No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Tail-shake risks assessment & mitigation by wind-tunnel tests on air-intake installation on a heavy-weight H/C configuration
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 January 2023
Abstract
In this work, the key role of the upper-deck design including engine installation as a potential source of tail-shake is at focus. The work is based on a Wind-Tunnel Test (WTT) campaign performed at the Airbus Helicopters’ Marignane wind-tunnel facilities on a high-fidelity minibody fuselage at scale 1:3.5 representing a generic heavy-helicopter upper deck.
Two different engine intake installations for a Power Unit (PU) have been investigated; in a first configuration, the air intake is implemented at the pylon-fairing trailing edge. The second configuration consists in positioning two air intakes on each side of the pylon fairing, close to the maximum cross-section location. Different measurement methods to evaluate aerodynamic interactions and wake sources are proposed: flow-separation assessments from surface oil flow visualisations, time-resolved Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) measurements and unsteady skin-pressure measurements at the cowlings. Tail-shake-related indicators are then proposed. Basically, a configuration that produces strong vortices characterised by a broadband spectral signature is believed to gather all the conditions for tail-shake to emerge.
The flow over the clean configuration is first analysed for various combinations of angle-of-attack and sideslip, highlighting four different areas of flow separation at the cowlings. The complex flow topology around the upper deck is then assessed, which includes a spectral analysis of the flow in the PIV planes. The influence of the air intakes (operating or not) is then evaluated. When located at the pylon-fairing trailing edge and operating, the air intake has a spectacular impact on the flow-field topology. It is responsible for the generation of an intense broadband wake interacting with the pylon-fairing lip vortices, which is believed to be a potential source of tail-shake. The second air-intake configuration is also not favourable, as it requires enlarging the pylon fairing by 100mm, which causes an intense wake similarly to a blunt body. At last, a mitigation mean is proposed for the first configuration. It demonstrates a significant reduction of the wake intensity and broadband signature at the source.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Cassier, A., Weneckers, R. and Pouradier, J.M. Aerodynamic Development of the Tiger Helicopter, May 1994, 50th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D.C., USA.Google Scholar
Sheridan, P.F. and Smith, R.P. Interactional Aerodynamics – A new challenge to helicopter technology, May 1979, 35th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D.C., USA.Google Scholar
Roesch, P. and Dequin, A.M. Experimental research on helicopter fuselage and rotor hub wake turbulence, May 1983, 39th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
De Waard, P.G. and Trouvé, M. Tail shake vibration – Objective comparisons of aerodynamic configuration in a subjective environment, 1979, Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium, NLR-TP-995505.Google Scholar
Roesch, P. and Vuillet, A. New designs for improved aerodynamic stability on recent Aerospatiale helicopters, May 1981, 37th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
Griffith, M.J. Chapter 50 – Vibration, 1998, Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety, 4th edition.Google Scholar
Graham, D.R., Sung, D.Y., Young, L.A., Louie, A.W. and Stroub, R.H. Helicopter hub fairing and pylon interference drag, 1989, NASA memorandum 101052.Google Scholar
Hakkaart, J.F. NH90 Fuselage Model (scale 1:10) LST Wind Tunnel test report (tailshake test 01), 1996, Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium, NLR-CR-97368 L, test 5633.Google Scholar
Hermans, C., Hakkaart, J.F. and Hegen, G.H. NH90 powered main rotor model (scale 1:3.881) DNW wind tunnel test report (test 2), 1996, Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium, NLR-CR-97170 L, test 961014.Google Scholar
Kampa, K., Enenkl, B., Polz, G. and Roth, G. Aeromechanic Aspects in the Design of the EC135, September 1997, 23rd European Rotorcraft Forum, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
Schäferlein, U., Keßler, M. and Krämer, E. Aeroelastic Simulation of the Tail Shake Phenomenon, J Am Helicopter Soc, 2018, 63, (3), pp 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desvigne, D. An aircraft having a static air inlet system with a separator and an antivibration method, 2018, Patents FR3065757, EP3395690, US2018312269.Google Scholar
Achenbach, E. and Heinecke, E. On Vortex Shedding from Smooth and Rough Cylinders in the Range of Reynolds Numbers
$6 \times {10^3}$
to
$5 \times {10^6}$
, J Fluid Mech, 1981, 109, pp 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$6 \times {10^3}$
to
$5 \times {10^6}$
, J Fluid Mech, 1981, 109, pp 239–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarLienhard, J.H. Synopsis of Lift, Drag, and Vortex Frequency Data for Rigid Circular Cylinders, 1966, Washington State University, College of Engineering, Bulletin No. 300.Google Scholar