this comparison and CH-53E

on a common helicopters,

basis,

maximum (Wgr)rnax

gross

weights

were than

used

for to

CH-53D,

as their

is lower

or equal

180

o o

o o_
e_

o 00

o.

I.M

..I O ) o )

8
e-

O
n

"1-

uJ

=0 O re
<

r_

o I.O

o
I

.g
m.
o

1,0 0 o 0

11EI3_

40 S.=l_nOl=l "I'IVEI3AO

181

Do<]
g
0

-"

J 1 f / f j,

>

5 -_

1 t / / t t / / t t / / i t / J e_ /

_4__-t
o
J

<

-d

>

21_t- -0-- _=q


e _
o
I -g

_- .... 4

o o Q

0 I.O

0 0 I._

IAId=I :SIAII-IO =I.I.VI:I -IO T_:DI.I-I:I=tA

182

o o

o
o r_

66

o. o

666

n" uJ

o _

_ _

<

<

_ _

_.6_3

.q _ o_6oooo

--

_
_

o
_00000

.....

._m
a_ _J 0 3: (.9 LU u_ u_ :. 0 ._

o 5 J

_..
_ _ _ _

__ _
_
_...

o r
uJ t9

o _ t_

-" E

r_ (D

_ 0
_ s

_ u._
_o __ _:

_e_o

oo ,,,,

183

their hovering 81,800

weight

OGE at SL, ISA. Calculations

were performed

for the Mi-6 at (Wgr)vr

0 =

lb since, at higher gross weights, helicopters, assumed

the winged version gross weights

of the Mi-6 can not hover OGE at SL, to hovering OGE at SL, ISA Therefore, these

ISA. For the hypothetical were computed,

corresponding

and arbitrarily

to be their maximum considerations

flying gross weights. of the energy

higher gross weight copters.

values were used in the

aspects of the two heli-

Houri},

Fuel Consumption

per Pound of Gross Wei[_ht in Hover OGE_ SL r ISA (Fig. appearing in Fig. 5.15 exhibit

5.15).

Both Soviet and Western helicopters per pound the lowest

a similar rate of fuel consumption lb/hr-lb) and

of gross weight in this regime of flight. The highest for the hypothetical 24-ton helicopter (0.0723

is for the Mi-6 (0.0833 lb/hr-lb), and the

CH-47D

(0.0734

lb/hr-lh). Hourly picture Fuel Consumption per Pound of Payload in Hover OGE, in hover SL, ISA (Fig. of payload existing 5.16). instead The of

changes

radically when hourly

fuel consumption

per pound

gross weight copters

is calculated.

It can he seen from Fig. 5.16 that rather poorly

in this respect, when compared

Soviet heli-

(especially

the Mi-6 with wings) perform

with their Western

counterparts. By contrast, pound of payloadthe Soviet comparable hypothetical with that helicopters exhibit a low hourly fuel consumption per in that

of the CH-47D,

representing

the best performance

respect of all considered 5.5 SHP Required Establishment data on SlIP = f(V) Company). maximum

Western helicopters

of the same class.

Aspects in Level Flight at SL, ISA of the (SHP/W_r) = f(V) Relationship. Flight-test substantiated manufacturers' of Boeing-Vertol = f(V) at the

at SL, ISA were available these inputs were

for the CH-47D (Fig. 5.17, courtesy directly used to calculate (SHP/Wgr)

Consequently,

flying gross weight of 50,000 lb. The "two-point to determine the equivalent

technique"

for War = 50,000

and 33,000

lb was employed

plate area (f) and the average blade profile drag coeffi-

cient (_d). The results of the calculations In this table the Td values obtained

are shown in Table 5.4. for the two area differ different considered by about gross weights 10 percent. are quite similar, can an

while the values of the equivalent result from variation in trim

fiat-plate

This difference also reflect

drag at the widely

gross weights,

and could

error in the induced at Ve). In order

drag coefficient

level (assumed those possible

in both cases as hindf errors, an average

= 1.8 at Vrnax and 1.7 was

to take into account

value of f = 98.5 sq.ft,

184

.O

O C,

O 03

O 0

;C
O I.O

nf_

;> O

<

r,/3

===o n-

> O

..=

.o

0 w

E
e_

O Oq O

N _4

q
0 0 0 0

91-UHIBq

:AAO -IO EllH3d NOI.LclWRSNO0

"1:11"I-.I A'IEIriOH

185

0.50

Mi-6 0.40
.J

aa .J

0.30

Mi-10K

2J
o. .-I

z O m
o.

CH-53E 0.20

Z 0 .-I l.IJ I.L

0.10

>.
..=I

20 HOVER TIME:

40 MINUTES

60

Figure 5.16

Variation with time of hourly fuel consumption per pound of maximum payload in hover OGE, SL, ISA for Soviet and Western helicopters of the 30,000 to lO0,O00-1b gross weight class.

186

S L/ISA
I I

7O0O

6000

5OOO

4000

uJ

000 LB 3000 SIGN 33,000 )00

O
uJ 03 n-'

O
'II'M.

,
'I" 03

2000

1000

GUIDE 0 0

ATED LIMIT INDICATOR

SPEED WITH CRUISE OPERATING.

40

80 TRUE AIRSPEED:
by the CH-47D

120 KNOTS
ISA with

160

200

Figure

5.17

Level flight shaft horsepower (courtesy of Boeing Vertol

required Company).

at SL,

no external

load

187

GROSS ITEM 50,000

WEIGHT:

LB 33,000

ASSUMED 1.8 1.7 1.03 1.04 0.96 COMPUTED 487.2 103.7 1/58.5 0.55 5d 0.0094

VALUES 1.8 1.7 1.03 1.04 0.96 VALUES 353.2 93.42 1/39.0 0.362 0.0093

kindf kindf

at Vma x at Ve

kvf at Vma x kvf at V e l"toa

Wfp: f:

psf

sq.ft

Table

5.4.

Equivalent values, using

fiat plate data

area and Fig.

average 5.17.

blade-profile gross-weight

drag coefficients

computed from

for two

assumed as being correct, and is shown in Table 5.5 with the corresponding equivalent flat-plate area loading level of wfp = 507.1 psf. The (SHP/Wgr) = f(V) curves for gross weights of 50,000 and 33,000 lb, computed directly from the data in Fig. 5.17, are plotted in Fig. 5.18. Published performance figures for the CH-53E and CH-53D helicopters permitted one to first for the original estimation of Wfp and hence f values, and then to and c-o values were obtained.

apply the single-point technique

check them vs the two-point approach where, in addition, the cd_

In the case of the CH-53E, where performance figures are known, and SHPmi n is given by the manufacturer for Wg = 56,000 lb, both the single and two-point approaches were used at that gross r

weight as shown in Table 5.5. It can be seen from this table that through the single-point approach, f = 124 sq.ft; and through the two-point approach, f = 140 sq.ft. For calculations of (SHP/Wgr) = f(V) at Wg = 73,500 lb, the single-point f value was judged as more representative; r
wfp = 592.7 With approximation 0.0067. average 1/56 In of order the psf. respect and to to the that reduce two "Ed levels, a relative from errors drag the in difference two-point calculations was between approach of assumed; calculations for the War single the assumed Ed (_d f(V) _d = 0.083, in at = 0.0098 = 0.0098 Wg r = 73,500 resulting Fig. 5.18. as a basis showed of the in in the vs first _d lb, = an

thus resulting in

resulting possible profile

is significant (5HP/War)= i.e., are = 36,693 and

above The

coefficients

-Ed/E _ =

at _-_ = 0.47. For the

results the

of the performance case, the

($HP/Wg figures results

r) = f(V) given both

plotted

CH-53D, In

lb 2' 13 served approaches

f and

_a

estimates.

this

of

two-point

some

188

CH-47D

/"

0.18

CH-47D

5q.oOO.LB /

0.16

0.14

/
0.12
-I a.
.am

,, .i/

/
Mi-6 NO

,///

-r w

L_ 0.10 m

O L_
IL

0.08

O z O 0.06
eL tW eL O. "r

0.04

0.02

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 KN 120 140 160

SPEED OF FLIGHT:
Figure _.18

Comparison of shaft horsepower per pound of gross weight vs speed of level flight at SL, ISA of Soviet and Western helicopters of the 30,000 to lO0,O00-1b gross weight class. 189

_ _o_

_;o_

....
00_0

q_

._n

bO

--1

.0_

."_.

r.L

.[j
-i-r

_zz L_ --

zz

[" <

sg
r_
'-r

_--z

,-.l

<,SO o"

._

,E
. o o

E
tn

__
0 .c

i--

Z _
E <
_ o _ .._ c CE _ o rr o n" o tr o rr o _

E <

, _.__ _.._ ga
"

a a a

_._
/4
I0 Z

190

oo

o
0

tO 0 0

_ o 0

GO 0 0

o 0

_ 0

t') Q

_c_

_-

oooooooo

....

A o r

00000000

o
o"
co _000000

66666666

00000000

. CO 0 0

LD Z

_c0

0_

00000000

_z
ffl

._J

== _
A

"r

.0

.J _/)

_0

_m

F,-

191

differences f and 42,000 ca

in the resulting

f (82.6 from

vs 75.2 the two

sq.ft)

and _a

(0.01

vs 0.0127)

values. the

Consequently, (SHP/Wg

mean

values for

of

approaches

were

used

to calculate

r) = f(V)

War =

lb shown In the case

in Fig. 5.18. of the 15-m.ton hypothetical 50 sq.ft. that At helicopter, the VTO gross the the equivalent of flat plate area is given on to

p. 132 wo

of Ref.

1 as f = 4.5m 2 _ In addition,

weight

Wg r = 38,760 relationships

lb, this leads at that

= 775.2

psf.

assuming

Fd = 0.01,

(SHP/Wor)

= f(V)

gross

weight

were computed For the the 24-re.ton t'value

and plotted hypothetical of the 15-m.ton

in Fig. 5.18. helicopter, helicopter in wto the assumed by 15 percent, = 1045.2 other psf. flat-plate resulting area was obtained sq.ft by arbitrarily which, at the

increasing VTO that_ = f(V) gross

in f = 57.5

weight

of 60,100 the above

lb, resulted inputs and

As in the preceding as shown in Table

case, 5.5,

it was assumed the (SHP/Wgr)

d = 0.01. values The

Using were

assuming in Fig. 5.18. for the the

values

computed

and plotted

(SHP/Wgr) to that

= 1:(1/) relationship of the Mi-6 without them

Mi-10K wing.

(short

landing-gear some differences

configuration) in that

is probably respect exist, it

quite would ciently

similar

Should since

be difficult detailed The Mi-6

to ascertain to evaluate

at this

writing,

the

available

performance

data

is not

suffi-

any potential a special 400 case, sq.ft),

differences. since it is equipped the with a relatively large wing (estimated to

represents area: carries

total Ref. fact,

projected 2, this wing the following Denoting

Sw _ about

representing of the total

area ratio

of Sw/TrR 2 -_ 0.039. flight. In order

According

20 percent analysis

lift in cruising

to account

for this

simplified X the

is made. gross weight times the download assuming factor that value; which the is carried wing by

by

fraction making the wing

of the

the

wing

(_k -- Lw/hvf flow field

Wgr); where

small-angle rotor on induced the rotor,

assumptions; velocity

further is equal

is located the

in the

rotor

to its ideal two-force

and neglecting along the

aerodynamic and horizontal

influence axes,

of the

the following level-flight

equations,

vertical

can be written

for the steady Tm r

case (see Lw Wgrkvf;k,

Fig. 5.19a):

Wgrkvf

:_)+

and

wg_kvf(l-X).y-

D _, + Wgr#v_Xr
-

_df V

+ _
(L/D)w

[1.69 V, in knots:

where

rid t is the ideal

induced

velocity

at speed

Vid f

0.296#_f (I - X)w/p V
192

(w being,

as before, ratio the

the

nominal

main-rotor carrying equations, be expressed additional

disc loading the L w = kvf_k one should as a sum shaft

at the

considered

gross

weight)

and (LID)w

is the lift-to-drag Examining copter flying


as:

of the wing above flight two can and

Wgr load. that power the total SHP by required a wingless by the heli-

note of

in

horizontal
!

required

helicopter

at Wg r = (I -- X)Wg r

horsepower

due to the wing,

which

can be expressed

SHPw = %rkv Xlkv 0.296(7 X)w/V2p [7/(L/O),,] 1.69V/SSOno, + }


or, rewriting the equation in terms of additional power per pound of gross weight, it becomes

(51)

(ASHPw/Wg

r)

1.69kvfXV{O.296kvf(l-?_)w/pV

2 +

[I/(LID)w

] }/550rlo

(5.1a)

and the now

equation

for the

total

power

required

per

pound

of gross

weight

in a steady-state

level

flight

becomes:

V3 (SHP/%r) = 12.413p o _ Wfp + 0.296

k2vfkindf(] p V

_k)W

+ o.zs(l+ .

4 7" _'/Ca\

'tT) v, +
(5.2)

1.69hvf_,

.296kvf(l

- X) --p 2 V

(LTD)w

50rio a

Similar both were cases, obtained

to Eq knowledge taking

(1.10),

Eq (5.2) (L/D)w

can

be used

in the

single For

as well as in the two-point the Mi-6 wing ofAR 5.19b). is available L/D = f(_)

approach. characteristics

In

of the this

values as the

is required.

relationship of the Mi-6 the forward was used, by

basis for a wing wing (Fig.

= 4.5 as given

in Fig. 2.1011

, and

recalculating Since the no

it for AR = 6.3 data regarding approach load loading (L/D)w

helicopter rate

of climb

of the Mi-6 helicopter of 93,700 total _ Ib and

at this writing, kn. Twenty results in a

single-point of the wing that

assuming the wing.

a gross weight Based on the

Vma x = 162 area, this

percent nominal one finds The lift

is carried

projected = 0.54

wing at SL,

of w w = 47.79 = 18.8. disc loading

psf and the corresponding

ISA. From

Fig. 5.19b,

main-rotor would

in this

case

would that"

be w' = 0.8 a = 0.0096 = 103.8 area loading

X w = 7.24, _/_

and the = 1/42,

blade

average was

coefficient

be _-p = 0.40. in (Wfp)_ 5.5, the

Assuming w = 902.5

and hence, sq.ft. (wfp)tot technique,

Eq (5.2)

solved

for wp, resulting As shown in Table ftot values

psf and f-w plate

total

equivalent through

and the total assuming that

equivalent the wing

flat

plate

area

were

calculated

a single-point

carries

no load.

193

(a)

NOTE:

D-forces

not to scale forces

of lift end weight

2O

--

10

z
E

0 4 I 4 _' 8

0.8 g 12

1.2

CL

(b)
J 0 16 (0_0W)6_3

Figure

5.19

Scheme of velocities vs wing-lift coefficient

and forces of winged for _ = 4.5 (Ref.

helicopter, 1) and _

and (b) = 6.3.

wing

lift-to-drag

ratio

194-

The 122.3
00000

so-obtained Assuming drag minus

figures that

were the

(wfp)tot non-lifting = 400

765.9

psf

and

ftot about

sq.ft.

wing X 0.01),

contributes the flat-plate sq.ft.

4 sq.ft

of parasite

(S w X CDo the wing would

area

of the helicopter

be f--w

= 118.3

oo_

oo

The 20%-lifting used copter to

average wing calculate

of the quantities assumption, the a wing (SHP/Wgr) as shown = f(V) for

obtained

through to f-w

the non-lifting = 111.05 for the sq.ft,

and was

amounting = f(W) in Table the.winged technical toward of the two

relationship

Mi-6 heli-

without The

5.5 and Fig. 5.18. version was computed the main incremental rather than using thrust differto try to to in the

mqqq_
00000

(SHP/Wgr) Because

Eq of Z <

(5.2). the

of the limited was directed values

information, indicating versions, absolute

comparison in the with this 5.6. has

ences assess, achieve

(SHP/Wgr) a high goal, degree the

of accuracy, was

their

values.

In order as shown Since

procedure

performed assumptions

in steps were

'9,

Table wing

In addition, apparently no

the following flaps nor

made: adjusting

angle-of-incidence of the aircraft the angle-of-attack to the changing further assumed

mecharemains at

(3

nism, constant

it was assumed in all regimes flight by speeds the

that

the attitude thus due It was with

as a whole

of flight; varies solely

of the wing angle that

<

.v

_d

various generated angle

of the flow the is such percent fixed that of

O Z < Z ooo1_

main

rotor.

of incidence flight

of the wing at 160 kn, aircraft.

respect

to the fuselage a lift equal to 20

in horizontal the gross

it provides

weight of latter that

of the the

Values _L 9
O0

total

SHP/Wg with that

r were for the between

plotted Mi-6 the

in Fig. helicopter two

5.18. minus (at

By coma wing, least at

paring one

this can ISA, see

curve the

differences

curves

e_ -

"o

SL,

and

the

considered of

gross forward

weight) flight

are aspects,

small. no

Consequently, distinction will

in further be made
v "o

considerations between r the

two versions. Fig. 5.18. The impression of flight their one gets from this

IIIII figure

SHP/Wg is that

= f(V,), the Mi-6

helicopters of gross values

at speeds weight than

V > 40 kn require counterparts. > 4.5] than

less power As a result, those

per their

pound (W/De)

Western

are also better [(WIDe)rod

[(W/De)max x <_ 4.0].

of the Western

helicopters

195

It should validity sponding concluded flight Western

be

emphasized, 2 regarding

however, gross

that weight

the

Mi-6

(SHP/Wgr) lb), and

= [(V) total possible design the level

curves

are

predicated (11,000 data, leading hp) it can

on

the

of information to the that quoted the Mi-6

(93,700 accepting

engine errors

power in that

correstill be

Vmn x = 162 kn. helicopter

But even

some

represents which,

a case

of well-selected are at least on

parameters of those

to forward

aerodynamic helicopters. also be

characteristics

probably,

of the

corresponding

It can least speeds a desire,

seen

from low

Fig.

5.18

that values

the

so-called

hypothetical (40 <

helicopters V < 100

represent kn) and

a goal, high (V>

or at 100)

to achieve

(SHP/Wor)

at both

moderate

of flight. With respect the the case to the (SHP/Wgr) CH-47D and CH-53E, are = f(V) those curves of Western based indirect helicopters, on it should be pointed SHP= using out f(V) that data,

only while

in for

of the

relationships discussed

flight-test-supported methods were applied,

CH-53D figures aAz

previously data.

published

performance

and manufacturer's

(SHP/Wgr) performance copter Soviet should helicopters data

Values and

at

Vma x. ratings that

Figure

5.20

supports in Ref.

the

previous the

statement

that cleanness

if one of the

accepts Mi-6 trend will

the heliof try

engine than

as given

2, then

aerodynamic respect that

be better

of its Western hypothetical

counterparts. rotorcraft, cleanness

With

to the the

future Soviet

design designers

as reflected

in the

it is clear of their large

to maintain,

or improve,

the degree

of aerodynamic

transport

helicopters.

5.6

Energy Fuel

Aspects per pound

in Level Pound

Flight, of Gross weight

SL,

ISA The numerical 5.7, inputs while required the results for determination of the calculations of the are

Required per 5.21

Weight. are given

fuel shown

required in Figs.

of gross

in Table

and 5.22. these figures that to those per pound the Mi-6 helicopter appears to have same an hourly gross fuel consumption The same

It is evident per pound of gross

from

weight

similar required

of Western of gross

helicopters weight and detect that

of the

weight

class.

is true

regarding By contrast,

the fuel in the

100 nautical the desire

miles. and hope of Soviet designers

hypothetical a better

helicopters, basic fuel

one

can than

to

develop

machines

with

economy

of their

own

existing

as well as Western

helicopters. Fuel of the Requirements higher fuel per Pound structural requirements of weight per Zero-Range (as expressed pound of Payload by the (Table 5.8 and Figs. ratios) one hour 5.23 and 5.24. Because

relatively their those

We/Wgrmax either respect

of the or 100

Mi-6 and Mi-10K n.mi) are much

helicopters, higher one can than

payload here

(and with

of Western a desire

helicopters. rotorcraft

However, with

again fuel

to the

hypothetical related

helicopters, to payload.

detect

to create

superior

economy

characteristics

196


,, 00 co
o

o
O
"7" 0 0

+0+I \ \
iii iii

0 0

o
0 C:,

o
0

\ \
\
\

O.

.o

=m+

\
2
" iii iii O.. t,,/')

: c0

0 c./J

c_

.J
C/)

w-

X <

> X

>

_I>o
'_ _

+.+
EJ mo
0 CN

o
"0 e-.

Q.

,,+, i_ o ,.;.< _ +=
I I I

0 Q.

0 J=

c!.
L._

O O

I._ ,e-

O se.-

I.O O
It

8"lldH

:1HgI3M

8801:10
197

.-10 ONf'IOd

t:13cl dH8

o.+

o__.
_0000000 00000000

QQQqqqqQ
OOOOOOOO

_oqq_qq
OOOOOOO

_0_

+1,-:
o

00000000

OOOOOOOO I-"I" (.9

ooOOOOOO

OOOOOOO

Z LU

[_o o "
0000000 00 _ o o o 0 v -J Z O 0"1" OOOOOOO LL 09 U')

O O

o .qqqqqql
OOOOOOO

o -: o. o. o. o. o.
I-"1O O O O O O

o o
Z

U_ 09 09

< O_
rr

0
o.

I-

0_

o
O__ OOOOOOOO

o
nO

_
m_
"r r'-

o
o
(2 --I LU -r

-ooooo 1
Z 0 o.

0
"1"

D
LL C.) UZ 0

n" I,LI a.

._ o < EQ. LO >. p -r

8
dddddddd
,r.O ,Z O (.2 ._1 00000000 n_OOOOOO

tT

,%

5
0
LU n" _1 LU D U-

_Z

=o r_
r_

>

<
QQQQQQQQ
OOOOOOOO

_OOOOOO_ 0

'OOOOOOOO

_QQQQQo
0000000

Z v

z x/
"I_D

Z v

..

#
"1" -r (_9 I 0

o_8888_8
u.

o_8_
LL

o_888_8
o o
LLI LU

_888_88
o

o
LU LU CO

0 n
I.U

,%

198

O ,,,-i

8
E

< I

.__

.__

o ,q,
e,

0 N

o o 0

ME) dO 8"! _ IdH I:l::ld NOIJ.dlAII3SNO0

"l:lNd

199

o
O

e_

o N

e_

e-

o o

z
o -1m

.<

,-I in I.,I,.
.,..:

a
nn0 nnn Q.. 0

0 N

"!IN'N 00L-8"i/8"1

:!IN'N OOL ME) -10 CINNOd 1:13d"131"1-1

200

Ro

_qqqq
00000000 0000000

8_
-r
_.._.._ 00000000

.2'

z
0 0

a < o
.J

><
O_ W

o z < o < 0 '7 ,7


0 0

< 0
O

,70
00

,7
00

.,-:. ,7
0

.-I

_000 _0_

z < O
N u_

>. <
o. W L9 Z <

<
_w

Z <

<
O

' ,7. o.o.o.o.o.o.o.


0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m:
0

g
N

'_5_,_
_.
0

6
N O

_.
0

o.
0

o. o.
0 0

o.
0

o.
0

O
7-

I z o

"r

"1-

n" a. O I

i
u"} 0 _ 0 0'} r'... r'.co (D

'_

o30 _

CO 0

r_ 0

I',.. 0

(_00'_ 0 0

0'} 0

,5 O
7..J W u_

,5

c_ (5

c_ ,5 c_ I
I

_. _.

o.
0

o.
0

o.
0

o.
0

o.
0 I 0 _0

ffl O !

I
__0_

Z _ co o
0000000

_
000000 O

.... I

"5
.1
_0__ _0__ D

_o

00000000

z v
0 .r

7-

0 0000000 _0_

..1 u.

0000000 0_0_

_.1

o o
W o.

O 121
W w o_ I'-

O z

201

.o
,.o '7"

o 0
1-(

r,

z
v'

=.
0

,-I U. ii

<

0_

ILl 1.1.,I 0,.. f./)

=.
0

"0 0

0 N

=.
0 r,

/
if) _

/
I._ 0 It) 0

o 8-1-_1H/8-1

c:;

c:;

f,n t4 i,n

:7d ::IONVEI EI=IZdO ONnOd _ UnOH 1=13d=ll=llnO=lu '13nd O o

202

qd

o _D

0 e_ 0 0 0 0

q 0

0 0

q
0 e_

. ..C

0 0

I-"r
0

o-

1. IJ=

<
r_

0 r_
IJJ

cO 0

o
C 0

e_

I. w 0

&

| 0

I 0

! 0

m.
o

"!IN'N 001,-8"1/8"1

:!IN'N OOL ld ggNVI:I

OI:IgZ :10 ONrlOd U3d 131"1::1

203

Fuel economy shown

Required with respect 5.9,

per Pound to unit and the

of Payload of weight fuel

vs Distance

(Table payload pound

5.9).

The

above-established confirmed over various exhibit in the flight

trend

in fuel

of the zero-range to carry one

is further of payload helicopters

computations distances is

in Table

required Here, fuel

graphically hypothetical 5.7

presented helicopter,

in Fig. the

5.25. lowest

again,

the Mi-6 and Mi-10K

the highest,

and the

requirements.

Productivity Productivity Index. 5.10. The Similar inputs necessary 4.6, to the calculate the productivity index from Eq (1.17a) are

indicated only. lowest dicted The

in Table results

to Section presented whole

PI evaluation 5.26. The Mi-6

was also limited and class, Mi-10K while of the

to the specified also

Verma x exhibit the

are graphically

in Fig. considered The

helicopters the highest 15 m.ton

relative

productivity

of the hypothetical

gross relative

weight

PI values helicopter

are prewould

for the 24 re.ton level

helicopter.

productivity

be on the same 5.8 General Because is the class. rating, most

as that

of the CH-47D and Concluding quantity

and CH-53E. Remarks of aircraft Soviet of reliable quoted in both helicopters performance maximum flight, for military in the and civilian use, the Mi-6 helicopter gross weight, weight engine lack

Discussion of its size

and large

important

representative at this writing,

of existing the lack

30,000

to 100,O00-1b defining gross

Unfortunately, and flight on

figures flying makes this

altitude the

corresponding maximum rate one

to the of climb

speed 2, as well as a complete it difficult to carry machine. but the

of information flight analysis

in forward like to achieve

forward

to the

precise

level

would only

important relationship,

Consequently, in the following

an element relationships Based proved and the

of uncertainty for both on the

is present,

not

in the the

(SHP/Wg Mi-IOK wfp 500

r) = f(V) helicopter.

the Mi-6

and its sister even if the

design,

limited

data, when

calculated wo ._ should such

_ 800

psf for psf for

the

Mi-6 at its

maximum

gross both it

to be optimistic Mi-IOK (the

compared gear

with version)

to 600

its Western

counterparts, clean rotor

shortqanding

be considered as disc levels loading, of the

as aerodynamically tip-speed, and

rotorcraft. ratio, (CT/O), to those of

Other appear rotor

aerodynamically selected, and

important resulting blade tip

parameters in the Mach

solidity

to be well advance

operational numbers

average regimes

blade-lift of flight,

coefficients similar

ratios, designs. there instance,

being,

in various

the Western However, the mum West. gross

are

areas the

where

the

design

philosophy helicopters, officially-stated This

of the but

Mi-6 and especially engine

Mi-IOK that

departs of the Mi-6

from

that

of

For

power

loading lb,

of both and an

at its maxihp) climb 2 to is

weight higher than of the

(Wg r = 93,700 that Mi-6; of the

rating

of SHPTo hovering and

= 5500 vertical

markedly characteristics as the

American

CH- types.

results Although at SL,

in inferior

especially still

of its winged allowing vertical

version. takeoff 204

Wgr = 93,700 ISA, this statement

lb is quoted probably

in Ref. refers

maximum

gross

weight,

_ _m,
_o

o 0 m
r-

co r_ q
00000

o o , . . 00000

Z < D

_,0

a <

.
o

q
00000 @

O<
'_

O,
Q z D 0_0_0

8
<
Ox "1" -r

:_

_.

n"
r_ uJ r_ D 0 ,,,

oqqqm_
00000

0
,-1 "_

,.-

rr

r
__0

< [-, Zq
"1-

_.

6o6oo

s
[ 1

00000 .(3

.E M =_ _4 6
00000 0 o) 0o

g
. , .

o
00000 0_0_0_

O3

o 00_

6J
0 Z

20S

,.o '7" 0

_S

r,

"S
<

"S
0

8"1/8"1

:I,4 40

81

l:13d O31:llNO3kl

"1:1114
u_

&

206

_0

I.O

_z

o.

n"

z
._l _ 1.0

o
II1 _.1

en

>

".

_r

o. X U.l

-i-

I Z

,--1 _D

I--

.< [-,

Z -- o" >o

_1""

'

,... -

_r

i,,0

,.0
_

m
0 0

_.

.-: o
_"

_66

"0

CO

=_

o5

eO

_.
0

cq.

ill I--

oo
ii

0 0

0 0

I::

0 Z

207

200 1

HYPO-24

- _---'-_

...=- =_

z,

IXl ..I

CH-53D 100

u.I

z Ira > m l-- -5O (J :3 a 0


n., o.

50 FLIGHT

100 DISTANCE: N.Mi.

150

200

Figure 5.26

Productivity index at Vcrma x at SL, ISA vs flight distance of Soviet and Western helicopters of the 30,000 to 100,000-1b gross weight class.

208

hovering suggestion, effect hp =.

and limited

vertical

climb in ground that

effect only.

Remarks

in Ref.

1 seem to support

this

as on p. 118 it is stated

the Mi-6 in normal

operations

either

takes off in ground

or with a ground

run, while Fig. 2.621

shows the total power

for HOGE at SL, ISA as 13,000

The purpose In hovering gross weight

of using a wing having a fixed angle of incidence, climb, the wing produces a download

and with no flaps appears to about 4 percent no apparent altitudes.

unclear. of the benefit. Also, at load

and vertical

amounting

and, in flight at low altitudes performance benefits may

and standard

temperatures,

provides

However, elevated

be present

in flights close to service-ceiling to an achievement

or even intermediate

altitudes,

the wing may contribute

of maneuver

factors higher than for the wingless configuration. In general, gross weight, American it may be stated that when performance exhibit effectiveness criteria is referred to units of

both

of the Mil helicopters

design effectiveness

levels similar

to those of the

helicopters

of the same gross weight class. because of the higher structural helicopters, weights and inferior specific fuel consumption criteria refrom those

By contrast, characteristics

of the Mi-6 and Mi-10K rather

all of the performance large unfavorable

effectiveness differences

ferred to units of payload of the American With respect and, probably, CH-wpes.

than gross weight indicate

to the hypothetical

helicopters,

it is interesting

to note that

they reflect the desire

the hope of the Soviet designers reflected

to surpass the American

designs; not only in the areas but also in those

of overall performance referred

in various indices referred

to units of gross weight,

to the weight units of the payload.

=This value checks very well with SHPreq = 13,118 hp resultingfrom (SHP/t4/gr)v=0 = 0.14 as shown in Fig. 5.18 for the winged version, and with Wgr = 93,700 lb.

209

Chapter Over 100,000-1b GW

6 Class Helicopters

6.1

Compared Composition

Helicopters of the Group. In the class of helicopters with gross weights exceeding 100,000 pounds, service.

the Mi-12 (Mil V-12; Fig. 6.1a) represents the helicopter The Boeing Vertol heavy-lift type (HI, H) helicopter

type

that has been in limited operational Fig. 6.1b) was developed through

(XCH-62A,

the proto-

stage, but this development hypothetical:

ceased several years ago. The two other helicopters (Fig. 6.1c) (normal) and another

included in this group (Fig. 6.1d) and

were purely configuration. Hypo-24

one of the single-rotor 52 re.ton design

of the side-by-side

Both are of the

gross weight from inputs

and, similar

to the Hypo-15

of the preceding

chapter,

were reconstructed machines, they

provided

in Ref.

1. Also, as in the of the conceptual

case of the previous

hypothetical

may be considered

as forerunners

designs of new heavy-lift This assumption the Mi-26 helicopter characteristics therefore

Soviet helicopters. to be correct unveiled strong since, after completion of the review copies of this report,

appears

was officially

at the Paris Air Show similarities

on June 4 - 14, 1981. The available 52 single-rotor machine. It even

of the aircraft desirable

suggest

to the Hypothetical

appeared

to include

the Mi-26 in the comparisons characteristics.

performed

in this chapter,

on the limited basis of the available It should be noted heavy-lift because operations, their studies

technical

at this point there

that in spite of the fact that Soviet tandem gross weight

in Ref. 1, tandems the compared I showed

were considered helicopters. a definite

for

is no hypothetical

among

This is

of the 44 to 60-re.ton

class helicopters

preference

for the single-rotor Hypothetical considered aspects

configuration Helicopters. 2.5.4

with the side-by-side Hypothetical

as a close competitor. of the 44 to 60-re.ton of the information Consequently, gross weight range were

helicopters most

in Section

of Ref.

1. However,

on design details and weight this particular gross weight

applied

to the 52-m.ton

design gross weight machines.

was selected evaluation

for the present were selected however,

study.

The baseline data which appear and presented process

as the most important

for comparative be

from Table 2.111, that

(in English units)

in Table 6.1. It should and number

remembered, become

in the optimization parameters.

of Ref.

1, the rotor-radius

of blades

the most important

Hence, in the optimal

versions, the rotor radii are different from

the baseline values of Table 6.1. With respect to the configuration, similarly it is stated in Ref. 1 that the single-rotor types have non-intermeshing helicopters are configured by the truss-type

to the Mi-6, while the side-by-side

rotors supported

210

(a)

Mil V-12

four-turboshaft

heavy-duty

freight-carrying

helicopter

(Pilot

Press).

(b)

Boeing

Vertol

XCH-62A

heavy-lift

helicopter

Figure

6.1

Drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the over

100,000-1b

gross

weight

class.

211

ROTOR

AXIS

(c)

Side-view

drawing

of the hypothetical

$2-m.ton

single-rotor

helicopter

(similar

to the

Mi-6)

(d)

Two-view

drawing

of the Mil Mi-26

heavy-lift

helicopter

212

"_ _" "_,

_Helicop

fer c.g.

(e)

Three-view

drawing

of the

hypothetical

$2-m.ton

side-by-side

helicopter

(similar

to the Mil V-12)

Figure

6.1

Drawings

of Soviet

and Western

helicopters

of the over

lO0,O00-1b

gross

weight

class

(Concluded)

213

TABLE BASIC DATA ASSUMED FOR THE

6.1 52-M.TON HELICOPTERS

HYPOTHETICAL

HELICOPTER BASIC PARAMETER USED IN CALCULATIONS SINGLE Main-Rotor Radius of Baseline Variant: ft ROTOR 52.5 SIDE-BY-SIDE* 36.1

Tip Speed of Main and Tail

Rotor:

fps at 721.8 689.0 721.8 689.0 0.513 1.065

Hh Vc,
Average Airframe Version Blade Lift Coefficient; Coefficient #Vh _'Jo for Baseline Download

0.465 1.030

of Configuration: Rotor

FM of Isolated Solidity Coefficient Coefficient Distance Layout; Wetted Layout; Parasite

at H = H h and

o o = 0.217 of Power of Power between L: ft in the Original Utilization Utilization Shafts in Hover; at Vcr; l"lOah l"loacr

0.707 0.83 0.89 66.4

0.689 0.95 0.95 72.2

Rotor

in the Original

Area of Fuselage S_: ft 2

3443

2542

Drag Eq. Flat-Plate

Area:

ft 2

80.7

133.4

*No overlap.

outriggers,

as in the

case

of the

Mi-12.

The

cargo

cabin ).

volume

was

assessed

as 41

X 10

X 10 ft-similar

to the dimensions Hypothetical 2.871 as well main-rotor i.e., that the

of the Mi-6 (Scheme 52-m.ton optimal Single-Rotor

B of Fig. 2.641 Helicopter

(Hypothetical

52-SR).

It is shown configuration is nbl the

in Figs.

2.86

and

number

of blades

of the main rotor 52-re.ton single-rotor 2.76 through for SI units) (in English

of the single-rotor helicopters, 2.791 that

(Hypo-52-SR), the number of

as the

side-by-side

hypothetical from

= 8. Fixing diameter 50 to 800 (Fig. 2.791).

blades

at 8, it appears ft, represents

Figs.

rotor = hp

of D = 33m; km. For this

R = 54.14 the to the engines.

a good engine

compromise power (in hp

flight

distances

from

diameter, sponds 7750-hp

referred SL,

total

is SHPro f units),

= 22,500

This

corre-

ISA SHPTo

= 23,250

which

is assumed

to be delivered

by three

The weight

empty

(in kg) is derived

as follows:

we = %, -(wp/

+ w:. + wo,. +
214

Taking of fuel weight as

the Wtu

flight = 9200 fluids the weight

distance kg (Fig. as

as 800 2.791

km,

the

payload

becomes of three empty Hypo-15

Wp/=

12,800

kg (Fig.
H/crow

2.781
=

); the

weight

); assuming = 20 kg, the cases

a crew weight the

at 90 kg each, becomes and

270

kg; and the lb.

of trapped Similar to gross

H/t.fluid$

We = 29,710 here

kg, or 65,510 also, the

previously is assumed

discussed

of

Hypo-24, lb].

nominal to be able

52 m.ton to conduct Mi-12 and

to be normal of the flying

[(Wgr)norm

= 114,660 of the the

However, helicopters should

in order with

a meaningful XCH-62A

comparison maximum

performance gross

hypothetical same weights

that

of the

at their

weights,

also be determined

or assumed

for the hypothetical known

machines. if the quoted maximum flying gross weight of the Mi-12 but (Wgrmax both factors =

It is not 231,500 probably

at this writing on the

ib) 2 was

established on this

basis of performance

or on structural

considerations,

had an effect case of the load

determination. the selection instead higher to 17,700 regarding flying gross of W.qrma = 148,000 of 2.5 than hp. maneuvering weight would load factors of the to the hypothetical hovering helicopters, ability OGE at at the the design lb was solely based on structural established OGE at

In the criteria: Wgrmax SL,

XCH-62A, factor 10

maneuver

= 2.0, percent limited

(normal)

gross

weight.

This hovering

is approximately the transmission is no that their

Wg r = 134,300

lb, permitting

ISA, with Since

there

information maximum

it is suggested SL, ISA. Using the following the

correspond

same formula

approach (analogous

as in the to Eq.

case

when for

establishing the

the

VTO OGE

gross hovering

weight

in Section at SL,

1.4, ISA,

(1.2))

maximum

weight

(H/grJmaxh

, is obtained

for single-rotor

helicopters:

(Wer)raaxh Where tion, (SHPTo)a v is the total nominal total

16.54 takeoff

[(SHPTo)a power

v Rmr FMoa

] 2/3

(6.1) restric-

of all engines

or, in the case of transmission

the transmission-limited For twin-rotor

power. Eq (6.1) becomes

configurations,

(Wer,)maxh

20.84

[(SHPTo,)av

Rmr FMoa ] z/a

(6.2)

Assuming 0.543 (see

that

there 6.3), Eq (6.1)

is no the

transmission flying

limit,

as seems of

to be implied

by

Table on

2.101

, and

FMoa ability

Section from gross

maximum

weight

the Hypo-52-SR, x = 131,375 psf, or lb. 69.6

based

the hovering

as computed This than the

would the

be (Wgr),,,OXh disc loading

-- (WUr),,a to w =

weight

brings

14.26

kg/m z, which

is slightly

less

constraining

value 1 of Wma x = 70.0 characteristics established

kg/m 2. above were entered into Table 6.2.

The helicopter

215

TABLE PRINCIPAL OVER CHARACTERISTICS 100,000-LB GROSS

6.2A AND WEIGHT PERFORMANCE HELICOPTERS

HELICOPTER ITEM Mil Mi-12


m

Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR SR

Mil Mi-26 SR Lotarev D-136 2 8300

Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS SBS

Boeing Vertol XCH-62A Tandem Allison T701 -AD-700 3 11,500 24,240 21,915 17,700

CONFIGURATION

SBS Soloviev

Hypothetical 7750 3 hp

Hypothetical 5000 4
m

POWERPLANT

D-25V 4

hp

Number Output Total Total

of Engines Shaft rpm

T.O or Mil. SHP Max. Continuous Limit, MAIN HP ROTOR R,ft SHP

26,000 [22,200] 21,500J

22,480

[ oooo]
18,5ooj
39.37 [CW Right] 175.1

Transmission

57.42 CW Right [120]

54.14 [cw] 127.3 8 2.75

52.50 CW

46.00 CW Front 156.0 2X4 3.33 VR-7 & VR-8

Direction rpm Number

of Rotation

of Blades Chord, ft

2X5 3.28

8 [2.73]

2X8 1.72

Blade 0.7R Airfoil Articulation

HH, TAIL ROTOR R, ft

VH, PH

HH,

VH, PH 12.48 Pusher

HH,

VH, PH

Elastomeric

"11.26-

Type x, ft y, ft (see Fig. 1.14) rpm Number of Blades Chord, ft .66.22.

5 [1.56]

Blade 0.7R Airfoil Articulation


I, ,,

EXTERNAL Overall Length, ft ft ft

DIMENSIONS 219.83 (span} [127.14] 130.8 [158.0 (span}] 162.25 89.25 26.43* 38.625

Fuselage, Overall

121.375 41.00 DIMENSIONS 92.33 14.42 14.42 [ 19,000] CREW 41.0 10.0 10.0 i.4100_ [3] -40.0" 10.8 10.0 1.4320 -41.0" 10.0 10.0 14100_ [3]

Height,

INTERNAL Cabin Length, ft ft ft

"60.0" 8.80 6.25 3000

Max. Width, Max. Height, cu.ft

Volume,

Note: *Including hub Cont'd

216

Table

6.2A

(Cont'd)

WEIGHTS Max. Gross Weight, Ib Ib 231,500 213_50 131,375 114,660 65,510 65,210 Normal GW 123,480 109,148 62,181 60,270 Normal 159.2 140 137.6 140 GW 129,210 114,660 69,480 59,080 Normal GW 148_00 118_00 64_80 82,470 Normal 147 130 GW

Normal Weight

Gross Weight, Empty, Ib Range,

Payload at Zero

Ib 1"

[1842 ooo ]
8,2ooJ
Normal 140 130 GW

PERFORMANCE Flight Speed, Max/VNE, kn kn kn

Fast Cruise*, Economic Vertical Forward Hover**,

Cruise*, R/C*, R/C*, OGE, fpm fpm ft ft

1390 2300 4920 11,500 14,760 5900 15,090 4920 14,760 8630

Service Ceiling, Ceiling, 1-Engine

Out,

ft Ib/hr

Avg. Fuel Consumption, Normal Range, Fuel, n.mi DISC Normal Maximum Gross Weight, Ib

1,515 LOADING psf psf 10.32 11.18 12.45 14.26 12.61 14.26 11.78 13.27

(ferry)

8.88 11.13

Gross Weight, POWER

LOADING Ib/shp Ib/shp

T.O SHP o 8.22 8.90

T.O SHP o 4.93 5.65

T.O

SHP o 4.86 5.49

T.O SHP o 5.73 6.46

T.O SHP o 4.87 6.11

Normal Maximum

Gross Weight,

Gross Weight,

NOTES:

*SL,

ISA

**ISA

tBased on maximum

gross weight

TABLE ADDITIONAL
I

6.2B CHARACTERISTICS

HELICOPTER

Tip

Speed,

fps Solidity

721.4 0.0909

7213 0.130 0.208 1.223

721.01 o.132J 0.238 [1.250]

721.8 0.1111

750 0.0923

Main Rotor Rtr/Rmr x/ Rrn r

MAX'

GROSS

WEIGHT,

Ib - 0.6130.381 .4.640. r 0.499 0.496 15.90 0.504 0.488 [13.95] 0.538 0.457 14.10 O.438 0.557 27.49

We/(Wg r)max
(WP I) O/ (Wg r) max (WplJo/Cabin Vol. Ib/ft 3 OR VTO GW, Ib

NORMAL We/(Wgr) norm Ib

0.664 60,550 0.329 Ib/ft 3 3.71

0.571 48,500 0.423 11.83

0.570 45,940 0.421 _ 0.63]

0.606 44,530 0.388 10.86

0.550 52,470 0.445 17.49

(Wpl) o at NGW, (Wpl) o/(Wgr) (Wpl)o/Cabin

nOrm Vol,

217

Hypothetical 2.851 indicate that

52-m.ton

Side-by-Side

Helicopter

(Hypothetical

52-SBS).

Figures 2.83,

2.84,

and power to

D = 24 m; i.e., R = 39.37 requirements

ft appears

as optimal. The so-called is 19,375

referred shaft

dictated

by hovering

OGE at 1500m,

ISA (Fig. 2.851) to be delivered

hp, which corresponds

the SHPTo "_ 20,000 SHPTo = 5000 hp each.

hp (in English units)

assumed

by four engines

with a rating of

Similar to the preceding distance by plotting 60 m.ton;

case, weight empty corresponding

is established to rib/

by first finding

Wpt for the 800-km gross weights

flight

WP/ma x values

= 8, and the three

(40, 48, and kg*,

Fig. 2.841),

and finding the payload

for Wgr = 52 re.ton.

This amounts

to Wpl = 11,300

while the weight of the fuel is 8900 single-rotor configuration, We = 31,510

kg (Fig. 2.851 ). Assuming kg, or 69,480 calculated


h -_ Wgrmax

crew and trapped

fluids weights as for the

lb. from
--

The maximum

flying gross 6.3)

weight,
is [grmax

Eq. (1.2), 129,210 lb.

assuming

no transmission

limit,

and

FMoa = 0.620 (see Section

As in the case of the single rotor, Table 6.2. Mil Mb26 unveiled at the Heavy-Lift 1981 Transport

the above established

helicopter

characteristics

were entered

into

Helicopter.

As previously language

mentioned, brochure

the

Mi-26

helicopter

was and

Paris Air Show, where

a Russian

giving some

characteristics

a two-view powering entering

drawing of the aircraft that helicopter. Although

was obtained, the material

as well as a French was rather

brochure

on the D-136 turboshaft as a basis for to the 52-ton It appears

incomplete,

it still served next

the Mi-26 into helicopter

the comparative as the latter

evaluation.

In all tables,

the Mi-26 is shown of the actual

hypothetical that

served as a "conceptual

prototype" of that

machine.

many of the design

goals set up for transport The same appears

helicopters

class, as reported

in Ref. 1, have

been achieved exceeded

in the Mi-26.

true with respect engines,

to the powerplants, weight

where the sfc even level came close to

the goals represented goals.

by the hypothetical

while the specific

the established 6.2

Basic Data The principal characteristics of the compared presented helicopters are given in Table 6.2, while some of the 6.6. of the Boeing outlined in

data contained

therein

are graphically

in Figs. 6.2 through

Disc Loading Vertol Ref.

(Fig. 6.2). should

The disc loading the optimization

of the Mi-12 is on the same level as that process aimed at maximization helicopters,

HLH. However,

of the payload

1 serve as a guide for future

Soviet design of heavy-lift

the trend would

be toward

higher

*Value reconfirmed by Fig. 2.861 .

218

O -t' CN

IP
I
I O

Z
nLU

.,

LIJ

--I O O O

==
0 .O

C_ C) i-4

.0_

-Ira
LIJ r./) /)
D,.

o
J::

O
n3

.=.

..=

i | !

O O C_

Ln

dSd

:ONIQVO'I

OSIQ

219

disc loadings.
rotor helicopter

For the alternate

(maximum

flying) gross weight, psf-

the disc loading

of the hypothetical

single-

may go as high as 14.26 configuration,

close to that of the CH-53E at its maximum

flying weightperfectly

and for the side-by-side matches

Wrnax "_ 13.3 psf. It can be seen that

the Mi-26 almost

the disc loading values of the Hypo 52-SR. Loading (Fig. 6.3). The trend exhibited in all previous loading Soviet helicopters; counterparts, i.e., the power has extended models,

Power

loading based on SHPTOo to include as witnessed the Mi-12.

being higher than the power however, that

of the Western

It appears,

this design

philosophy

will reverse in the future

by the trend exhibited

by the hypothetical

helicopters,

where the War/SHPTo associated

o is practically limit.

on the same level as for the XCH-62A, This trend toward lower power loadings

and even lower than those was fully confirmed

with the transmission

by the Wgr/SHPTo

o values for the Mi-26. rotors as the Mi-10, tip speed is

Main-Rotor the rotors postulated probably

Tip Speed aircraft

(Fig. 6.4). probably

Since the Mi-12 helicopter have the same tip speed;

has the same main i.e.,

of both

V t "_ 720 fps. A similar

for the hypothetical also true

helicopters

in hover,

and slightly lower (V r _ 690 fps) in cruise I. This is amounting to 750 fps, is the highest

for the Mi-26.

The tip speed

of the XCH-62A,

for the compared Tail-Rotor sentatives of the

gross weight class. to Main-Rotor single-rotor Radii Ratio and Relative configuration Rtr/Rmr Tail-Rotor Distance. There are only two reprethere is

in the considered and X/Rmr

gross weight

class. Consequently, be mentioned

no figure to show Rtr/Rmr = 0.208

the comparative was assumed

values. It should

here only that helicopters

as the average

of the corresponding

values for the hypothetical

in the preceding

chapter.

This resulted in Rrr = 11.26 ft and x = 1.223. and _= 1.250. Payload to Gross-Weight

For the Mi-26, the corresponding

values are Rtr/Rrn r = 0.238 Weight Empty it was not possible 1971

and Zero-Range to locate

Ratios (Figs. 6.5 and 6.5A). empty

At this writing during the

published

figures regarding

weight

of the Mi-12. However, ton (88,200

Paris Air Show, representatives

of the Mi-12 crew cited 40 metric weight

lb) as useful load at fluids, this would

Wgrrna x -- 231,500

lb. With a crew of six, and an assumed lb. as approximately correct, the

of 100 lb of trapped

result in We = 142,000 Assuming (Table normal 6.2A),

this figure and plotted ratios

We/Wg r and (Wpl)o/Wg r ratios that the weight empty

were computed and

in Figs. 6.5 and 6.5A, showing are appreciably hypothetical higher than

to both maximum than

gross weight

for the XCH-62A,

and also higher

for the

single-rotor

and the side-by-side the Hypo

helicopters. is of the same configuration configurations as the Mi-12, the Soviet designers than in the past. This aspect

Although expect

52-SBS helicopter lighter

to achieve structurally

side-by-side

in the future

220

o ,, N

o o N

=,
oo =o o
'!::
"lI.u
0

8 E

_ Do__
E_

_'_

.'_1 U3 _ 0

.__

_l_o

_
o
t,,==

dH/8-1

:E)NICIYO'I U::IMOd

221

"T' 0 0 0 0

E
u

,6

Sd-I

:033dS

,111 I:I010U

222

C_ eq

0
O O (N 00 --I O O O

C_ O C_

c0
LU

o co
O cfJ n

"O

__O
_o
_O

e
,
g R | |

.u
0 0

O0

d .LHDI:IM SSO_lD/A.I.d_:l .LHDI3M

223

O N

"-6 O N

_ I>0

O ,.D "T'

o O O nn -.I
O

0.,

8
"1" D ILl

O
0

8
0

O N
N

O O
I m I _ i

1HDI3M

33089/-Id

:IDNVI:I-OI::I:JZ

224.

is frequently

discussed in Ref. 1, where it is indicated thus leading to a higher degree

that the Mi-12 was their first venture of conservatism

into this size than

and configuration; may be expected targets indicated

in the design and load estimate

in the future. The weight-empty by the Hypo 52-SR figures. weight empty aspects

to gross-weight

ratio for the Mi-26 is quite close to the

The above discussed the gross-weight

are further supplemented

by the zero-range

payload

to

ratios shown in Fig. 6.5A. Loading (Fig. 6.6). Although, at this point, the figures regarding that zero-range payload

Cabin Volume

of the Mi-12 may not be completely 4.4 X 4.4. m) is provided XCH-62A. As to the hypothetical to correspond to Scheme helicopters, for possible

accurate, payload.

it may still be safely assumed

a very large cabin (28 X of the

This results in (Wpl)o/Vcabi n values way below those

it should be remembered Should

that their cabin volume was only assumed prove to be correct, the cabin volume helicopter. The estimated cabin heli-

B of Fig. 2.641. one-third

this assumption

loading values would dimensions copters,

be about

lower than those of the XCH-62A

and volume

of the Mi-26 appear to be quite close to those loading.

assumed

for the hypothetical

leading to a similar cabin volume

6.3

Hovering Table 6.3.

and Vertical

Climb

Aspects part of the calculations performed in this table is the determination

The most important

of the overall figure-of-merit manufacturer's configueations, In Prime stated 134,300 that lb. performance thus providing Item

values. In the case of the XCH-62A, data; supporated a high confidence Document, power by wind-tunnel tests

this can be done on the basis of the and flight figures. Code Ident. No. 77272, it is experience with similar

level regarding the quoted

Description

Vol. 1 - Heavy-Lift of 17,700 hp,

Helicopter,

at a transmission-limited

the hovering

gross weight OGE at SL, ISA is

The overall figure of merit, computed the indirect methods of calculating

directly

from Eq. (1.1a)

is 0.635.

A continuous was carried

checking

of to

FMoa values, as indicated

in Table 6.3,

out; leading

FMoa = 0.617,

which is quite = 0.635,

close to the Boeing-Vertol (Wgr)VT 0 = 130,300

data-based value. from Eq. (6.2), ceiling which is in complete The vertical

Using FMoa agreement

lb is computed

with the

Boeing-Vertol

data of the gross weight

- hovering

relationship.

rate of climb at (Wgr)VT O, computed data. Unfortunately, vertical in the

from Eq. (1.9) is, again, in very good agreement

with Boeing-Vertol

case of the Mi-12, there only the

is no published so-called

data on either first-estimate

hovering procedure

ceiling shown

or in

rate of climb.

Consequently,

speculative

Table 6.3 could

be used; resulting in FMoa = 0.594.

This was done, neglecting

any beneficial

aerodynamic

225

0 N

Z
I.I.I

IG_ I.I.I
o 0 ..o 0 0 0 0 s., 0

0 ,0

=.I

8
:=

.-

-It" E
i.l.l

Q
o
0

\ \

f_ 0

II

,,.#

@'}

.I..-rn::)/B-I

:9NIOVO-I

31/_N"IOA NIBV_)

226

TABLE HOVERING OVER AND VERTICAL GROSS

6.3 CLIMB WEIGHT ASPECTS, CLASS ISA

100,000-LB

HELICOPTER ITEM Mil MS-12 GROSS MAIN Disc Loading, Ideal Induced Tip Speed, Vid/Vt Solidity, Download Average FM TAI Tail Rotor Thrust; L ROTOR Ib 9874.0 0.086 w; psf Velocity, fps rid; fps 24.79 9242.0 0.085 18.89 o Factor, Blade Lift kvh Coefficient, w; psf Velocity, Vid; fps WEIGHT, ROTOR 10.32 46.56 721.4 0.0645 0.0909 1.065 l 0.59 0.688 12.45 51.14 721.8 0.0709 0.130 1.03 ! 0.484 0.703 t 12.61 51.15 [721.8] 0.0709 [0.132] 1.03 0.476 [0.703] ] 11.78 49.75 721.8 0.0689 0.1111 1.065 t 0.513 0.6801 8.88 93.19 7500 0.0576 0.0923 1.055 0.467 0.725 LB 213,850 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR 114,660 Mil Mi-26 109,148 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS Boeing-Vertol XCH-62A 118,000

114,660

Vt; fps

T/Wgr Disc Loading, Ideal Induced Vt;

Tip Speed, Solidity, Blocking e

Factor, kbl o Lift Coefficient, ce

Avg. Blade FM Power Ratio,

(RPtr/RPmr) 0.95 l 0.83 t 0.558 4920 hp/ib 0.2027 0.87 0.567 0.594 1.035 Ib GW; fpm GW; fpm fpm 195,500 _,, 80 0.562 0.920 120,600 800 1260 0 [0.83] 0.558 5900 0.2060 [0.82] 0.552 0.555 [0.920] 114,560 805 1240 105 t 0.951 0.610' 4920 0.1744 0.87 0.630 0.620 0.920 118,640 780 1060 0 0.635** 0.635** Xm= n Limit 130,300 260** 1390"* 0.95 0.617" 8630

FMoa

(1st Estimate) OGE: ft

0.594

Hover Ceiling SL Takeoff

SHP/GW;

Rel. Lapse-R'ilte FMoa (2nd

At Hover Ceiling OGE

Estimate)

Average

FMo= _3000

Lapse Rate VTO

Gross Weight; R/C @ VTO

Vertical Vertical Vertical

R/C @ NGW; R/C @ Max.

NOTES: t Includes thrust * Including augmentation correction data coefficient factor; kT > 1.04 (Table 2.111).

overlap

_1o ," 0.96. I

** Baled on Boeing-Vertol

227

effects helicopter

of the side-by-side should experience

configuration. thrust

However,

as indicated in hover,

in Ref.

1, the hypothetical of the proper

side-by-side coefficient is

augmentation

and the value the thrust

given in Table 2.11 z as k r = 1.04. figure of merit for the Mi-12 would For the other = 0.610 (4920 obtained representative through the first ceiling

Taking into consideration be 0.618. of the side-by-side estimate

augmentation

effect,

the overall

configuration; against

namely, the second helicopters computed speculative indicating

the Hypo estimate,

52-SBS,

the FMoa

was checked

based on 1500m in Ref. 1. The

ft), ISA hovering

requirements

for all hypothetical from the previously the so-called close, thus

considered value.

so-obtained

FMoa = 0.630 is not much different single-rotor hypothetical

For the sulting hovering

helicopter, (0.567)

FMoa = 0.558

and that

re-

from hovering and vertical

requirements

are quite

at least a consistency

in the

climb performance

estimates. in FMoa = 0.558. ceiling The second estimate lapse rate was based on a Russian engine. The

The first estimate leaflet result which contained

for the Mi-26 resulted data on the hovering

and assumed

of the D-136

was similar to the first estimate

- leading

to FMoa = 0.552.

The average of the two estimtes

(0.555)

was assumed for computing The results

the VTO gross weight and rates of climb. FMoa estimates, and those obtained at the intermediate steps, are

of the above-discussed 6.11.

shown in Figs. 6.7 through Installed OGE, Power 6.7).

per Pound of Gross Weight For the Mi-12 helicopter,

in Comparison

with

Ideal (SHP/GW) (takeoff) power

Values in Hover to the ideal power at maximum gross limit). coeffiIt

ISA (Fig.

the ratio of installed

is quite low for [/Vgrmax and gross weight, weights

Wgrnor m. This is reflected

in the need of using running and the Mi-26 helicopters of the XCH-62A

takeoffs

even at SL, ISA. By contrast power

the hypothetical

at their normal

exhibit

ratios similar to the normal Coefficient

gross weight

(with transmission

Average Blade-Lift cient should of the Mi-12

(or CF/O) in Hover OGE, ISA (Fig. 6.8L than for the XCH-62A,

The average blade-lift

helicopter that

is higher

Mi-26, and the hypothetical machine

machines.

also be noted

the _. values of the hypothetical Since the Soviet designers to side-by-side

side-by-side

are slightly higher than design a

for the single-rotor and operational statement

configuration. related

are the only ones having any significant one should coefficients, have no reason

experience

configurations,

to doubt

contained

in Ref. 1 that the nominal

design rotor thrust

ty o may be approximately or the tandems cient (Table 10 percent

2Wgr/ Po OSrot Vt2

2CT/O than for either the single-rotors the actual rotor coefficient, thrust coeffik r = 1.04 is

higher for the side-by-side

configurations

2.111 ). It is also shown in this table that in calculating helicopters at hovering ceiling, a thrust 4 percent.

of the side-by-side

augmentation

incorporated

which reduces the rotor

ty values by about 228

o,

'_ _1

_o

I_

,
_,'

I)

"
l

=# i

o,.!

1_,' '

-_ .! _

'

'

'\

/
_, ID

:'
._

81/dH

:IHDI_M

S_30H9

-I0 _N_Od 229

H3d H:_MOd

o_

.=

.8

"O

O _3

<

.3

%
O ..C

".3 o_

.O

,<

1N3101-I-1300

1-11=I 30V-18

30VI:I3AV
,! o

u.

230

Main-Rotor XCH-62A from

Figure of Merit in Hover OGE at SL, ISA (Fig. 6.9). were estimated, while those of the hypothetical

Figures of merit machines

of the Mi-12 and

helicopters

and the Mi-26 were read FM values (VR-7 is

the graphs

in Figs. 2.79 helicopters.

and 2.85 t. There However, it appears

are no striking differences that due to the advanced

in the lifting-rotor

of the compared and VR-9) the highest. Tail-Rotor sentatives conducted Overall subsection here. Two

blade airfoil sections heavy-lift

and proper

twist distribution,

the figure of merit of the Boeing Vertol

helicopter

Thrust

to Gross Weight,

and Power to Rotor-Power in the considered

Ratios.

Since there are only two repreclass, no detailed ratios. was discussed in the studies were

of the single-rotor of the tail-rotor Figure entitled,

configuration

gross weight

thrust to gross weight, and power to rotor-power Derivation

of Merit (Fig. 6.10). 'Table 3'. Consequently,

of the overall figures of merit features

only the most important the more conservative

of Fig. 6.10 are indicated beneficial factor.

FMoa values for the Mi-12 are shown, interaction;

with no credit toward

airframe-rotor Assuming

and the higher one incorporating

the h T = 1.04 thrust

augmentation

that the latter

approach is correct, the overall figure of merit of the Mi-12 would be quite similar vs FMoa = 0.620). appears to be about 2 percent configurations higher exhibit than for the side-by-side considerably higher FMoa

to that of the Hypo 52-SBS (FMoa = 0.618 The figure of merit configurations. values (about Vertical vertical ascent It should 11 percent) of the XCH-62A also be noted

that all twin-rotor schemes.

than the single-rotor

Rates of Climb at SL, ISA (Fig. 6.11). at either its maximum gross weight

The Mi-12 helicopter of 231,500

has no positive rate of climb in gross weight of 213,850 of

flying gross weight to hover

lb or normal

lb, since its maximum 195,500 that 5500

OGE at SL, ISA is 197,600 ft ISA, was computed

lb. The VTO gross weight from Eq. (1.2)*.

lb, corresponding

to hovering

OGE at 3000

Assuming

the lapse rate at this altitude shp, the VTO gross weight lapse rate

is ), = 1.03; i.e., of the same character is not much different which

as for the D-25VF

engine rated at

from the (Wgr)hma also accounts

value. This, of course, results

from the peculiar

of the Mi-12 engines,

for the quite low sea level vertical

rate of climb (80 fpm) at (Wgr)vT O. It should be recalled at this point that the maximum to hovering flying weight of the hypothetical helicopters

was arbitrarily defined the vertical

as that corresponding

OGE at SL, ISA. Obviously, lb for the single-rotor, helicopters

at this gross weight, and 118,640 lb for

rate of climb would configuration), normal

be zero. At (Wgr)vT 0 (120,600

the side-by-side while at their

the vertical rate of climb of both hypothetical the vertical

is about 800 fpm;

(design) gross weights,

climb rate is about 1250

fpm for the single, and

about 1100 fpm for the side-by-side

configurations.

*With fixed coefficient20.22 insteadof 16.05. 231

0 ,,_,, N

_;

z
0
0

'

I.U

if) U.I

!>

0 0

o
0

W
0

"

(3 m
I,,U

0
E:

8 _

.<

0
0 qp

0 N
0

0 0

/ I I:1 =11/_!-.-I 0-=11:1l 91 =180.,I.OEI-N I'fflAI r

232

co

:5,: ..5:,,
O .o O O Q

_ _ _o =,
o o o

v-(

.=.

.8
"lI.U "6
,.=

n_

.=

o
Jr.
)

D < .3

o
O ..=

.El r,

O N

O
) _O

O O

m.
o o o

IlI:I:IIAI

-IO S3EIROI-I -I'IVU3AO

233

i
E o.<1
8 _

o4_
._
0

<

,,_r

_,I

+I

.__
,_

""

_'_"

_I ,6

&
0 1,0 N Q 0 N

6
0

o
0 0

IAId-I :81N1"1:3dO :liVid

"lV01J.Id:IA

234

The vertical

climb

performance

of the Mi-26 appears to be almost

identical

to that

of the Hypo

52-SR (Table 6.3 and Fig. 6.11). According below to Boeing Vertol data, the (War)hmax for the XCH-62A The helicopter is 134,300 lb. This is

the maximum

flying gross weight to this weight

of the aircraft.

(Wgr)VT O = 130,300

lb, and the vertical

climb rate thetical altitude thetical

corresponding

is about 260 fpm. This rate of climb is lower than for the hypoof the transmission limited power available up to the VTO

helicopters

because

of the constancy gross weight,

of 3000 ft. At normal

Vcv = 1390 fpm, which

is slightly

higher than for the hypo-

and the Mi-26 helicopters. at Fig. 6.11, Soviet one would get the impression actually improved that as far as vertical climb performance capabilities is conof their

Looking cerned, heavy-lift 6.4 the

helicopter them

designers comparable

the vertical

performance

models, making

to those expected

for the U.S. HLH.

Energy

Aspects in Hover In order to provide a common basis for the compared OGE hovering helicopters, the investigation of

Table 6.4. energy aspects

in hover was performed where the maximum all of the

at their maximum

gross weights at SL, ISA, except weight. As in the fuel

for the Mi-26, preceding consumption 6.4. Hourly from

flying weight is lower than the SL, OGE hovering information required to compute of ideal maximum

chapters,

important hovering

the variation payload

of hourly

with the indicated

time per pound

is indicated

in Table

Fuel Consumption that

per Pound of Payload to the important definitely

in Hover OGE, at SL, ISA (Fig. 6.12). criterion of energy consumption

It is evident of

Fig. 6.12

with respect

per unit weight

payload compared

in hover,

the Mi-12 helicopter curve.

shows poor performance.

This is especially

visible when

with the XCH-62A to other

Similar evident parable 6.5

comparisons, designers

as witnessed

by the Hypo 52-SR and Hypo consumption

52-SBS models,

it is also com-

that Soviet

have been striving to achieve energy

per unit of payload

to that of their Western counterparts in Level

and, in the case of the Mi-26,

have succeeded.

SHP Required Establishment

Flight at Sea Level = f(V) Relationship. Since comparison relationship of forward flight aspects is for all of

of the (SHP/Wgr) flying weights,

performed the load,

at maximum helicopters

the (SHP/War)

= f(V)

must be established helicopter

compared

at that

particular

gross weight.

For the XCH-62A (Fig. 6.13).

with no external identical to

the SHP = f(V)

curves at sea level, 95F in Section From

were available

Using an approach

that applied

to the CH-47D (Table 6.5).

5.5, the basic inputs needed for calculating

(SHP/Wg r) = f(V) at SL, for both

ISA were found

this table it can be seen that

the f and c-d values computed

235

0.5

0.4

=" Z 0
ia.

0.3

z O
.) ,.I w I,I.

0.2

Hypo-52-SBS .._..R===.r___'_"_it_'_H

Mi-26 "_ y po.52.SR

>.
..I

0.1

2"0 HOVER TIME:

4'0 MINUTES

60

Figure 6.12 Variation with time of hourly fuel consumption per pound of ideal maximum payload SL, ISA for Soviet and Western helicopters of the over lO0,O00-1b gross weight class.

in hover OGE at

236

TABLE 6.4
ENERGY OVER ASPECTS 100,000-LB IN HOVER GROSS AT S/L, ISA WEIGHT CLASS

HELICOPTER ITEM Mil V-12 Mi-12 GROSS WEIGHT: Overall Figure of Merit SHP Required in Hover: hp T.O SHP Installed: hp SHPreq/SHPTO sfc: Ib/hp-hr Hourly Fuel Flow per Pound of GW: Ib/hr-lb Zero Time Payload: Ib Ratio of Zero Time PL to GW Hourly Fuel Flow per Lb of PL for t = 0: Ib/hr-lb t = 1/3 hr t = 2/3 hr t=lhr LB 197,600 0.618 26,000 26,O00 1.0 0.63 0.0831 54,300 0.275 0.302 0.336 0.378 0.432 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR 131,375 0.562 23,250 23,25O 1.0 0.44 0.0779 65,200 0.496 0.157 0.166 0.175 0.186 Mil Mi-26 123,480 0.555 22,140 22,480 0.98 0.44 0.0782 60,270 0.488 0.160 0.171 0.181 0.193 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS 129,210 0.620 20,000 20,000 1.0 0.47 0.0727 59,050 0.457 0.159 0.168 0.178 0.188 Boeing Vertol XCH-62A 134,300 0.635 17,700 24,240 0.73 0.50 0.0659 68,750 0.512 0.129 0.135 0.141 0.148

TABLE EQUIVALENT FLAT PLATE AREAS (BASED AND

6.5 BLADE 6.13) PROFILE COEFFICIENTS

AVERAGE

ON FIGURE

GROSS WEIGHT: ITEM 148,000 ASSUMED /indf kindf hvf hvf _oa
|1

LB 118,000

VALUES 1.8 1.7 1.03 1.04 0.96 VALUES 514.2 229.5 1/58.4 0.48 0.0082

8t at

Vine x Ve

1.8 1.7 1.03 1.04 0.96 COMPUTED 612.0 241.8 1/71.7 0.60 0.0084

at at

Vma x Vo

Wfp : psf f: sq.ft

237

gross

weights

are close.

However,

instead

of taking

their

averages

in computing

(SHP/Wgr)

= f(V)

for

Wgr = 148,000 done because

lb at SL, ISA, the figures obtained the gross weight shown in Fig. 6.13

in the first column and that

of Table 6.5 were used. This was are now identical, while the

being of interest

ambient At sequently,

conditions

differ only slightly (SL, 95F vs SL, ISA). no data is available approach on the forward on rate of climb of the Mi-12 helicopter. Conof the

this writing, only the

single-point

based

Vma x could

be used for the determination

(SHP/Wg r) = f(V) relationship. In the case of the hypothetical dependence is reversed; helicopters, the normal process of establishing the (SHP/Wg r) = f(V)

Vma x is not known,

but the equivalent

flat plate

areas for the baseline configura-

tions are given in Table 6.1. Since the main-rotor machines, the equivalent radii of the Hypo 52-SR and Hypo 52-SBS are larger than those of the baseline by 5 percent. Further-

flat plate area values in Table 6.1 were arbitrarily increased were assumed are not certain, as Ta = 0.0095

more, the average blade profile drag coefficients The input data for the Mi-26 helicopter

for both helicopters. at the maximum flying

since the SHP required that

speed of 159.2 kn is not known. continuous 0.925 power rating which,

In this respect, in turn,

it was assumed (following available to determine

Vma x corresponds

to the maximum to

was postulated

indications

in Ref. 1) as amounting

SHPTo;

i.e., 20,790 the

hp. There

is no information was used

as to the rate of climb in forward wtp and f at NGW. However, appear cleanness, missed, which too pessimistic. as represented

flight. the so-

Consequently, obtained correct, 1550

single-point

approach

values of wto = 352 psf and the corresponding it would mean that sq.ft the very ambitious of the Hypo

f = 310 sq.ft

Were they by wtp =

goal of aerodynamic was completely

psf and f = 84.74 as inspection

52-SR

does not appear to be aerodynamically clean

feasible,

of the photographs

of the Mi-26 generally

suggests a relatively

design except for the landing Therefore, the equivalent the single-point

gear and the main and tail-rotor of the (SHP/Wor) = f(V)

hubs. relationship at maximum flying gross weight, through

for determination

flat plate area value of 197 sq.ft was used (representing procedure and that of tile Hypo 52-SR). discussed inputs, In this estimate

an average of that obtained CO/_ = 1/55 was assumed.

Using the above and previously helicopters were computed = f(V)

the (SHP/Wg r) = f( V) relationships

of the compared

in Table 6.6, and plotted Relationships (Fig. 6.14).

in Fig. 6.14. It can be seen from the lowest However, Fig. 6.14 that in the low-speed of maximum 90 kn, the

(SHP/Wgr)

range (10 < V < 90 kn), the Mi-12 helicopter gross weight of all five of the compared

exhibits

power required at flight speeds

per pound higher than

helicopters.

required

power increases rapidly, helicopters

due to the relative seem to represent

high parasite a trend

drag. aerodynamically clean designs, esperegimes

The hypothetical cially the single-rotor

toward

configuration,

with low power requirements 238

per unit weight in the high-speed

le0o00

_L_O

14,000

12,000"

10,000

UO0

e,o00

4,000 Im 100 120 140 100 100 TRUE AIRSPEED - KNOTS

Figure

6.13

Shaft

horsepower with no

required external

vs speed load

at SL/95F

for the XCH-62A Vertol Co,).

helicopter

(Courtesy

of Boeing

239

TABLE FORWARD OVER FLIGHT

6.6 ASPECTS AT SL, ISA

100,000-LB

GROSS

WEIGHT

CLASS

HELICOPTER ITEM
,m

Mil V-12 Mi-12

Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR

Mil M i-26 109,148

Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS

Boeing-Vertol XCH-62A 148,000

GROSS rtoa Estimate Vma x or Vet; SHP; _Main hp Rotor RHP; Vt; fps

WEIGHT;

LB

213,860

131,375

129,210

at Vma x or Vcr kn 140.0 [22,200] hp 721.4 Thrust; psf Ib 690 [690] 690 750 [21,500] 159.2 [20,794] [ 18,500] 157.0 t 17,700

Main Rotor Torque Tail

Compensating

Rotor

Disc Loading; _ _'d _d/ff_ Power;

Tail Rotor Tail Rotor Tail Rotor Tail Rotor

hp 0.951 0.891 0.951

RHPtr/RHPmr _loa at Vma x or Vcrma x (SHP/VVg r) = f(V): 1 st Approximation 0.858 0.320 psf 11.18 0.595 [0.0095] 1/62.7 1.02 1.10 wf; psf f; sq,ft 5O8 420 81.4 hp WEIGHT; at F; kn SL/ISA 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0.1426 0.0949 0.0739 0.0685 0.0729 0.0849 0.1056 0.1770 0.1268 0.0932 0.0785 0.0734 0.0759 0.0787 0.0878 0.1793 0.1296 0.0974 0.0864 0.0867 0.0954 0.1121 0.1367_
_4

[0.891

[0.95]

Mta b at Vma x or Vcrma x /_ at Vma x or Vcrmax; Main Rotor Disc Loading; Main Main Main kvf k/ndf Computed Equivalent Computed Computed MAX. (SHP/Wgr); Rotor Rotor Rotor ct Cd C,d/_

0.859 0.390 14.26 0.55 [0.0092] 1/60 1.02 1.15 15501 84.741 12.61 0.52 [0.0092] 1/56.5 1.02 1.15 352 t?) 310 (._) 13.27 0.60 0.0095] 1/63.4 1.02 1.10 922,91 140.11

0.910 0.354 11.13 0.60 0.0084 1/71.7 1.04 to 1.03

1.5 to 1.8 612 241.8 97.1

Flat Plate Ve; kn SHPmin; GROSS hp/Ib

13,790 LB 231,500 131,375

12_80

123,480

129,210

148,000

0.1548 0.1081 0.0806 0.0700 0.0685 0.0731 0.0831 0.0981

0.1385 0.1076 0.0932 0.0880 0.0871 0.0940 0.1093 0.1320

r
I

NOTES: * Based on Figure on f= 6.13 = 1/55 [ ]. "rAt SL, 95F

**Based Assumed

197 sq.ft, and _d/_t

or rough estimated

values are shown in brackets

240

rn ..I r_ .'1=.

"I" UJ

O3 O CI: 14.

O
G] Z 0 nuJ "I"

SPEED OF FLIGHT:

KN

Figure 6.14

Comparison

of shaft horsepower

per pound of gross weight vs speed of level flight at SL/ISA of the over 100,000-1b gross weight class.

of Soviet and Western helicopters

241

of flight.
in the (especially than

Also, very

their

(IV/De)ma regimes maximum

x values of flying

appear

to flight, leads

be the the

highest high disc elevated

for

the

considered of the

class.

By contrast, machines requirements

low-speed at their

horizontal weights)

loading

hypothetical power

to more

per-unit-weight

for the Mi-12 Because of

and XCH-62A the previously curve Hypo

helicopters. discussed should be has uncertainty considered probably of the not regarding the SHP required at Vma x for the the goal of Mi-26,

the

(SHP/Wg r) = f(I/) set up required in the per

as approximate. been achieved begins XCH-62A. curves was

However,

aerodynamic

cleanness power

52-SR of gross

and consequently, from that

at V > 60 kn, the of the hypothetical

pound

weight similar of the

Mi-26 of the

to deviate

single-rotor With copters, facturer's pair more

helicopter respect it should data, to

and becomes the comparison that

to that the

(SHP/IVg of the

r) = f(I/)

of on

the

XCH-62A

and

Mi-12

helimanu-

be recalled that

curve was

XCH-62A from

based

wind-tunnel not even

supported completely appear

while

of the Mi-12 The than (SHP/Wg

reconstructed relationship

a single,

and

certain, to be

of SHP, as design

Vine x values. objectives

r) = f(V)

of the hypothetical

helicopters

characteristics

of actual

rotorcraft.

6.6

Energy

Aspects

in Level

Flight

at SL,

ISA

Fuel fuel

Required per

per pound

Pound of gross

of

Gross weight

Weight. and hour,

The and

numerical 100 n.mi

inputs are given

required in Table

for

a determination while the

of results

required

6.7,

are graphically One any

shown from in the per pound from

in Figs. Fig.

6.15 6.15

and 6.16. that the high even specific fuel consumption region, speed per that at V > as those of the Mi-12 resulting in the engines highest overbalances hourly fuel

can see

advantages

(SHP/Wg of gross Fig.

r) levels, weight that

in the low-speed the whole requirement higher helicopters than

requirements

throughout this fuel

range. unit of gross weight compared of the Mi-12 when

It is evident referred The and

6.16

to 100 n.mi fuel

of flight

distance of the

also remains hypothetical on the

of the other 50 kn, of the

helicopters. time while of flight for the

requirements seem

referred XCH-62A

to both model,

distance, they Fuel

to be approximately closer to those per Pound while of the

same

level type. Payload.

Mi-26,

are even Requirements

U.S. HLH

of Zero-Range the that the results due fuel

Similar

to the

preceding Figs. 6.17

case,

the

numerical It can be of the for the

inputs seen Mi-12 this

are shown from

in Table of these the those gap of

6.8,

are graphically

presented'in weight-empty pound that pound

and 6.18.

the first

figures between the

to a less favorable requirements even wider per

to gross-weight payload 6.15. payload

ratio and

helicopter, machine and helicopter

of zero-range shown in Fig.

hour

others

becomes fuel

than per

In General, and hour.

XCH-62A

represents

the lowest

requirements

of zero-range

242

TABLE RELATIVE FUEL REQUIREMENTS 100,000-LB

6.7 WITH RESPECT WEIGHT TO CLASS GROSS WEIGHT

OVER

GROSS

HELICOPTER ITEM Mil V-12 Mi-12 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR Mil M i-26 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS Boeing-Vertol XCH-62A 0.1638

(SHPTO/Wgr): SPEED OF FLIGHT: 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 SPEED OF FLIGHT: 0 40 6O 8O 100 120 140 160 SPEED OF FLIGHT: 0 40 6O 80 100 120 140 160 SPEED OF FLIGHT: 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
i

hp/Ib KN

0.1123

0.1770 RATIO

0.1821 OF SHP REQUIRED "0.985" 0.712 0.535 0.474 0.476 0.524 0.616 _0.751. FUEL CONSUMPTION: 0.44 0.45 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.45

0.1548 TO T.O: 1.0 0.698 0.521 0.454 0.443 0.472 0.537 0.634 LB/SHP-HR 0.47 0.51 0.55 0.59 0.595 0.58 0.545 0.52 SHP

[1.270] 0.845 0.658 0.586 0.649 0.756 0.940

1.0 0.716 0.527 0.445 0.415 0.429 0.445 0.496

0.846 0.556 0.569 0.538 0.532 0.579 0.643 0.813

KN

SPECIFIC [0.62] 0.66 0.725 0.75 0.73 0.69 0.64 0.44 0.48 0.525 0.56 0.58 0.565 0.56 0.54

0.47 0.48 0.49 0.495 0.49 0.485 0.48 0,47 LB/HR-LB 0.0651 0.0516 0.0457 0.0436 0.0422 0.0456 0.0525 0.0620 100 N.Mi

KN

FUEL [0.0884] 0.0626 0.0536 0.0514 0.05320.0586 0.O676

CONSUMPTION 0.0779 0.0609 0.0489 0.0441 0.0426 0.0429 0.0441 0.0474

PER HOUR 0.0782 0.0583 0.0487 0.0451 0.0451 0.0477 0.0523 0.0615

AND

POUND

OFGW:

0.0728 0,0551 0.0414 0.0431 0.0408 0.0424 0.0453 0.0510 OF GW AND 0.1378 0.0739 0.0517 0.0408 0.0353 0.O324 0,0319
i I

KN

FUEL 0.1566 0.0893 0.0642 0.0532 0.0488 0.0483

REQUIRED 0.1521 0.0816 0.0562 0.0426 0.0357 0.0315 O.0296

PER POUND 0.1458 0.0812 0.0564 0.0451 0.0398 0.0376 0.0385

0.1290 0.0761 0.0545 0.0422 0.0380 0.0375 0,0388

NOTE:

Assumed

or rough

estimated

values are shown in brackets

[ ].

243

24.4.

i
I
ik
li.

I |_gwgwg||Igu||_Wwwl

"!tq'N

OOi-ltl/fll

:!W'N

OOi _i tl9

-iO ONl'lOd

ttgd

131"1=1

245

TABLE FUEL REQUIREMENTS OVER WITH IO0,O00-LB RESPECT GROSS

6.8 TO ZERO--RANGE CLASS PAYLOAD

WEIGHT

HELICOPTER ITEM

Mil V-12 MS-12

Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR

Mil M i-26

Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS

Boeing-Vertol XCH-62A

MAX

IM UM GROSS

WEIGHT:

LB

231,500

131,375

123,480

129,210

148,000

PAYLOAD

ZERO

RANGE/GW

[0.381

[0.496]

0.488

[0.457]

0.557

SPEED

OF FLIGHT:

KN

FUEL

CONSUMPTION

PER HOUR

OF ZERO-RANGE

PAYLOAD

0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0.2320 0.1643 0.1409 0.1349 0.1396 0.1538 0.1774

0.1570 0.1228 0.0986 0.0889 0.0859 0.0865 0.0889 0.0952

0.1602 0.1195 0.0998 0.0924 0.0924 0.0977 0.1072 0.1260

0.1593 0.1206 0.0969 0.0906 0.0893 0.0928 0.0991 0.1116

0.1169 0.0926 0.0820 0.0783 0,0758 0.0819 0.0943 0.1113

SPEED

OF FLIGHT:

KN

FUEL

CONSUMPTION

PER

LB OF ZERO-RANGE

PAYLOAD

& 100 N.Mi

40 60 8O 100 120 140 160

0.4107 0.2345 0.1686 0.1396 0.1282 0.1267

0.3070 0.1643 0.1111 0.0859 0.0721 0.0635 0.0595

0.2987 0.1663 0.1155 0.0924 0.0815 0.O766 0.0788

0.3014 0.1615 0.1132 0.0893 0.0773 0.0708 0.O698

0.2316 0.1367 0.0978 0.0758 0.0682 0.0673 0.0696

NOTE:

Assumed

or rough

estimated

values are shown in brackets

[ ].

246

,A

"r' o

o u

U
0

<

7-,
_' 11 / / l '/I

i/

_"='_
0 0 0

I
I p

t_
! I

,)
'l 0 '-, i i " I I.O 0 ' , , i 0

o
N 0 e_

/
I -., I.l"l i , i 0 N , , , . I,I'2 ,' II i

t
, 0
r_

8-1"ldH/8-1:'ld::IONVU'OEI3Z dO GNnOa

UFIOH U3a o31=11n031=1l=ln=l

247

o 1,0
O O O

O O ,-4

o
_

-G
,J=

.J LI. U.

O
LU LJJ a. C/) O
_r_

C_

.o

O e_l

O
! r I | I e "| l I | e II g I 0

o
00

c_

o -IO _'I IJ3d -l_Jl'l -I

"!I_'N 00L-13-111_'I :!II_'N 00L _ -Id 3E)NVI=I-OEI3Z


248

The hypothetical of the XCH-62A per pound

helicopters

exhibit regimes

appreciably of flight;

higher payload-related

fuel requirements their energy single-rotor

than those expenditure

in the low-speed appear almost

but at high flying speeds,

of payload

as good, and in the case of the hypothetical HLH. the payload-related

configuration,

even slightly better With respect

than those of the American to the Mi-26, it appears that

fuel consumption

goals, as set by the

Hypo 52-SR, were closely met except The quirements Fuel respect above-mentioned referred Required

for some possible deviations are further supported

in the high cruise speed area. by the graphs of payload-related fuel re-

observations

to flight distance per Pound

shown

in Fig. 6.18. vs Distance payload (Table 6.9). The trend in fuel requirements presented with in

of Payload

to unit

of weight

of the zero-range depicted

is also confirmed

by the calculations

Table 6.9, and graphically A glance

in Fig. 6.19. indicate that the energy requirements for transporting a pound of paythe

at this figure would over various

load in the Mi-12

distances

is twice as high as those

of the two hypothetical

helicopters,

Mi-26, and the XCH-62A.

6.7

Productivity Productivity Index. on either Similar specified to Sections 4.6 and 5.7, the productivity or assumed index, calculated from Eq.

(1.17a), maximum

is based cruising

(Mi-12, Mi-26, and XCH-62A) inputs

(hypothetical

helicopters)

speed values. The necessary in Fig. 6.20.

for those calculations

are shown in Table 6.10, with flying

the results presented gross weights) one-third that

It can be seen from this figure that the PI values (at maximum are the highest, while those

of the XCH-62A

helicopter

of the Mi-12 are the lowest (about clearly however, superior to the Mi-12 in

of the HLH level). The hypothetical appear inferior to the XCH-62A.

helicopters,

although

this respect,

It should

be remembered,

that in the determina-

tion of PI values, the payload flying weight determination. factor

level is of prime The maximum

importance

and this, in turn,

depends on the maximum

gross weight of 148,000 at the transmission

lb for the HLH was solely based on limit of 17,700 helicopters, hp, this helicopter

the maneuvering has no hovering

level of n = 2.0. Therefore at SL, ISA; while

capability

for the hypothetical to hovering hovering

Wgrmax was arbitrarily

established

as maximum

gross weights

corresponding

OGE

at SL, ISA. For this reason, the of 134,300 lb. It can be seen

PI values for the XCH-62A from Fig. 6.20 rotor hypothetical that

are also shown index

at its maximum

weight

the productivity

of the HI, H becomes

almost identical

with that of the single-

helicopter. index of the Mi-26 at its maximum flying weight (which is lower than the SL, OGE

The productivity hovering weight)

appears to be slightly below that of the Hypo 52-SR.

249

TABLE FUEL REQUIRED PER OVER POUND 100,000-LB OF

6.9 AT VARIOUS CLASS DISTANCES

PAYLOAD GROSS

WEIGHT

HELICOPTER ITEM Mil V-12 Mi-12 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR Mil Mi-26 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS Boeing-Vertol XCH-62A 148,000

MAXIMUM Opt. Fuel

GROSS

WEIGHT:

LB

231,500

131,375

123,480

129,210

Consumed

per Lb of Zero-

0.1267

[0.0595]

0.0766

[0.0698]

0.0696

Range PL and 100 N.Mi DISTANCE: 0 5O 100 150 2O0 250 N.Mi 0 0.0678 0.1456 0.2353 0.3405 0.4652 FUEL 0 0.0309 0.0638 0.0989 0.1364 0.1765 n REQUIRED PER POUND 0 0.0398 0.0829 0.1129 0.1809 0.2368 OF PAYLOAD 0 0.0363 0.0753 0.1173 0.1628 0.2121 0 0.0360 0.0748 0.1166 0.1617 0.2110

TABLE PRODUCTIVITY OVER IO0,000-LB INDEX

6.10 AT Verma WEIGHT x AT SL, ISA

GROSS

CLASS

HELICOPTER ITEM Mil V-12 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SR Mil Mi-26 123,480 Hypothetical Hypo 52-SBS L MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT: LB 231,500 _613 0.381 130 N .M i) N.Mi 80.8 67.4 54.1 0.063 [131,375] "0.499_ [129,210] 148,000 _438 0.557 . 135 0.050 Mi-12 Boeing-Vertol XCH-62A

w_/wgr
(WpPolWgr
Vcrmax: kn FF at Vcrma x (Ib/Ib-100 FLIGHT DISTANCE: 0 100 200

_504
0.488 137.6 0.052 J

-0.538"
0.457 . 145 0.046

o.496 /
145 0.045

PRODUCTIVITY 144.2 131.1 118.0

INDEX

AT

Vcrmax:

LB-N.Mi/LB-HR 123.2 110.8 98.4 171.6 156.3 140.9

133.4 119.2 105.0

NOTE;

Assumed or rough estimated

values are shown in brackets

[ ].

250

8
0 e_

o o

0
o

8
e_

I'4

g
m 0

Lii
o Z le'J

oo

t_ I"Ira
-J

0 0 0 0 0

8"1/0"1

"'Id

40

8"I l:Fld

011:1117011:113n4

251

v; u

.D 0 0 0

8 E

<

,4

>

:g

252

6.8

General It should

Discussion be emphasized

and Concluding that

Remarks some important uncertainties regarding the principal

as of this writing,

characteristics

and performance

of the Mi-12 and Mi-26 still exist. empty of 142,000 lb was based on the statement gross weight (231,480 (see Appendix to

For instance, this chapter) a useful meters

the Mi-12 weight

by the chief pilot of the Mi-12 that

at 105 m.ton

lb), the aircraft has flight to 2250

load of 40 tons (88,180

lb). The weight-empty Ib of payload, -- 231,500

value, computed

from

the record

with a crew of six and 88,633 at Wgrmax -- 105 m.ton that 6700

is somewhat

lower. This record flight was presumably takeoff (see Appendix to this chapter, con-

accomplished and Ref. tinuous

lb using a running

1). Also assuming power; i.e., about the aircraft standard

the amount

of fuel at takeoff empty would

was for one-half amount to 134,850 taking

hour at maximum lb. However,

lb, the weight

it is not

clear whether better than

was loaded

above its maximum (see Appendix).

gross weight, of these

advantage

of "something

day conditions"

Because

uncertainties,

the weight empty

of 142,000

Ib was assumed

for the Mi-12 in this study. that for the sake of simplicity, to be permissible values obtained the rotor unloading by the wing in highand relatively configura-

One should speed flight

also remember

was neglected.

This appears

in view of other for the winged

uncertainties

small differences tions of the Mi-6. There

in the (SHP/Wg r) = f(t0

and pure helicopter

are also some uncertainties that "The nominal

regarding 20 re.ton

the VTO gross weight. (44,092 lb) payload

Tishchenko

indicated

(see Appen-

dix to this chapter) ft) standard

is based on HOGE at 1000 m (3,280 fuel reserve." of 190,000 lb, the fuel

day conditions;

fuel for 510 km (275.2

n.mi); and 5 percent and an average be 24,880 allowing

Assuming required assumed

FFw-- 0.05 Ib/Ib-100

n.mi (Fig. 6.16) reserve, would

gross weight

for 275 n.mi, with 5 percent weight empty of 134,850

lb. For the specified the helicopter

crew of six, and an

lb, the gross weight

to hover OGE at 1000m

ISA would

still be 205,150

lb, while the VTO gross weight (corresponding in Section 6 -amounts to 195,000

to hover OGE at 3000 ft ISAthe WgrVTO -- 195,500 lb. influence lb

close to 1000

m) determined

lb. Should amount

(Table 6.3) be correct, It is obvious on all figures payload percent. would This, that

then the corresponding the difference to payload

weight empty would 125,200

to only 125,200

of 142,000-

= 16,800

lb would have a noticeable per pound

related

in general; 19 percent,

for instance,

the fuel requirements

of zero-range 35

be lower by about of course,

while the relative productivity more attractive

would

be higher by about

would make the Mi-12 somewhat

with respect

to other helicopters

considered derived

in the over 100,000qb

gross weight class. Nevertheless, weight empty of 142,000

it would not alter the overall conclusions lb. it appears that the overall design in spite of the fact that

below on the basis of the assumed the comparison

From effectiveness

of the Mi-12 helicopter machine

with the XCH-62A,

of the Soviet

is not as high as its American

counterpart,

253

aerodynamically,

in the approximate

10 to 145-kn flying speed interval, per pound

the Mi-12 shows advantages

over

the American HLH as witnessed However, 'official' practically further maximum order these advantages flying weight

by the SHP required are offset

of gross weight (Fig. 6.14). weight of the Mi-12. For instance, of the Mi-12 is 88,200 at its

by the higher

structural

maximum

of 231,500

Ib, the zero-range (88,470 weight in spite

payload

lb, which is lb. As a

the same as that

of the XCH-62A

lb) at a flying gross weight of only 148,000 aspects, the Mil helicopter installed to about when operating power

consequence

of the high structural is underpowered,

close to its hp. In

flying weight

of the total

takeoff 198,000

of 26,000

to hover OGE at SL, ISA, its gross weight must be reduced dropping to about 54,500 lb; while under

lb, with the zero-range helicopter lb. comparisons of the with

payload

the same circumstances, payload

the XCH-62A of about

its transmission-limited The consequences of this aircraft payload 6.20). Apparently, eliminate

power

of I7,700 hp, should have a zero-range weight

74,800

of the high structural

of the Mi-12 are visible in all subsequent requirements are related

with the American figures);

HLH when energy

to the unit weight

(see corresponding

and is equally visible in the comparison

of the productivity

index (Fig.

the Soviet designers

realized

the above-mentioned helicopters. gross weight

deficiencies

of the Mi-12 and tried to

them in their future helicopters 53.5-m.ton

designs of heavyqift design

This trend is clearly visible in the so-called (very similar to the design gross weight of

hypothetical approximately the Mi-26.

of the 52-re.ton

for the XCH-62A),

and was fully confirmed

in the manufacturer's

figures for

As previously quired

mentioned,

although

there

are some uncertainties with respect

regarding

the Mi-26 SHP value reand thus,

at Vmnx. This in turn computations

casts some doubt

to the (SHP/Wg r) = f(11') relationship

on all subsequent weights

as well. Nevertheless,

on the basis of 'solid' manufacturer's ones related objectives to forward

figures regarding it may

and hovering that

performance, most

plus the more speculative and performance

flight aspects,

be determined

of the weight

as represented

by the single-rotor

52-ton hypothetical The new D-136 sents

helicopter

have been met. with its Western-level factors in the success sfc and specific weight values, undoubtedly repre-

turboshaft, important

one of the most

of the Mi-26 in attaining

the design goals set for

the hypothetical Should formance American

helicopters. and flying qualities aspects of the Mi-26 that could be as good as its weights prove highly competitive and perwith the

the operational then

aspects, HLH.

the Soviets

will have a helicopter

254

APPENDIX

- CHAPTER

EXERPTS

FROM

BOEING-VERTOL

REPORT No. D210-10301-1 HELICOPTER"

"A DESCRIPTION

OF THE Mil V-12 TRANSPORT by T. R. Pierpoint June 30, 1971

INTRODUCTION The USSR brought Show which took a M1L B-12 helicopter place at Le Bourget (sometimes referred to as the Mil V-12) to the 1971 Paris Air between 27 May and 6 June. This report and from discussion

Airport,

Paris, France,

has been prepared

to summarize

what was learned from examinations

of the helicopter

with various USSR personnel. Through Mr. Igor S. Gouriev who was the Director of the USSR Exposition at the Air Show, contact was plant

made with Mr. Marat Tishchenko MIL because he replaced Two extended sessions

who is the new chief designer

and head of the Moscow helicopter

Mr. Mil as Chief Designer upon Mr. Mil's death in January 1971. were held. The first consisted of a several hour long inspection of the aircraft

itself on 1 June 1971. A. From the USSR: Mr. Marat N. Tishchenko .................. Mr. B. A. Koloshenko ................................ Mr. Leonid Mr. Nicolay Mr. Anatoly Maslov .................................. ............................ ................................ Chief of the M.L. Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant Mil V-12 Chief Test Pilot Chief, Rotor Head Design Automatic Systems Designer Mil-8 Pilot

Drobroljubov A. Sokolov

Mil-6, 8 & 10 Test Pilot

Mr. Pelevin ............................................... and several others

B.

From Boeing and Agusta: Mr. Howard N. Stuverude ......................... Vice President Vertol Division, Mr. Bruno Lovera .................................... Construzioni Mr. Fred Doblhoff ................................... & General Manager

The Boeing Company Chief Design Engineer Aeronautiche Director Agusta

of Engineering Corp., Europe Pilot

Boeing International Mr. William Coffee Mr. T. R. Pierpoint ..................................... ................................. Director

Boeing-Vertol Current

Programs

Boeing-Vertol 255

The with A.

second the

session

occurred persons

on

4 June

1971

and

consisted

of a three

to four

hour

technical

discussion

following

in attendance:

From

the USSR: N. Tishchenko Maslov .................. Chief of the M.L. Mil Moscow Chief, Helicopter Head Test Automatic Systems Plant Design Pilot

Mr. Marat Mr. Leonid Mr. Anatoly Mr. Nicolay Mrs. Nina

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

Rotor

A. Sokolov Drobroljubov Artamonova

Engineer Interpreter

B.

From

the USA: N. Stuverude ......................... Vice Vertol President The & General Boeing Vertol Current Vertol Manager Company Division Programs Division American

Mr. Howard

Division, Design

Mr. Tadeusz

Tarczynski

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

Specialist, Director

Mr. T. R. Pierpoint

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

The

Contents

of this report in addition

have been

compiled has

from been

notes

provided herein

to the writer has been reviewed

by each

of the

participants pants pants. In the to for

to his own. completion

What and

written represent

by each

of the particiof all partici-

accuracy

and

therefore

a summary

of the

recollections

7 or 8 hours technical

spent aspects

with of They hours

the the

Russians, aircraft not been

there

appeared

to be absolutely thoughts how many of hours the aircraft with

no

constraint to the aircraft aircraft

on future

their and

part other or will

discuss

as well as their however flown, discuss the

respect

aspects

of VTOL

aircraft. how many

would have vague

Mil V-12 on the

have at the on

been

be constructed, nor wide of the Week future plans.

number or not

Air Show, the worldKelley,

They market

were and

also

as to whether

would price.

be placed However, construction, hundred

commercial Bell (June

would

not

give an indication by them other that

of its selling

Mr. Bart

Helicopter 7, 1971) final

Company reported features

was told that not one

20 helicopters is flying aircraft

are under and that

and Aviation will be built

Mil V-12 in the

several herein.

incorporating OVERALL The

design

incorporated MIL V-12 aircraft of 97 with metric

described

DESCRIPTION helicopter

OF THE is a giant gross weight

Mil V-12

an tons

overload (213,846 the that

gross

weight

of

105

metric

tons

(231,483 rotor

pounds), configuration Each the rotor shaft for rotor landing

and a normal with

pounds). rotors.

It is a side by side (lateral)

approximately

8.5%

overlap

between

5-bladed is braced there

is supported gear and

on a pylon-wing fuselage. rotor. At the Each

arrangement

by large is located D-25VF

struts

interconnecting housing two

to both engines, of 6500

end of each

pylon-wing by two

a nacelle

transmission horsepower control

and

rotor

is powered hp

Soloviev (approximately

turboshaft hp

engines

connected

to a 13,000+

transmission each

1500

additional

is required 14,500 hp)

differential

purposes, to the

so it is probable rotor.

transmission

is capable

of transmitting

which

is directly

connected

256

The rotors nected

are 35 meters

in diameter extending

(114.83

ft) Mil-10 rotors with modified transmission

blades.

The rotors transmission

are conlocated

by a cross shaft center

from each nacelle rotor permits

to a mixing

in the upper

fuselage.

This transmission

power

to be transmitted

from one nacelle package

to the other in the event of a loss of one or both engines on either side. The aft fuselage is equipped with large clam shell doors and ramp both of which are hydraulically operated. The internal clear fuselage cross section is 4.4 meters by 4.4 meters (14.44 ft X 14.44 ft) which is the same dimension as the Anatov 22 large turboprop be used in conjunction with the AN-22. Thus, the cabin is capable of clear straight in-loading transport. The Mil V-12 was specifically developed to

of objects up to 28.15 meters the length

(92.36 ft) long. Located an

in the top overhead fittings cockpit

of the fuselage shell are two I beams crane electrically operated

running

of the cabin to which is mounted tons (22,046 pounds).

that is capable

of lifting

ten metric

Tie-down

are provided

generously

throughout

the cabin floor. A single row of troop was mounted

seats that fold up against in the cabin area, but the

the cabin are located

on each side of the cabin. No soundproofing were soundproofed. tricycle

and crew areas forward

The landing

gear is of conventional

design, with dual wheels employed on the bottom

for both the nose and main aft fuselage just ahead of the Hydraulically operated was did

wheel locations. ramp are four

The nose wheel swivels 360 degrees. Located boggie wheels apparently in order installed

for tail low landing support the

purposes.

pads extend installed not intend

down

when loading

to provide tipping questioned,

to the fuselage. engineers

No cargo hook replied that they

in the aircraft to install

demonstrated

and when

Russian

one on this aircraft.

(Conflicting

information

was given to Mr. Coffee by the Mil V-12 pound) hook available.)

Chief Pilot, Koloshenko, The aircraft

who claimed there is a 16 metric ton (35,274 for instrument

is fully equipped accepted

flight and flight under icing conditions. has been developed n.mi) from airports principally for the movement of military

It is generally prop transport In flight,

that this helicopter sites.

and civil equipment

up to 500 km (269.70

capable of accepting

the AN-22 large turbo-

aircraft to isolated

the aircraft gentle

was very quiet turns (less than and a quite

and it was maneuvered

as one would expect

with a very large aircraft, 260 kilometers flight of

demonstrating per hour

30 bank angles), high-speed slow reduction

flight of approximately

(140.30

knots),

in air speed to a hover followed

by rearward 10 minutes

approximately The pre-flight

15 knots.

It was flown twice during the Air Show for approximately to be several hours in length before

each flight. noted

was observed

each flight. The only thing unusual

in the flight was that upon starting, the No. 3 engine had a tendency to torch for quite a period of time. It appeared to take about three minutes from the start for the rotors to come to their normal rotational speed of 120 rpm. Although flown at light gross weights, From the rotors appeared to have more coning slow down constant below. than would be expected the aircraft by

at low gross weights. demonstrated

a close observation

of the second

to hover maneuver, longitudinal

a tendency

to porpoise

thus appearing to require

stick correction

the pilot. Overall performance

as given by the Russians is shown

257

A.

Published

USSR data given out freely at the Paris Air Show: Metric U.S. 231,483 213,846 114.8315 lbs lbs ft

Maximum Normal Rotor

Gross Weight

105 tons 87 tons 35 meters @ 6500 hp) 26,000 hp 37 meters 67 meters 12.5 meters

Gross Weight Diameter Power (4 turbines (less rotors) (with rotors turning) Tail

Installed Length Length

26,000 hp 121.3933 ft 219.8203 41.01i2 ft ft

Height of Vertical Cabin Dimensions: Length (including Width (clear) Height (clear-w/o Maximum Speed Cruise Speed

ramp open) internal crane)

28.15

meters

92,3573 14,4359 14.4359 161.5580 149.1305 11,483.15 6

ft ft ft mph mph ft

4.4 meters 4.4 meters 260 km/hr 240 km/hr Altitude 35 O0 meters 6

Maximum Operational Crew

The Mil V-12 established (88,633

a world-wide

helicopter

payload ft).

lifting record

by lifting

a 40,204

kilogram

lbs) load to an altitude

of 2250 meters (7,382

B.

Detailed discussions 1. The 40,204 standard 2.

with Mr. Tishchenko kilogram (88,633

revealed: flight was accomplished was employed. is based on: day conditions. in something better than

Ibs) record

day conditions, 20 metric

and a rolling takeoff ton (44,092

The nominal

lbs) payload

HOGE @ 1,000 meters (3,280.9 Fuel for 510 km (275.1979 5% Fuel Reserve 3. Specific fuel consumption 0.258 kilograms/hp/hour C. Discussions 1. between

feet), standard

n.mi)

of the Soloviev D-25DV engine is "approximately": which = 0.5688 Pilot, pounds/hp-hour. Koloshenko, 38,000 and Boeing-Vertol pilot, Coffee, 2 external revealed: auxiliary

Mil V-12 Chief

Total ferry fuel load is approximately tanks and two internal auxiliary tanks. pounds),

lbs carried in the pylon/wings,

2.

At 105 metric pounds).

tons (231,483

the aircraft

has a useful

load of 40 metric

tons (88,184

258

WHY THE CONFIGURATION Mr. Tishchenko advised that the side by side configuration part for the following reasons: A. In order rotors payload B. to reduce development costs a decision payload pounds). their studies design. showed length Further, that 5-bladed rotors of the Mil-10 type from span this effect was selected after considerable study on their

was made at the highest level to mate two Mil-10 of 30 metric tons (66,138 pounds) with a normal

in order

to obtain

an overload

of 20 metric tons (44,092

When saddled when weigh placed

with this requirement, in tandem more would than result

in fuselage

and pylon height the increased power percent

of such size that it would drag resulting from

considerably

the current offset

configuration

is, in their

opinion,

by the minimum 15-20

gains resulting

as well as from the wing which provides Incidentally,

approximately

of the lift in cruise. Tishchenko pointed arrangewould

early in the first session when discussing power required for forward

"Why the Configuration,"

out that minimum ment,

flight was 40% of hovering

power for a lateral that a tandem

50% for a single rotor

arrangement,

and 80% for a tandem.

We objected

be as high as 80% and he then admitted C. They also favored structures. rotor rpm, this configuration

it could be as low as 65%. because of the relative frequency they ease by which they could tune the pylon was close to one per to approximately to accomplish with

When first constructed, and by adding rpm. Tishchenko additional opined

the natural struts configured

of the pylon structures the structure

were able to tune

1.5 rotor

that

this would have been much more difficult aircraft. a tandem tandem configuration was that aircraft

the fuselage When questioned rotors optimized

and pylons of a tandem whether for the he would desired Belvedere

have selected successful

if he were permitted only one company was Boeing-Vertol. of unsuccessful

to utilize He cited tandem of tandem

payload

and range,

his reply

in the world

had been able to consistently the YAK-24, designs the Bristol

develop

aircraft,

and that

and the Bell ASW tandem

as examples

and therefore which

he feels there

must be special techniques do not possess.

employed

in the construction

helicopters however.

he and other

USSR designers

He did not say he would

not try again,

He also commented

on the fact that he felt that the Chinook would not employ more overlap to about than about

utilized

too much overlap overlap

between

the rotors rotor

and that he personally tandem. 3-bladed Model He noted CH-47C

18 or 20 percent

with a 4-bladed

that we had reduced Chinook helicopter

with our Model

347 from the 32% overlap vertical separation

in the current

26% with increased

on the 4-bladed

347 helicopter. and probably was one of the principal reasons why the 347 8.5% overlap

He felt that was a step in the right direction is showing itself to have superior with its 5-bladed rotors.

flying characteristics.

The Mil V-12 employs

approximately

259

Chapter Overview of Design Parameters

7 and Performance

7.1

Introduction Objectives and Presentation. of design As the comparative trends study progressed, capabilities it became apparent that in order it

to obtain would

a clear picture

and performance

of the compared

helicopters,

be advantageous

to present

each of the important throughout

comparison

parameters

in a specific graph, showConsequently, a loga-

ing the variation rithmic

of each parameter

the investigated

gross-weight

range. parametric

gross-weight

scale was selected

as an abscissa, while the investigated scale.

values were plotted

as ordinates

to the usually linear and, in some cases, also logarithmic graphs, points representing symbols individual as shown

In these summary but only through copter duction,

aircraft are no longer in Tables

designated

by model, the heli-

easy recognizable

graphic

7.1 and 7.2 identifying and type

configuration, hypothetical,

type of gross weight or Western machines).

(i.e., maximum,

normal,

or VTOL),

(i.e., Soviet pro-

7.2

Principal

Design

Parameters The trends in disc loading helicopter, values shown in Fig. 7.1 increase with gross weight flying gross

Disc Loading (Fig. 7.1).

and, for the largest Western single-rotor weight. The disc loadings

reaches a level of 15 psf at its maximum growth with gross weights production helicopters,

of Western tandems of single-rotor by lower

also exhibit machines.

but, in general those regardless of their By contrast, the

values remain below configuration,

those

Soviet

are characterized

disc loadings become

than their Western counterparts. closer to the upper in actual limit

disc loadings of Soviet It is apparent Mi-26 helicopter, that

hypothetical

helicopters

of the Western trend. by the

this new design philosophy

is followed

new designs as exemplified flying weight. indicate adopted

whose disc loading goes up to 14.26 psf at its maximum A study in earlier of installed Soviet power loading

Power Loading. this design parameter signers. However,

(Fig. 7.2) would clearly those appear

that values of by Western de-

helicopters

are, in general, above

in the more recent models

as the Mi-24 and Mi-26 they seem to closely follow

on the same level as in by the Tish-

their Western counterparts. chenko

In this respect, they

the trend established

team in their studies of hypothetical

helicopters.

260

TABLE 7.1 SOVIET ACTUAL AND HYPOTHETICAL HELICOPTERS

ACTUAL HELICOPTERS

APPROX. MAX. GW (LB) MAX. GW

SYM BO LS NORM. GW VTO GW

KAMOV

Ka-26

7,150 7,800 8,150

Mil Mi-2 W/Allison Engines Mil Mi-2 KAMOV Ka-25

16,100 22,000

Mil Mi-24D Mil-8 Mil Mi-10K Mil Mi-6 W/Wings Mil Mi-26 Mil Mi-12

O
26,450 83,800 93,700 123,480 231,500

,&

-V"
GW MAX. GW SYMBOLS NORM. GW VTO GW

HYPOTHETICAL HELICOPTERS

NGW/MAX. (LB)

S.R S. R S.R

15 M.Ton 24 M.Ton 52 M.Ton

33,050/[ 52,900/[

37,800] 58,700]

114,700/[ 131,350] 114,700/[ 129,200]

S.B.S 52 M.Ton

261

TABLE 7.2
WESTERN HELICOPTERS

APPROX. HELICOPTERS

MAX. GW MAX. GW

SY M BO LS NORM. GW VTO GW

(LB)

MBB Bo-105CB BELL 222 AEROSPATIALE BELL UH-1H SIKORSKY S-76 SA-330J YUH-61A SA-365N

5,100 7,850 8,500 9,500

"_ ! I I

10,000 16,300 19,700 20,250 22,050 CH-46E 23,300 42,000 CH-47D 50,000 73,500 XCH-62A 148,000

'_, _'

AE ROSPATIALE BOEING-VERTOL SIKORSKY SIKORSKY

J V

/k

UH-60A CH-3E

BOEING VERTOL SIKORSKY CH-53D

BOEING VERTOL SIKORSKY CH-53E

BOEING VERTOL

262

b,o

b_

_-ISd :gNIQVOI

OSI(]

263

to O y

0 tO

0 0 0 cO I-_,1 Z O O O

O
0'3 0 cO Z rr ILl

.:
"tO l,U

N
0

_o
0 eL

0
Z I,Ll r_ --J I,LI

0 t'y

& 0
El >0 UJ

0 0
J tl

[>.
"b
i ,,|, $ ,I

F-

"
i ,1 w

0
Z 1,1') O3 0

O')

CO

1'_

(,D

dHS/'a"l

:_NIGVO-I

EI'=IMOd

264

Tip Speed. Western

It appears that a tip speed of about 700 fps represents 7.3). However, for smaller helicopters,

an average value for both Soviet and

designs (Fig.

Western designers seem to favor tip speeds lower. For large

values slightly helicopters,

higher than

700 fps, while those of Soviet designers appear to be noticeably

both design schools

seem to agree that tip speeds of 720 to 750 fps are most feasible. and Advance Ratios. It can be seen from Fig. 7.4 that the old MrabI_ barrier. conventional At fast cruise,

Advancing-Tip helicopters

Mach Numbers

- regardless of their tip Mach number

national

origin - still encounter

..he advancing

does not usually go above hhe M = 0.9 level, while almost all of the advance within Loading. the 0.3 to 0.4 band. The absolute values of the equivalent flat plate reflect area loading

ratio values appear to be included Equivalent indicated bility Flat Plate Area

in Fig. 7.5 may be somewhat

conservative under

as they may, to some extent, the high advancing

both compressiand/l conditions; regarding

and incipient

stall effects encountered

tip Mach number

but the general trend should be correct, as well as the relative ranking of the compared their aerodynamic of the with cleanness. helicopters; As may be expected, this aerodynamic cleanness

helicopters

improves

with size (gross when com-

weight) pared designs,

but still remains

disappointingly

low for the production class. It should

machines

fixed-wing

aircraft

of the same gross-weight hope to achieve

also be noted

that in their new the current

the Soviet

designers

much higher wfp values than those

representing

state of the art. Unfortunately, cleanness at this time, it is impossible machines to evaluate the extent that those goals of aerodynamic represented by the regarding

set up in the hypothetical As previously

have been achieved

in the actual design

Mi-26 helicopter. the SHP required as preliminary.

mentioned

in Chapter

6, there is no reliable

available information

at Vma x. Consequently, Nevertheless,

the vvip = 627 psf value noted the ambitious

in Fig. 7.5 should be considered for the Hypo

it appears that

goal of Wrp = 1460 psf shown

52-SR has not been approached. Average lift coefficients the Western Blade Lift and Profile (CT/O) exhibited Drag Coefficients. by Soviet production It is apparent helicopters from Fig. 7.6 that the average blade higher than those of their _#'s

are, in general,

counterparts.

Again, as far as the hypothetical

and Mi-26 helicopters

are concerned,

are more in line with those of the West. The c-o's were evaluated from the known g_ and (f/fro) values computed the so-obtained from the two-point approach.

It can be seen from the lower part of Fig. 7.6 that close to the 0.01 mark for all of the considered 7.3 Weight Weight maximum Aspects Empt F and Zero-Range flying gross weight Payload

c'a level appears to be quite uniformly

helicopters.

to Gross-Weight

Ratios.

As in the preceding specified by the

chapters, the of

(symbolized

by the inverted

triangle)

manufacturer

265

O uo 04

O uO
v,-

O O O m ..J o

ooO
'_,

6z

E>
O cO 0_ O9

O
too 04

co

O o 00

O o _,-

o o (D

0 o '_"

0 o (w

$d6

:GBBd$

dWl _O10_

266

0 0

0 t_

0 0 g

>

0 0

f
b b
0

.o

6 _

b
I w

?
|

d
OIIVI::I

:IONVACIV

l::JO "ON NOVlAI :III IDNIONVA(]V

267

o o C_l o Lo

O O O

,.d

_o
\\
\. \

o o

O..

Lu c_ 0_ co O O

o
dL_

:::s o*'

'e'* '/., .//_ fT.,

I:::> , I:::> i...";


co

O O
,t=-

O O
_==

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

.-IScl :ONIOYO7

V31::IV 3.LVTcl ,,I.V7_-I .I.N37VAINO3

268

1.0

I
!

<

,...,

L\
0o

T _ F'_.I _'i " J

,q.

f.i.,

o I_

d d o IN3101=ld300 ' 6
-'

ci d d 1.117 3OVI_3AV 1
0 0 0

' d
0

c_

269

each

aircraft

was selected

whenever

possible

as a basis for computing

the weight

empty

and zero-range are also shown. less effi-

payload

to gross-weight

ratios

(Figs. 7.7 and 7.8). Values related weight-wise,

to normal

gross weights

From these figures, cient than their they

one can see that Western

the Soviet production from the trends

helicopters established

are generally by

counterparts.

But, judging

the hypothetical helicopters. heli-

machines, Furthermore,

expect

to have their that

new designs on the optimal ambitious

boundary

of the Western

it is apparent

the rather

weight goals represented

by the hypothetical

copters have actually 7.4 Hovering

been achieved

in the Mi-26 helicopter.

Aspects of Merit. It can be seen from the highest Fig. 7.9 that all twin-rotor generally configurations (i.e., coaxial,

Overall Figure side-by-side, Single-rotor

and tandem) helicopters

exhibit

overall figures of merit,

in excess of the 0.6 level. scatter. As far as pattern

show lower values of the overall figure of merit, and Western helicopters is concerned, there

with noticeable

the comparison of differences.

of Soviet

seems to be no established

SHP per Pound SHP per pound sponding

of Gross Weight Required required

in Hover OGE at SL, ISA.

Figure

7.10 indicates

that

the

of gross weight becomes required

to hover OGE at SL, ISA increases

as the size, with the corre-

disc loading, power

larger. Older Soviet and Western per unit of gross weight, of power becomes while

designs seem to form the lower boundary in more recent designs of both schools,

of the hovering including

the Mi-26; this expenditure

higher. Flying Gross Weights. It is interesting and maximum that definite in contrast than to take flying differto the

Ratio of Maximum a look at the relationships gross weights ences Soviet specified

OGE, SL Hovering of the maximum by the manufacturers.

to Maximum

OGE at SL, ISA hovering A glance at Fig. 7.11

gross weights would indicate case-

exist between approach

production

Soviet

and Western helicopters. hovering weight

In the latter

- the SL, ISA maximum

is almost

always higher

the permissible men-

maximum tioned, sponding normal 7.5

flying weight.

For the Soviet hypothetical

machines,

this ratio is one since, as previously was arbitrarily established

the maximum to hover

flying gross weight used in this presentation

as that corre-

OGE at SL, ISA, and for the Mi-26, it is close to one (1.007). be quite high; amounting to about 1.24.

For the Mi-24-D at its

gross weight, it would probably Flight Aspects

Forward

SHPIWg r = f(V). be too crowded. considered

A single graph showing the reader

this relationship

for all of the compared

helicopters

would

Consequently,

is referred

back to the SHP/Wgr 5.18, and 6.14.

= f(V) plots for each of the four

gross-weight

classes; i.e, Figs. 3.19, 4.18,

270

i
0

8 E
,,=

t.,,

.._

l
o"
II _ .

I r

o 1HOI3M

o 880_O/lldlA13

c_
IHOI3M

271

O O 04 O

/ i

O O "IO

Z_o
_0
/

o=,
o
-r O

Z_

O0
.jO.
,/ /

/=

_N
a.O Oco

o
O

.09

r,_

zoo
-J rn
J

o rr

,,r

.o.
gO

L_ O

o_

cO

e_

i' '

c_

6
IHE)I3M

6
3ONVEI-OI=I3Z

SSOI::IE)I(]VO7,kVd

272

I 1.0 0 0 c_ 0 Lo

0 0 0 ,-I

o
0

0 0 0

0 ,_

O
o 0 0 c_

It)

cO

I.o

_.

,_

d _3AOFt

NI 11_31_1 _-IO 3WI7E)I_-I 77Y_3AO

273

dH/8-t

,OhlIC]V07

_3MOd
0

I.

0 0

<
0 0 q,0

0
o en ,..,,.I 0 0 0

CO

0 o

0
iq

or,,
r_

O
p

0
-r

>

_--- ._ >
0
Z

.._

O_

871dH

:H_I:IM

880k:RD

-.10 ONl_Od

_:ld

dbl8

274

0 Lt) c_ 0 O c_

i t,,,o !CO _Z < n0 Z

.
0

LUI, o. Z I,.., Z

oo

> [

rr .0
--

o
o oo
.:
0

co :_
"1-.
I.o

E>

,'l,W

cO

0
0 c_
o_ 0

./
| i

cO

tD

_"

O_

aO

(J.HOI3M 8801=I0)/(78

c_
'=!00

c5
:MD

cJ

_)NI,_I3AOH)

275

Looking weighing

at rotary-wing to 30,000

aircraft pounds

having

gross weights

of up to 12,000

pounds

(Fig. 3.19) and those

12,000

(Fig. 4.18), requirements

one can see that in the low-speed than their Western


the (Wgr/D

range, Soviet helicopters It should also be noted to the

of both classes exhibit that with the exception equivalent

lower power

counterparts.
e) =

of the S-76, which slightly exceeds

5 value, the gross-weight

drag ratios of all the other helicopters gross-weight 5.18), classes,

are disappointingly.low. should be noted: in the 30,000 to lO0,O00-pound Western

In the higher gross-weight helicopters,

the following

class (Fig.

the Mi-6 appears low power

to exhibit

a higher throughout

(Wgr/D e) than the compared

as well as relatively expected

requirements

the whole range of flight speeds. The over those of the Mi-6, as exem-

Soviet designers

to improve

the high-speed

power

requirements

plified by the hypothetical The same expectation helicopters 6.14). having gross

15 and 25-ton helicopters. of improved weights aerodynamic pounds; presendy cleanness especially, available, is also visible for the Hypo it appears for Soviet hypothetical (Fig.

over 100,000

52-SR helicopter

However,

on the basis of the information that the Soviet their structural designers

from

the SHP/Wg r = f(V) cleanness

curve of the Mi-26

were not as successful

in achieving goals.

aerodynamic

as they were in reaching Optimal once more figure,

weight and hovering performance Drag Ratios. The maximum appearing would

Gross-Weight in Fig. 7.12. realize

to Equivalent Looking that weight

(Wgr/D o) values in the formula

are summarized with this as far as with

at the design

parameters

included effect

one should

minimization

of the w/wfp ratio drag ratio because

have the greatest

betterment respect sional

of maximum

to the equivalent

is concerned.

But going too far down and overall aircraft

to the disc loading aspects. Greatly

is not very practical aerodynamic

of the weight of design-

empty

dimen-

improved seems

cleanness

as represented

by the high equivalent the (Wgr/Do)rnax will continue ratio. to try

flat-plate Apparently,

area loadings-

to be the most intended to follow

profitable

way of improving

the Soviet designers

that line in the past, and probably

in the future. Fast Cruise. It can be seen from Fig. 7.13 that fast cruise is usually performed at about 140 kn for For the

most Western helicopters, Mi-26, fast cruise

as well as for the large production km/h; i.e., 137.6

and hypothetical Soviet

Soviet helicopters. especially

is given as 255

kn. Small

helicopters,

the coaxial

configurations,

appear

to have fast cruise speeds much lower than their Western Assuming

counterparts.

Ideal Absolute productivity

Productivity.

the fast cruise values as shown in Fig. 7.13, the ideal absolute to the 100 n.mi range (Fig. 7.14). Soviet helicopters helicopters Here, it can be

was computed

for payloads productivity The points

corresponding of production of hypothetical

seen that the ideal absolute sponding Western machines.

remains below that of the correline, while the

are on the Western-trend

Mi-26 is dose to that line.

276

277

0 I.o

o
0 0

0
r,:

0 0 0 0

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N)i

:1H91"1-1:10

O:l:ld8

278

0 0

0 1,0

0 0

0 0 0

\
0

ILl

o _=

0 rr _

It)

Q_

_a. O0

_l! I J I' l I _1 I J_l''' I I I # i ql_

I:IHI!_'N

- l_l'l

:,k.J.IAl.l.OIQCOl=Id

279

Productivity" Index tivity indexEq (1.17))

(Ideal Relative is shown

Productivit_).

The ideal relative

productivity

(also called produchelicopters are

in Fig. 7.15.

Using this criterion,

the Soviet production However,

considerably helicopters

below the optimal

boundary

of the Western counterparts. It also appears

the so-called

hypothetical

are close to the optimal

boundary.

that the relative

productivity

goals visualized

for the Hypo 52-SR were actually met in the Mi-26 helicopter. Ideal weight burned Ferry Range. Assuming for the sake of simplicity (FF w = const) change in spite that the fuel required per pound of gross

and 100 n.mi remains fuel, the elementary

constant gross weight

of the changing

gross weight

due to the

associated

with travel over a distance d_ can be expressed

as follows:

dw Eq (7.1) can now be integrated minus fuel. Assuming tankage) that

--ff

w WgrdQ./ lO0 gross weight payload

(7.1) and the same weight (with no penalty for

within limits of the initial takeoff

in the ideal case, fuel is equal to the zero-range expression (similar to Breguet's formula)

additional

the following

for the ideal range is obtained:

_id

I00 _ FFwopr

7
_J7 I -- (Wp/o/Wgrma x ) _"

1oo(w.j / Wgr, a,, )


__ FFwopr[l (7.2) - (W_to/Wgrrnax)]

The ideal ferry ranges flight Western expression payload duction (symbol aspects (Fig. 7.16).

of the compared Here, one may helicopters.

helicopters note

are shown

to complete

the picture

of forward of

a considerable

gap between

the optimal

boundaries

and Soviet

production

One can find an explanation It has already been shown higher

of this gap by looking

at the

for the ferry range given by Eq (7.2). to gross-weight ratios of Western

in Fig. 7.8 that the zero-range than those of the Soviet pro-

helicopters

are, in general,

counterparts.

It will be shown

later that

the fuel required

per pound

of gross weight and 100 n.mi

FF w in the formula) is also more favorable for Western the trend implied by the Soviet hypothetical and high fuel consumption

rotorcraft. indicates that the dual disadvantage the

However, of low payloads hypothetical

helicopters

will be eliminated

in future Soviet designs. Consequendy, boundary,

machines

appear either close to, or above, the optimal boundary.

while the ideal ferry range of

the Mi-26 is slightly below that optimal 7.6 Energy Aspects ,Energ_,Consumption can be expressed as follows: in tIover.

Energy

consumption

per pound of gross weight

and hour

in hover

280

h,
!

o c'_ o o

o &(}

"C,

.d

l:l C, 0 ,/ / I,(

/ ,/ / t

0 er

"0

./

\
/ o/

t_

[.t..,

-//

"

6
:X3ONI

B'I-blH/!IAI'N-IB'I

,L.LIAI.LC)FIOOI=Id

281

rr ILl I-

o
.J Ct; nUJ n-Q. Z _ Z-00 m .,jeL 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 "l0 0 0

,1

UJ

D,

_J

U,I

_>

"!I_'N

O00L

:39NV_I

A_I_3.,-I

7V301

282

-_-ffw h

$fc _ 550 FMoa

(7.3)

and fuel

required

per pound

of payload

and hour

would sfcwx/r_p

be: 1 (7.4) (Wplol Wer )

FFpl h

= 550 Fgoa

Looking per pound

at of gross with

Eq

(4.3),

one

would are:

realize

that

factors

contributing

to the

betterment

of fuel

required
this may fuel

weight other

and hour requirements;

(1) low sfc of the engines; and (3) high overall figure

(2) low disc loading-although of merit. appears

be in conflict per pound

In the case of minimizing under the form of high

of payload ratio. 7.17 narrow clearly

and hour,

as shown

in Eq (7.4),

a new factor

payload

to gross-weight Figure is relatively payload toward upper fuel also pound

indicates all the

that

while

the

band

of fuel this

required fuel and

per pound

of gross

weight

and hour of

for highly

considered Here, this point band,

helicopters, advanced while

consumption Soviet

when

referred helicopters

to pound gravitate toward shows

becomes the limit. lower

scattered. of Mi-26

Western Soviet

hypothetical are new

boundary the pound FFp/h

production see close

helicopters that this

grouped

the

Spotting per that the

in this weight

figure, and

one would very to the

transport

hourly It should per

consumption be noted

of gross value

payload is close

to those

of the Hypo of energy

52-SR.

of the Mi-26

optimal

boundary

utilization

of payload

in hover.

Energy weight

Consumption

in Cruise. vehicles

Energy

consumption

referred

to, say,

100

n.mi

and

pound

of gross

for all types

of powered

is as follows:

FF--- f = w 3.25

(sfc)v (Wer/ O e )v

(7.5)

where

(sfCJv and drag the equation

(Wgr/D e )v respectively, ratio at speed base of flight V.

mean

engine

specific

fuel consumption,

and gross

weight

to the

equivalent When sumption

reference

is changed

to pound

of payload

and

100

n.mi,

the

corresponding

fuel

con-

for cargo

vehicles

becomes:

FFp/f

(sfc )v 3.25(Wgr/Oe)v(Wp//Wvr

(7.6) )

A glance governed as high by

at the a low

above high

expression gross

indicates to the

that

the requirement drag ratio,

for favorable and a payload

energy

consumption

is ratio

sfc,

weight

equivalent

to gross-weight

as possible.

283

Lo

LO

d
_IH-87187 :'_H

d
0 "_ (7ci)

d
ONV MO

d
__-I0 "87

d
i:::13d "031::I

o
73CI_-I

284

Optimal hypothetical

fuel requirements helicopters

per 100 n.mi and pound from Fig. 7.18. somewhat

of gross weight,

and zero payload

of actual and

can be judged note

In this figure, fuel requirements When optimal

one may referred

a picture

similar to that is relatively

in hover.

Here,

also, the band of helicopters. the band conhelicopters,

to a unit

of gross weight

narrow

for all considered payload,

fuel consumption

per 100 n.mi is referred becomes somewhat

to the zero-range broader,

taining points still indicates Some the points

representing a definite

actual helicopters

but for the Western size of the rotorcraft.

trend of this quaaatity, decreasing production helicopters concepts one would are quite appear

with the increasing within,

of the Soviet representing

and some above those boundaries, of the Western trend.

while Spotting

the hypothetical on those graphs,

are located at the bottom see that in both

the Mi-26 helicopter the chaxacteristics

aspects of fuel consumption for the hypothetical

in cruise, concepts.

of the actual machine

close to those postulated

285

I:I 0

_.
0 0

t,,.
\

oll

Lt)

tD

d
_I&I'N

c_
001.-87187

6
:0=II=II170=I_ 7=117-I IAlrll/111dO

286

REFERENCES 1. Tishchenko, A.V.Nekrasov, M.N., andA.S.Radin. Viertolety,


Helicopters, 2. jane's Yearbooks. Selection Jane's of Design Ail the Parameters. Aircraft. Mashinostroyeniye London, 1980. World's

vybor

parametrov Moscow,

pri proektirovaniy: 1976.

Press,

3.

Helicopter

Financial

Services,

Inc. Helicopter

Blue Book.

1979.

4-.

Stepniewski,

W.Z.

Rotary-Wing

Aerodynamics.

Vol. 1, NASA

CR 3082.

1979.

5.

Harris,

F.D.;

J. D. Kocurek, Textron.

T.T. 35rh

McLarty; National

and T.J. AHS

Trept,

Jr. Helicopter Paper 79-2. May

Performance 1979.

Methodology

at Bell Helicopter

Forum,

6.

Dominick, Project

F.,

and

E.E.

Nelson. 1970.

Engineering

Flight

Tests,

YUH-1H

Helicopter,

Phase

D. USAASTA

No. 66-04.

Nov.

7. 8.

Keys,

C.N. Rotary-WingAerodynamics. J.D.; L.F. Berkowitz; AHS and

Vol. F.D.

II, NASA Hover

CR 3083.

1979. Methodology at Bell Helicopter

Kocurek, Textron.

Harris.

Performance 1980.

36th

National

Forum

Paper

80-3.

May

9. 10.

Green, Anon.

D. Aerospatiale's PZL Kania--Kite.

Remarkable Pezetel.

SA-365NDaupbin Swidnik, Poland.

2. Rotor

and Wing, Int.,

pp.

54-59,

Feb.

1980.

11.

Anon.

CH-3E.

AGF,

Vol.

2, Addn.

50. Sept.

1971.

12.

Nagata,

J.I., et al. Government YUH-60A

Comparative U.S.

Tests, Army

Utility

TacticaI Engineering

Transport Flight

Aircraft Activity,

System Edwards

(UTTAS) Airforce

Sikorsky Base,

Helicopter. Nov. 1976.

Aviation

Ca. 9352L

13.

Anon.

CH-53D Sept.

Standard 1971.

Aircraft

Characteristics,

pp.

235-239.

N_val

Air Systems

Command,

Navy

Dept.

287

1. Report

No.

NASA

CR-3579

2.

Government

Acce_ion

No.

3.

Recipient's

Catalog

No.

AVRADCOM
4. Title and

TR 82-A-9
Subtitle 5. Report Date

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOVIET VS. WESTERN PART 1 - GENERAL COMPARISON OF DESIGNS


7. Author(s)

HELICOPTERS

March
6. Performing

1983
Organization Code

8.

Performing

Organization

Report

No.

W.
9.

Z.

Stepniewski
10. Work Unit No. Organi_tion Name and Addr_

_rforming

International Technical 1728 State Road Upper


12.

Associates,

Ltd.

11.

Contract

or

Grant

No.

NAS2-I0062,
13. Type of Report

Mod.
and Period

1
Covered

Darby,
Agency

PA
Name

19082
and Address

Sponsoring

Contractor Space and Administration


14, Sponsoring

Report
Agency Code

National Aeronautics and Washington, D.C. 20546

U.S. Army Aviation Research St. Louis, MO 63166


15. Supplementary Notes

and

Development

Command

Point

of

Contact: R. Shinn

Reviewer
16. Abstract

W.D. Mosher, MS:207-5, Ames Research Moffett Field, CA 94035 FTS 448-5578 See CR - 3580:TH_4P6]

Center, or 415-965-5578

This Soviet

document

provides design vs.

a general that of

comparison the West

of (U.S.

the in

state

of

the

art It

of

helicopter

particular).

includes both commalities and differences in conceptual design philosophies by addressing design parameters and design effectiveness according to accepted criteria. The baseline for comparison is by design gross weight which is presented in four categories: under 12,000 ib, 30-100,000 ib, greater than i00,000 lb.

17.

Key

Wor_

(Suggested

by

Author(s))

18.

Distributi_

Statement

Helicopters Comparison Weight Helicopters


19. Security Qa_if.

- Soviet - design - Western


(of this re_rt) 20. Security Cla=if. (of this

Unclassified

- Unlimited

Subject
_) 21. No. of

Category
Pages 22. _ice

01

Unclassified
"For

Unclassified
sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia

300
22161

AI3

NASA-Langley,

1983