Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:19:45.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining the stability derivatives of a compound helicopter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2016

K. Ferguson  and
D. Thomson
K. Ferguson*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
D. Thomson
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
*
kevin.ferguson@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some helicopter manufacturers are exploring the compound helicopter design as it could potentially satisfy the new emerging requirements placed on the next generation of rotorcraft. It is well understood that the main benefit of the compound helicopter is its ability to reach speeds that significantly surpass the conventional helicopter. However, it is possible that the introduction of compounding may lead to a vehicle with significantly different flight characteristics when compared to a conventional helicopter. One method to examine the flight dynamics of an aircraft is to create a linearised mathematical model of the aircraft and to investigate the stability derivatives of the vehicle. The aim of this paper is to examine the stability derivatives of a compound helicopter through a comparison with a conventional helicopter. By taking this approach, some stability, handling qualities and design issues associated with the compound helicopter can be identified. The paper features a conventional helicopter and a compound helicopter. The conventional helicopter is a standard design, featuring a main rotor and a tail-rotor. The compound helicopter configuration features both lift and thrust compounding. The wing offloads the main rotor at high speeds, whereas two propellers provide additional propulsive thrust as well as yaw control. The results highlight that the bare airframe compound helicopter would require a larger tailplane surface to ensure acceptable longitudinal handling qualities in forward flight. In addition, without increasing the size of the bare airframe compound helicopter’s vertical fin, the Dutch roll mode satisfies the ADS-33 level 1 handling qualities category for the majority of the flight envelope.

Keywords

Compound helicopterflight dynamicsstability derivativeshandling qualities
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Issue 1235 , January 2017 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Leishman, J.G. Principals of Helicopter Aerodynamics, 2nd ed, 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
2. Johnson, W. Helicopter Theory, 2nd ed, 1994, Dover Publications, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey, US.Google Scholar
3. Newman, S.J. The Foundations of Helicopter Flight, 1994, Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
4. Filippone, A. Flight Performance of Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft, 1st ed, 2006, Elsevier Ltd. Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
5. Sekula, M.K. and Gandhi, F. Effects of auxiliary lift and propulsion on helicopter vibration reduction and trim, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 2004, 41, (3), pp 645–656.Google Scholar
6. Prouty, R.W. Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control, 1999, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, In. Malabar, Florida, US.Google Scholar
7. Orchard, M. and Newman, S.J. Some design issues for the optimisation of the compound helicopter configuration, American Helicopter Society 56th Annual Forum, 2000, Virginia Beach, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
8. Buhler, M. and Newman, S.J. The aerodynamics of the compound helicopter configuration, Aeronautical J, 1996, 100, (994), pp 111–120.Google Scholar
9. Hirschberg, M.J. Joint multi-role moves forward, Vertiflite, 2014, 60, (1), pp 24–26.Google Scholar
10. Orchard, M. and Newman, S.J. The fundamental configuration and design of the compound helicopter, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 2003, 217, (6), pp 297–315.Google Scholar
11. Moodie, A.M. and Yeo, H. Design of a cruise-efficient compound helicopter, J American Helicopter Society, 2012, 57, (3).Google Scholar
12. Yeo, H. and Johnson, W. Optimum design of a compound helicopter, AIAA J Aircraft, 2009, 46, (4).Google Scholar
13. Russell, C. and Johnson, W. Exploration of configuration options for a large civil compound helicopter, American Helicopter Society 69th Annual Forum, 2013, Phoenix, Arizona, US.Google Scholar
14. Padfield, G.D. Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying Qualities and Simulation Modelling, 2nd ed, 2007, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
15. Ferguson, K.M. and Thomson, D.G. Flight dynamics investigation of compound helicopter configurations, AIAA J Aircraft, 2014, 52, (1), pp 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Thomson, D.G. Development of a generic helicopter mathematical model for application to inverse simulation, Internal Report No. 9216, 1992, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
17. Kim, F.D., Celi, R. and Tischler, M.B. Forward flight trim and frequency response validation of a helicopter simulation model, AIAA J Aircraft, 1993, 30, (6), pp 854–863.Google Scholar
18. Rutherford, S. Simulation Techniques for the Study of the Manoeuvring of Advanced Rotorcraft Configurations, PhD Thesis, 1997, University of Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
19. Mansur, M.H. Development and Validation of a Blade Element Mathematical Model for the AH-64A Apache Helicopter. NASA-TM-108863, 1995.Google Scholar
20. Houston, S.S. Validation of a non-linear individual blade rotorcraft flight dynamics model using a perturbation method, Aeronautical J, 1994, 98 (977), pp 260–266.Google Scholar
21. Bradley, R., Padfield, G.D., Murray-Smith, D.J. and Thomson, D.G. Validation of helicopter mathematical models, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 1990, 12, (186).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Anderson, J.D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 4th ed, 2007, McGraw-Hill, London, UK.Google Scholar
23. Frandenburgh, E.A. and Segel, R.M. Model and full scale compound helicopter research, Helicopter Society 21st Annual, 1965.Google Scholar
24. Torres, M. A Wing on the SA.341 Gazelle helicopter and its effects, Vertica, 1976, 1, (1), pp 67–73.Google Scholar
25. Kim, H.W., Kenyon, A.R., Duraisamy, K. and Brown, R.E. Interactional aerodynamics and acoustics of a hingeless coaxial helicopter with an auxiliary propeller in forward flight, International Powered Lift Conference2, 2008, London, UK.Google Scholar
26. Keys, C.N. Performance prediction of helicopters, Stepniewski, W. Z., editor, Rotor-Wing Aerodynamics, 1981, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, US.Google Scholar
27. Sipe, O.E. and Gorenberg, N.B. Effect of Mach Number, Reynolds Number and Thickness Ratio on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 63A-Series Airfoil Sections. USATRECOM TR 65-28, 1965.Google Scholar
28. Van Dyke, M.D. High-Speed Subsonic Characteristics of 16 NACA Six Series Airfoil Sections. NACA TN 2670, 1952.Google Scholar
29. Tischler, M.B. and Remple, R.K. Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification, 2nd ed, 2012, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Reston, VA, US.Google Scholar
30. Stevens, B.L. and Lewis, F.L. Aircraft Control and Simulation, 2nd ed, John Wiley and Sons, 2003. ISBN 0-471-37145-9.Google Scholar
31. Anon. Handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft. Aeronautical design standard ADS-33E-PRF, United States Army Aviation and Troop Command, 2000.Google Scholar
32. Fletcher, J.W., Lusardi, J., Mansur, M.H., Robinson, D.E., Arterburn, D.R., Cherepinsky, I., Driscoll, J., Morse, C.S. and Kalinowksi, K.F. UH-60M upgrade fly-by-wire flight control risk reduction using the RASCAL JUH-60A in-flight simulator, American Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada, 2008.Google Scholar
33. Blake, B.B. and Alansky, I.B. Stability and control of the YUH-61A, J American Helicopter Society, 1977, 22, (1), pp 2–10.Google Scholar
34. Houston, S.S. The Gyrodyne – a forgotten high performer? J American Helicopter Society, 2007, 52, (4), pp 382–391.Google Scholar