Propeller Aeroelastic Modelling for Industry - Postgraduate Review

Harry Smith September 1, 2011

Abstract This document is presented to meet the criteria as laid out in the PGR guidelines by the School of Engineering at the University of Glasgow. This project is a CASE studentship for Dowty Propellers (DP) and the Aircraft Research Association (ARA) and NDAs have been signed by the student and both industrial and academic supervisors. Consequently, a brief outline of the project shall be provided but details will not be elaborated upon due to commercial sensitivity.

Some of this document is an extract from the provisional literature and scheme of work survey provided to DP and ARA prior to industrial placements in July 2011, with key detail removed.

Contents
1 Summary 2 The Project 3 Propeller Aerodynamics 3.1 History of Propeller Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Unsteady Rotary Aerodynamics 5 Air Mass Dynamics/Non-Uniform Inow Historical Perspective 6 Industrial Placements 7 Proposed Work Bibliography 3 4 5 5 7 9 12 13 13

Summary

The exploration of the various relevant literature is fully detailed in this report. A brief summary of the key ndings is included here for clarity and brevity. Propeller aerodynamic theory for design and analysis is found to be geared towards performance calculations and little else - no major theoretical work has been completed for propeller calculations since that of Theodorsen. Vortex theory has been used to model, to some degree, the propeller wake - the ideal propeller can be designed by extension of wake theory to predict minimum-loss propeller loading. No major work has been done to calculate unsteady propeller loading or o-design cases - this is the area upon which this project aims to expand the analytical tools available by taking advantage of developments in the rotorcraft eld for unsteady aerodynamic analysis. Unsteady rotary aerodynamics have been to date largely unexplored for propellers. This is perhaps due to the mindset that if a propeller works then detailed analysis of vibratory loads, secondary ows etcare unnecessary as a propeller provides propulsion and not lift. Conversely, a helicopter main rotor provides propulsion and lift and its continued safe performance is more mission-critical. Accordingly, the bulk of unsteady aerodynamic theory for this project has been taken from rotorcraft-focussed literature. Further work has been explored in unsteady aerodynamics and structural-dynamicmodels, but the detail will be left out. The scheme of work over the next eighteen months has been laid out in a report to the sponsors and the timescales of project components are being managed in a suitable manner, with my progress being regularly reviewed both at DP and UoG. Following from the placements at ARA and DP, the scope of the project has been elucidated and this has enabled provisional planning of my thesis. Essentially, propeller modelling to date has not changed much in the last century. Developments have been made in computing power and in theoretical work used in rotorcraft analysis, but little has been utilised for propellers - the latest theoretical work is nearly sixty years old. This project will help work towards a thesis that is likely to be entitled Mathematical modelling of the propeller for industry, or similar and involve a ground-up approach to the propeller problem with justication for any assumptions or simplications that can be made to assist with mathematical modelling. Preparatory research on techniques that may be used has been undertaken, and it is clear that there are untested techniques for modelling that may be utilised, but the end form of such analysis is as yet unclear. What is clear, however, is that the end result of the work for the industrial sponsor will enable publication of literature pertinent to performing similar analyses in the general case.

The Project

The project specications will not be provided here - suce to say that the work requires formulating a mathematical model of a propeller suitable for steady freestream calculations as a design tool, which places constraints on the mathematical techniques available. No one single model will be capable of such analysis alone. Instead, the nal model will be formed from separate models of propeller steady and unsteady aerodynamics and propeller structural dynamics/aeroelasticity. As shall be discussed further, the use of a dynamic inow model will likely be amenable to this task. Accordingly, Figure 2.1, below, is a re-working of similar diagrams presented in rotorcraft dynamic inow literature, adapted for the propeller problem. By looking at the dierent areas required, the work may be split down into subtasks, research areas and subroutines within the nal model.
Induced Flow Mode/Unsteady Aerodynamic Model (s, ) (s, ) CT , C M , C N
mc ms or n , n

a/c Flight Environment & Prop. Conditions

, , V ac , ac

Propeller Aerodynamic Environment

Vb (s) b (s)

Blade Aerodynamic Model

dL, dD BE Forces

h(s, ) h(s, )

(s, ) (s, ) Structural Dynamic Model L(s), D(s) Inertial Loads

Figure 2.1: Basic Model Structure Required

Propeller Aerodynamics

Before developing an unsteady aerodynamic model, one needs to have an appreciation of the steady aerodynamics in play on a propeller. Propellers have been in use since the birth of powered aviation the Wright Brothers, although experimenters and not theorists, took the step of changing to a pair of thin, highly twisted blades turning at high speed as opposed to the cumbersome, windmill-like blades of other designers of the time. With little power to play with from the engines of the day, this step was key in securing their role as the founders of heaver-than-air ight. Although, as stated above, they were experimenters and not theorists, there is evidence that they may have been the rst to combine BladeElement and Momentum theory to determine the AoA distribution along the blade span (Wald, 2001). Since this simple modication in blade shape, much work has been completed on propeller theory and design to bring us to the present day where we see scimitar-type blades capable of producing excellent propulsive eciency, even at high-subsonic ight regimes, comparable to the performance of a turbofan. The history of propeller theory and design for optimum eciency is laid out chronologically in great detail in a 2006 review of propeller aerodynamics (Wald, 2006). This forty-page work provides an overview of not only the key developments, but goes into detail on the theory of propellers and shows the dierent means via which propeller calculations have been performed through dierent ight regimes; propeller, vortex-ring and windmill states. This document will likely be of use for the duration of this project. It should be noted that some of the works and citations discussed in the following section are taken directly from Wald (2006), as the works themselves are not written in English and no translations readily available.

3.1

History of Propeller Aerodynamics

The earliest applicable theoretical work on propellers was performed by Froude and Rankine (1865), working on marine propellers. The basic theory of the propulsive uid momentum equation was formulated, and thus created actuator-disc theory. Although this crude approximation allows designers to set performance and sizing requirements, it involves no real detail on actual propeller aerodynamics, instead proposing an innitesimal imaginary disc through which there is a discontinuity in pressure and momentum, resulting in thrust. In 1892 (and later in 1901), Drzewiecki modelled propeller blade elements moving through a uid medium on a helical path, but did not account for the propeller-induced velocity due to the shed wake. It was not until Prandtls lifting line theory with free and bound vorticity that the modern theory of propeller aerodynamics would be possible. Using this theory, the propeller may be considered to be a lifting surface about which there is a circulation associated with bound vorticity and a vortex sheet shed continuously from the trailing edge - propeller wake theory gives a better appreciation of the actual physical ow eld than the crude approximations of actuator-disc theory. In 1919, Betz showed that the loading distribution for lightly-loaded 1 propellers is such that the shed vorticity forms regular helicoidal sheets moving aft uniformly from the propeller. This work was reprinted by Prandtl and Betz (1927) with an appendix showing a closed-form approximation to this ow for small advance ratios. Goldstein (1929) solved the problem of the potential eld and circulation distribution based on a helicoidal vortex system as outlined by Betz. This circulation distribution was presented in tabulated form for two and four-bladed propellers as the ideal distribution. Ideal design via Goldsteins function is thereby a design procedure to t this ideal circulation distribution .
1 A lightly loaded propeller is described as one where the induced velocities are small compared to the propeller velocity (Makinen, 2005) - this was never clearly dened by Betz in the original literature.

Although the work by Betz, Prandtl and Goldstein marked the development of a better understanding of propeller aerodynamics via vortex theory, work continued on the renement of Blade Element Momentum Theory (BEMT), notably by Glauert. This development as in (Glauert, 1926b, 1943) is still applied in practical calculations today, despite the dependence on an independence of blade elements, which was shown to be without physical justication2 . The long out-of-print Theory of Propellers (Theodorsen, 1948) is essentially a collection of NACA TNs 775-778 (Theodorsen, 1944a,b,c,d) - Theodorsen followed from Goldsteins ideal circulation distribution and studied the shed wake far downstream, rather than at the propeller itself and as such was able to negate the need for the lightly-loaded condition that had previously been invoked. Tibery and Wrench Jr (1964), applied mathematicians, used modern computational and mathematical techniques to tabulate accurately functions related to the Goldstein function over a wider range of propeller parameters than had previously been attempted. A design procedure developed by Larrabee (1979), capable of determining the geometry of minimum induced loss propellers based upon specic conditions (e.g., ; loading, , n etc.) has the benet of convenience, quoted as ecient...adaptable to pocket calculators (Wald, 2006). However, the theory behind the work is based on the original vortex assumptions by Prandtl and Betz (1927) and does not utilise the more rigorous and general concepts introduced by Theodosen. The preceding section gives a comprehensive overview of the key developments in steady propeller aerodynamics. It should be noted that the most recent signicant work dates to 1979, with the most major theoretical developments being that of Theodorsen in 1948. Despite the main principles of propeller design being over sixty years old, they have enabled designers and blade manufacturers to produce ecient and powerful propellers. Where there has been a lack of propeller-focussed research, and where there are gains to be made in terms of reduced fatigue etc., is in the propeller unsteady aerodynamics. By analysing how the blade forces and moments change with respect to time-varying or non-uniform inow, correlation between 1P-loading and design features may be determined and blades designed/adapted for maximum life between service intervals. Although there has been a lack of propeller-focussed unsteady aerodynamic theory, there is a wealth of information on rotorcraft-based investigation. This is down to a combination of the fact that a helicopter rotor is generally subject to more unsteady ow (e.g.; more manoeuvring ight, edgewise ow and transition between propeller, vortex-ring and windmill-brake states) and the fact that a helicopter rotor provides the main lifting surface in addition to propulsion. Therefore unsteady aeroelastic phenomena such as utter etcare clearly not only more likely without careful and safe design procedure, but also more catastrophic than they would be on a propeller (although one would still hope to avoid blade utter on a propeller). It should be noted that work on nonuniform pressure distributions was completed by Glauert (1926a) during development of autogyro theory, but not applied to propeller aerodynamics - likely because of the reduced eect of inow variation on the propeller problem, and the aforementioned critical aspect of a rotor vs. a propeller as lifting surface vs. pure propulsion.

Taken from Wald (2006)

Unsteady Rotary Aerodynamics

As mentioned in the previous section, there is little information available on propeller unsteady theory, and the key sources found that deal with rotary unsteady aerodynamics have come from helicopterfocussed literature. An excellent starting point for rotorcraft unsteady aerodynamics is in Principles of Helicopter Dynamics (Leishman, 2000). This book gives an overview of the dierent unsteady theories and how they compare under dierent ight environments/analytical procedure. Before going into detail on the model that is anticipated shall be most suitable for propeller analysis, this section shall briey cover the key developments in unsteady aerodynamics as laid out by Leishman (2000, Chapter 8 - Unsteady Aerodynamics), and why they are suited or unsuited to propeller analysis. To explain the relevance of unsteady aerodynamics, Leishman presents a breakdown of the sources of unsteady aerodynamic loading that may be found on helicopter rotor. Figure 4.2, below, is an adaptation of Leishmans breakdown of the sources of unsteady aerodynamic loading, put into context here on a propeller. The relative frequencies and amplitudes of dierent eects are given; the frequency dictates the level to which unsteady eects dominate the ow via reduced frequency k = b V

Blade Motion

Pitch

Flap

Torsion (high freq., high amp.)

Control (low freq., high amp.)

Flap* (low freq., high amp.)

Bending (high freq., low amp.)

(a) Unsteady Aerodynamics due to Blade Motion *(only applicable if including the proposed pin-jointed hinge)
Floweld Structure

Periodic

Aperiodic

Velocity (low freq., low amp.)

Downwash (low freq., low amp.)

Sweep (low freq., low amp.)

Fuselage oweld (low amp.)

Wake distortion (low amp.)

Discrete vortices (high amp.)

(b) Unsteady Aerodynamics due to Floweld Structure

Figure 4.2: Unsteady Aerodynamic Sources on a Propeller; adapted from Leishman (2000, taken from Beddoes (1980))

Before going into the detail of dierent unsteady theories, Leishman lays out the requisites of any useful unsteady aerodynamic model, for use in practical rotary aerodynamics. The following are largely common sense, but fundamental to choosing any aerodynamic model to be used as part of a larger calculation procedure and hence are included here. 1. The assumptions and limitations of any model need to be fully assessed, understood and justied if invoked. e.g., incompressibility requires not only local M 1 but M k 13 . 2. The model must be written in a form that is easily coupled with structural dynamic model. e.g., the model may be in terms of ODEs at radial blade elements, or written in statespace form at the disc level. 3. If choosing an integral approach, i.e., a BE model, the concentric radial and azimuthal integration loops place a strict limit on the computational cost of any unsteady model4 . Leishman discusses reduced frequency to be used as a measure of the degree to which unsteady t eects dominate the oweld, and the reduced time, s = 1 0 V dt, as a non-dimensional ordinate b representing distance that the blade travels through the oweld in semi-chords during a given time interval, t. An preliminary analysis of the eect of unsteady ow in the propeller problem will be benecial before constructing the model, and by calculating k over the disc it is anticipated that a better appreciation of when and where in the oweld unsteady eects dominate. This shall assist with preliminary qualitative analysis of initial results. The book goes through the development of unsteady attached theory, quasi-steady thin-aerofoil theory, Theodorsens theory/function with returning-wake additions by Loewy and Jones and through other frequency-domain theories. As shall be discussed below, such frequency domain based models are not foreseen to be used in the proposed model as it shall be preferable to have a time domain based solution. However, it is important that they have been researched as they may prove useful at a later date. Indeed, as shall be discussed in section ??, the proposed extension of a Dynamic Inow model to the propeller problem and validation thereof is not guaranteed and this work may have to rely on a Theodorsen method or similar to model unsteady aerodynamics. This will be determined at a decision gate after the theoretical work to extend dynamic inow to the propeller case is complete. Leishman (2000, 8.14.2: State-Space Solution) highlights the advantage of state-space form for an unsteady aerodynamic model that is to be used as part of a larger aeroelastic model - in such a form, the governing dierential equations may be used in conjunction with the time domain based structural-dynamic model. Another fundamental benet of using a system that is in state-space form is that it is possible to calculate the response of a propeller/rotor system at a given time (i.e., for a particular state), rather than a models validity being limited to the stability boundary. Eorts to formulate a state-space model of 2D unsteady aerofoil theory via Laplace transform methods of the indicial response have been performed by many using approximations to Theodorsen and Wagners functions - however, the approximations essentially amount to curve-tting and have no physical basis. For a problem with little previous theoretical work and without a wealth of experimental data, it is dicult to justify such a method and as such it will be preferable to use a more mathematically rigourous formulation.

3 Incompressibility may not be assumed in a blade-level model as tip speeds will be high subsonic/transonic. The validity of assuming the wake compressibility may be negated is discussed in Section ?? 4 As shall be discussed in Section ??, use of vectorisation in code construction negates the concentric loops for some calculations, although a numerical integration scheme shall require them still.

Air Mass Dynamics/Non-Uniform Inow Historical Perspective

From the earliest rotorcraft design, the inow over the the rotor was presumed to be uniform, enabling easy calculations by momentum theory providing reasonable insight into hover performance, despite being a large simplication of the actual ow situation (Bramwell et al., 2000). During forward ight (or, infact, any translational ight), there is a radial and azimuthal variation in inow due to dierent factors: A one-dimensional variation in the axis of ight direction due to translational lift causing rotorinduced upwash at the leading edge, much like an aerofoil of equivalent size - this eect is much, much smaller on a propeller at an angle of attack than on a rotor blade. A radial variation of local tangential velocity and therefore inow angle along the blade axis. A lateral (azumuthal) variation of inow due to asymmetric summation of forward speed and local rotational velocity on advancing and retreating blades at AoA = 0. The autogyro is clearly not capable of axial ight, and as part of his work on autogyro theory, the variation in inow on the rotor was rst accounted for by Glauert (Glauert, 1926b) by modelling the disc as an elliptically-loaded circular wing with associated downwash distribution. He proposed a mean and longitudinal variation in inow of the form: vi0 = vi T 2AV = vi0 (1 + Kc x cos ) (5.1) (5.2)

r Where the nondimensional radial ordinate is x = R and Kc is a coecient slightly larger than one, chosen so that the equation 5.2 produces an upwash at the leading edge and a positive linear gradient of vi towards the trailing edge i.e., along the line ( = 0 or ).

Much work was done over the following years to rene the denition of and values for Kc , through both experimental and theoretical means. Most of the work for this shall not be included in this document - for a full review of the development of Kc for autogyro and helicopter ight, the Ph.D. thesis by Murakami (2008) provides a good perspective. Arguably the rst innovative addition to Glauerts work was provided by Coleman and Feingold (1945) where they dened Kc to be a function of , the wake skew angle. Kinner (1937)5 introduced the use of elliptical co-ordinates to the problem and proposed the use of pressure distributions as a series of the associated Legendre functions - satisfying the Laplace equation and providing a discontinuity in pressure (i.e., lift) across the disc. This step was key to gaining the dynamic inow models that are used today, but it should be noted that Kinner was not exploring unsteady induced ow, rather the distribution of the steady induced ow. Mangler and Squire (1950) extended the work of Kinner by associating his lift distribution with the induced velocity eld - using Eulers equations and a variant of actuator disc theory, they were able to calculate the acceleration of the induced ow distribution so as to satisfy the requisite hub loading. This coupling, as Murakami (2008) notes, may be regarded as the theoretical forebearer of modern dynamic inow theory - more recent dynamic inow models couple pressure distribution to inow, but the concept is the same of coupling the loads. Joglekar and Loewy (1970) extended Mangler and Squires work to incorporate the eects of the shed wake geometry, but the technique is less sophisticated than in modern methods, as noted in
5

German language paper, but theory described by Joglekar and Loewy (1970)

(Murakami, 2008) - additionally various sources show that the models based on Mangler and Squires work, although innovative, fail to show good correlation with experimental data; (Chen, 1989). Around the same time as Mangler and Squires work, Sissingh (1951) attempted to account for a cross-coupling in roll and pitch damping of a helicopter rotor, rst reported by Amer (1950), by assuming a nonuniform distribution of induced velocity based on the rst harmonic variation of the lift coecient, or: v = v0 + v1 cos (5.3) His results for rotor damping cross-couping matched predictions and the results were well received, nding use in commercial simulation programmes (Gaonkar and Peters, 1988). However, the model above utilises a Fourier distribution based only on the azimuthal variation, neglecting the radial variation. Additionally, Sissinghs work presumes that the reaction of inow to the change in rotor loads is instantaneous, and does not account for the aerodynamic hysteresis due to dynamic ow eects and is termed the quasi-steady model. Nonetheless, the step of explaining the cross-coupling by linking with nonuniform inow lays the foundations for dynamic inow theory. The relationship between rotor load and induced ow had been noted much earlier than the above analyses in Wheatleys 1935 analysis of autogyro rotor blade vibration, concluding that Glauert and Locks previous work on autogyro theory was quantitatively usable except for the blade motion...[which] cannot be calculated rigourously without the accurate determination of the induced ow. Wheatleys report proved the link between induced ow and rotor loads, but it was not until the advent of the hingeless rotor nearly thirty years later that inclusion of this eect gained momentum as a necessary step in a rotor modelling. This is due to the ability of the hingeless rotor to apply moments directly to the hub noted in by Ormiston and Peters (1972)The nonuniform inow is a direct result of the large hub moments developed by hingeless rotors...neither the induced inow nor elastic blade bending are of comparable importance for articulated rotor response. This is a key point for the proposed propeller analysis as current propeller design is essentially a hingeless design, rather than articulated6 and as such, the fundamental principles of work based on the correlation between rotor loads and inow may be carried forward. Carpenter and Fridovich (1953) explored time delay in control response of rotorcraft - observing a lag in the build up of rotor thrust in response to a change of collective pitch whilst exploring the jump take-o of heavily-loaded helicopters. For this, a rapid increase in collective is applied to a pre-rotated rotor, eecting a vertical take-o. The observed time delay or lift hysteresis was attributed to Newtons second law and the force required to eect a momentum change in the uid surrounding the disc. Following the theory of NACA TN 197 (Munk, 1924), they added an apparent addition mass to the 1D momentum equation of 63.7% of the mass of a sphere of uid with the same diameter as the rotor disc, and their method is now referred to as unsteady momentum theory7 . In their work on nonuniform rotor loads and the relationship with pitch and roll moments Curtiss and Shupe (1971) developed a model for axial ight in a quasi-steady formulation. Rather than incorporating dynamic ow eects using a rigorous physical formulation, they developed the reduced Lock number, eectively the same as modelling a heavier blade. The two methodologies for modelling the lift hysteresis have been explored by Banerjee and Crews (1979) and found that the dynamic inow model works better for low advance ratio regimes (Murakami, 2008).
6 Aside from the proposed pin-jointed hinge proposed as conceptual design, the eect of which on 1p-loading is to be determined. 7 In (Carpenter and Fridovich, 1953) they do not follow the method of TN 197 fully, rather they adapt a two-dimensonal method to match with experimental data. This is not documented in the paper, but the reliability of their method is noted in other sources and by prominent researchers e.g., Peters and colleagues.

10

The models developed up until this point had been proved valid only in axial ight, and showed poor correlation with forward ight. Although our propeller case is closer in oweld situation to the axial case, the aircraft will be cruising at an angle of attack and it is this skewed inow/wake that we want to determine the eects of. Work from the 1960s developed techniques for experimental measurement of the induced velocity distribution, and the results showed that unsteady momentum theory of Carpenter and Fridovich matched the result poorly (Gaonkar and Peters, 1986). Dynamic inow needed developing in order to cover forward ight conditions, and much work was done to amend the theory. Methods for developing new methodologies to cover the forward ight regime included local momentum theory and a variety of methods combining blade-element and momentum theory, but few showed success. Development of these methods is explained in (Murakami, 2008) and shall be disregarded here. Ormiston and Peters (1972) developed a quasi-steady model in which nonuniform inow distribution was included in a hingeless rotor model. Their model was based on Kutta-Joukowski circulation theory and developed in a matrix formulation relating induced ow and rotor thrust and moments. Peters (1974) extended this model using unsteady momentum theory to develop the basic formulation of dynamic inow in its whole form. The model was limited to hovering ight (o-diagonal gain matrix elements are not included). Murakami (2008) also notes that the elements of the matrices were not mathematically rigorously determined.

11

Industrial Placements

During July 2011, consecutive fortnight-long placements were undertaken at ARA and DP. The major achievements were: Elucidation of the project scope Data received for validation Familiarity gained in existing codes in use (DP) Methods used to formulate databanks explored (ARA) Positive feedback of literature review and proposed model structure

No more needs to be stated other than that the industrial and didactic goals were met as laid out. Advisors at ARA and DP are happy with my progress and proposed scheme of work, and my supervisor, Dr. Gillies, is up-to-date with my work and has given appropriate feedback in the attached form.

12

Proposed Work

A Gantt chart of the proposed work was submitted along with the initial review, outlining my proposed scheme of work for the next eighteen months. It will not be reproduced here. The proposed scheme of work was acceptable to all advisors and has been kept to since being back at UoG. Detail on the content does not need to be included here, suce to say that the initial post-placement stages are theoretical work, moving on to mathematical derivation and concurrent formulation of model components that may be used interchangeably with existing codes, moving towards validation and comparison of dierent techniques and nally the full model.

13

References
Amer, K. . (1950). Theory of Helicopter Damping in Pitch or Roll and Comparison with Flight Measurements. NACA. Banerjee, D. and Crews, S. (1979). Parameter identication applied to analytic hingeless rotor modeling. Journal of the American . . . . Beddoes, T. S. (1980). Unsteady Flows Associated With Helicopter Rotors. Agard Report 679. Bramwell, A. R. S., Done, G., and Balmford, D. (2000). Helicopter Dynamics. Elsevier Ltd., second edition edition. Carpenter, P. and Fridovich, B. (1953). Eect of a rapid blade-pitch increase on the thrust and induced-velocity response of a full-scale helicopter rotor. Chen, R. T. N. (1989). A survey of nonuniform inow models for rotorcraft ight dynamics and control applications. Technical report, Ames Research Center, Moett Field, California, Ames Research Center, Moett Field, California. Coleman, R. P. and Feingold, A. M. (1945). Evaluation of the Induced-Velocity Field of an Idealized Helicoptor Rotor. Technical report, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Curtiss, H. K. and Shupe, N. K. (1971). A Stability and Control Theory for Hingless Rotors. In Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington, D.C. Gaonkar, G. H. and Peters, D. A. (1986). Eectiveness of Current Dynamic Inow Models in Hover and Forward Flight. Journal of the American Helicopter Society. Gaonkar, G. H. and Peters, D. A. (1988). Review of Dynamic Inow Modeling for Rotorcraft Flight Dynamics. Vertica, 12(3):213242. Glauert, H. (1926a). A General Theory of the Autogyro. Technical report, Scientic Research Air Ministry, Scientic Research Air Ministry. Glauert, H. (1926b). The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory. Cambridge University Press. Glauert, H. (1943). Chapter VII, Div. L: Airplane Propellers. In Durand, W. F., editor, Aerodynamic Theory: A General Review of Progress. California Institute of Technology, Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics. Goldstein, S. (1929). On the vortex theory of screw propellers. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London., pages 440465. Joglekar, M. and Loewy, R. (1970). An Actuator-Disc Analysis of Helicopter Wake Geometry and the Corresponding Blade Response. Technical report, US Army Air Mobility Research and Development Lab (USAAVLABS), Fort Eustis No. 69-66, US Army Air Mobility Research and Development Lab (USAAVLABS), Fort Eustis No. 69-66. Kinner, W. (1937). Die kreisfrmige Tragche auf potentialtheoretischer Grundlage. Archive of o a Applied Mechanics. Larrabee, E. E. (1979). Practical Design of Minimum Induced Loss Propellers. Technical report, Warrendale, PA. Leishman, J. G. (2000). Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge Aerospace Series. 14

Makinen, S. (2005). Applying dynamic wake models to large swirl velocities for optimal propellers. PhD thesis, Washington University Sever Institute of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering. Mangler, K. W. and Squire, H. B. (1950). The induced velocity eld of a rotor. Technical report. Munk, M. (1924). Some tables of the factor of apparent additional mass. Murakami, Y. (2008). A New Appreciation of Inow for Autorotative Rotors. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow Dept. of Aerospace Engineering. Ormiston, R. A. and Peters, D. A. (1972). Hingeless Helicopter Rotor Response with Non-Uniform Inow and Elastic Blade Bending. Journal of Aircraft, 9. Peters, D. A. (1974). Hingeless rotor frequency response with unsteady inow. NASA Ames Research Center Rotorcraft Dynamics: SP 352, pages 112. Prandtl, L. and Betz, A. (1927). Schraubenpropeller mit Gerinstem Energieverlust, Gttinger o Nachrichten, Gttinggen. Vier Abhandlungen uber Hydro- und Aerodynamik, pages 193197. o Rankine, W. J. M. (1865). On the mechanical principles of the action of propellers. Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects. Sissingh, G. J. (1951). The Eect of Induced Velocity Variation on Helicopter Rotor Damping in Pitch or Roll. Aeronautical Research Council Technical Report - CP No. 101. Theodorsen, T. (1944a). The Theory of Propellers I: Determination of the Circulation Function and the Mass Coecient for Dual-rotating Propellers. NACA Technical Reports. Theodorsen, T. (1944b). The Theory of Propellers II: Method for Calculating the Axial Interference. NACA Technical Reports. Theodorsen, T. (1944c). The Theory of Propellers III: The Slipstream Contraction with Numerical Values for Two-blade and Four-blade Propellers. NACA Technical Reports. Theodorsen, T. (1944d). The Theory of Propellers IV: Thrust, Energy, and Eciency Formulas for Single and Dual Rotating Propellers with Ideal Circulation Distribution. NACA Technical Reports. Theodorsen, T. (1948). Theory of propellers. Tibery, C. L. and Wrench Jr, J. W. (1964). Tables of the Goldstein factor. David Taylor Model Basin, Report 1524, Applied Mathematics Laboratory, Washington, DC, page 69. Wald, Q. R. (2001). The Wright Brothers propeller theory and design. Proceedings AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City. Wald, Q. R. (2006). The Aerodynamics of Propellers. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 42(2006):88128. Wheatley, J. B. (1935). An Aerodynamic analysis of the autogiro rotor with a comparison between calculated and experimental results. Technical report, NACA, NACA.

15