Active Blade Twist, the Tail Rotor, and Future Rotorcraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Active Blade Twist, the Tail Rotor, and Future Rotorcraft
Active Blade Twist is a field of research that is being pursued by a number of institutions and companies. In addition, ABT is possibly the most likely candidate to take rotorcraft up to the next generation. An overview of Active Blade Twist.
Ray Prouty said in Rotor & Wing - January 1999; "The overall airplane lift-to-drag ratio can be 10 to 30, depending on the configuration, whereas the maximum a helicopter can do is 4 to 6." It is possible that a complete application of ABT (including the related improvements of; Reverse Velocity Utilization, Slowed Large Chord Rotor, and Higher Harmonic Control) will result in a doubling of the helicopter's main rotor thrust. This will move the maximum lift-to-drag ratio of helicopters up to 8 to 12.
It should be noted that the advantages of active blade twist cannot be applied to the tail rotor. In addition, consider that the tail rotor consumes approximately 10% of the engine's power.
-------------------------------
Mia culpa
Incorrect mathematical calculations removed.
-------------------------------
The bottom line is that Active Blade Twist will significantly improve the helicopter's lift-to-drag ratio but it will not double the justification for eliminating tail rotors.
Disclaimer: All values are approximations for simplicity of explanation.
Dave
Ray Prouty said in Rotor & Wing - January 1999; "The overall airplane lift-to-drag ratio can be 10 to 30, depending on the configuration, whereas the maximum a helicopter can do is 4 to 6." It is possible that a complete application of ABT (including the related improvements of; Reverse Velocity Utilization, Slowed Large Chord Rotor, and Higher Harmonic Control) will result in a doubling of the helicopter's main rotor thrust. This will move the maximum lift-to-drag ratio of helicopters up to 8 to 12.
It should be noted that the advantages of active blade twist cannot be applied to the tail rotor. In addition, consider that the tail rotor consumes approximately 10% of the engine's power.
-------------------------------
Mia culpa
Incorrect mathematical calculations removed.
-------------------------------
The bottom line is that Active Blade Twist will significantly improve the helicopter's lift-to-drag ratio but it will not double the justification for eliminating tail rotors.
Disclaimer: All values are approximations for simplicity of explanation.
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 3rd Jun 2005 at 21:10.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In addition, consider that the tail rotor consumes approximately 10% of the engine's power."
Agreed that a no torque solution is ideal, in power consumed for a given weight. But, what is ideally required is an analysis of intermeshing vs conventional from hover to high speed flight. Both should be subdivided into with and without pusher prop to maintain hub profile at lowest achievable drag. Attention should be paid to hub fairing too, for best possible results. I am still concerned by N.L.s observation that what you gain from removal of tail rotor, you loose by the drag of a second hub. It is for this reason that i still advocate outboard advancing, with feathered retreating, for the least power requirement at high speed.
Regarding Root/Tip control, i think all agree about it's performance benefits. What really needs to be understood is the performance benefits for a given complexity. Could you simplify the "options" on offer? To my mind a flexible blade with root only control, and tip aero-trimed to fixed AOA, is the least complex approach. At higher speeds, when pusher prop becomes necessary, then the full root/tip control mech can be implemented. I really am not convinced by reverse velocity utilisation, and much favour the idea of just feathering the offending blade...
Mart
Agreed that a no torque solution is ideal, in power consumed for a given weight. But, what is ideally required is an analysis of intermeshing vs conventional from hover to high speed flight. Both should be subdivided into with and without pusher prop to maintain hub profile at lowest achievable drag. Attention should be paid to hub fairing too, for best possible results. I am still concerned by N.L.s observation that what you gain from removal of tail rotor, you loose by the drag of a second hub. It is for this reason that i still advocate outboard advancing, with feathered retreating, for the least power requirement at high speed.
Regarding Root/Tip control, i think all agree about it's performance benefits. What really needs to be understood is the performance benefits for a given complexity. Could you simplify the "options" on offer? To my mind a flexible blade with root only control, and tip aero-trimed to fixed AOA, is the least complex approach. At higher speeds, when pusher prop becomes necessary, then the full root/tip control mech can be implemented. I really am not convinced by reverse velocity utilisation, and much favour the idea of just feathering the offending blade...
Mart
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 10% loss from a tail rotor is a better deal than 40% overall hit in efficiency that comes with two main rotors(Wayne Johnson). One large rotor will lift more per horspower than two small rotors of the same disc loading.
The best lift to drag ratio is demonstrated by sailplanes (some claim 60 to 1) and they all use ONE wing. Multiple wing gliders have been built and they do not glide as well.
A 10% loss at the tail rotor is the best we have so far. Just make the tail rotor bigger if you are concerned about the power.
The best lift to drag ratio is demonstrated by sailplanes (some claim 60 to 1) and they all use ONE wing. Multiple wing gliders have been built and they do not glide as well.
A 10% loss at the tail rotor is the best we have so far. Just make the tail rotor bigger if you are concerned about the power.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 10% loss from a tail rotor is a better deal than 40% overall hit in efficiency that comes with two main rotors"
True, but i think 40% is pessamistic for intermeshers (you're thinking of tandems). The Disc loading will be close to halved for each rotor, while power requirement is above half. My guess is that intermeshers are better in hover, but lose out at some speed, due to increased hub drag. There will then come a speed where a feathered retreating intermesher becomes more efficient again, since retreating tip stall rears it's head on a conventional. The question then is does variable RRPM introduce unwanted retreating blade drag, and indeed is reverse velocity utilisation a better route?
Regarding root/tip control, i see this as a means of making an intermeshing rotor wing think it's a fixed wing. I used to fly gliders, so like the idea of efficiency. Instead of air flowing over wing, wing flows through air at optimised twist. The ideal is if the retreating blades aerodynamically dissappear. If you were really crazy you could put the rotors below the fuselage, with main landing gear on hub masts...
Dave, do you have any evidence about efficiency in forward flight of breaststroke vs outward advancing? I think for the topics started in these threads you may need to consider some wind tunnel time.
Mart
True, but i think 40% is pessamistic for intermeshers (you're thinking of tandems). The Disc loading will be close to halved for each rotor, while power requirement is above half. My guess is that intermeshers are better in hover, but lose out at some speed, due to increased hub drag. There will then come a speed where a feathered retreating intermesher becomes more efficient again, since retreating tip stall rears it's head on a conventional. The question then is does variable RRPM introduce unwanted retreating blade drag, and indeed is reverse velocity utilisation a better route?
Regarding root/tip control, i see this as a means of making an intermeshing rotor wing think it's a fixed wing. I used to fly gliders, so like the idea of efficiency. Instead of air flowing over wing, wing flows through air at optimised twist. The ideal is if the retreating blades aerodynamically dissappear. If you were really crazy you could put the rotors below the fuselage, with main landing gear on hub masts...
Dave, do you have any evidence about efficiency in forward flight of breaststroke vs outward advancing? I think for the topics started in these threads you may need to consider some wind tunnel time.
Mart
Last edited by Graviman; 22nd May 2005 at 19:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points for consideration.
Graviman;
This subject has been discussed previously on PPRuNE. In summary, there are reports stating that two small hubs produce more drag than one large hub. There are also reports stating that drag is significantly reduced when the hub(s) are faired into the fuselage. The greater the rigidity of a rotor, the closer it is located to the fuselage.
Hell No. 
IMO, one should work towards a theoretically optimal rotorcraft; obviously taking into account the current and near-term developments from outside the realm of rotorcraft. Then, and only then, should one start to tackle the constituents from a lower level and more practical perspective. If alternative A fails then go to alternative B, but never loose site of the principal objective. Simply put, it is a reiterative top down approach.
Slowrotor;
What book were you reading
The following two quotes are from his bible 'Helicopter Theory'.
"This configuration [twin main rotors] automatically balances the torque without requiring a power absorbing auxiliary rotor. The rotor-rotor aerodynamics interference losses absorb about the same amount of power, however." ~ page 9
"There are aerodynamic losses from the interference between the main rotors and between the main rotors and the fuselage; these losses reduce the overall efficiency of twin main rotor configurations to about the same level as for the single main and tail rotor configuration." ~ page 317
Wayne Johnson provides an excellent coverage of the rotor, however I don't think he delve into related subjects, such as blades and configurations.
IMHO, Stepniewski was the most knowledgeable person when it came to considering alternate configurations. Just before he died a few years ago, he produced a report that evaluated three potential configurations for future rotorcraft. These configurations were; (1) the cold-jet-driven single rotor, (2) the compound, and (3) the ABC intermeshing. The ABC Intermeshing, was his choice.
Dave
I am still concerned by N.L.s observation that what you gain from removal of tail rotor, you loose by the drag of a second hub.
Could you simplify the "options" on offer?
IMO, one should work towards a theoretically optimal rotorcraft; obviously taking into account the current and near-term developments from outside the realm of rotorcraft. Then, and only then, should one start to tackle the constituents from a lower level and more practical perspective. If alternative A fails then go to alternative B, but never loose site of the principal objective. Simply put, it is a reiterative top down approach.Slowrotor;
The 10% loss from a tail rotor is a better deal than 40% overall hit in efficiency that comes with two main rotors(Wayne Johnson).
The following two quotes are from his bible 'Helicopter Theory'.
"This configuration [twin main rotors] automatically balances the torque without requiring a power absorbing auxiliary rotor. The rotor-rotor aerodynamics interference losses absorb about the same amount of power, however." ~ page 9
"There are aerodynamic losses from the interference between the main rotors and between the main rotors and the fuselage; these losses reduce the overall efficiency of twin main rotor configurations to about the same level as for the single main and tail rotor configuration." ~ page 317
Wayne Johnson provides an excellent coverage of the rotor, however I don't think he delve into related subjects, such as blades and configurations.
IMHO, Stepniewski was the most knowledgeable person when it came to considering alternate configurations. Just before he died a few years ago, he produced a report that evaluated three potential configurations for future rotorcraft. These configurations were; (1) the cold-jet-driven single rotor, (2) the compound, and (3) the ABC intermeshing. The ABC Intermeshing, was his choice.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Stepniewski ... ABC Intermeshing, was his choice."
I'd say we were agreed there, Dave. What i'm puzzled about is why do you keep raising reverse velosity utilisation? Everything in your last post favours outboard advancing feathered retreating intermeshers. Did Stepniewski have a rotation preference?
"...two small hubs produce more drag than one large hub... drag is significantly reduced when the hub(s) are faired ... rigidity of a rotor ... closer... to the fuselage."
Good point, well made. In fairness a rigid single rotor would still have less drag, but perhaps not significantly so.
Mart
I'd say we were agreed there, Dave. What i'm puzzled about is why do you keep raising reverse velosity utilisation? Everything in your last post favours outboard advancing feathered retreating intermeshers. Did Stepniewski have a rotation preference?
"...two small hubs produce more drag than one large hub... drag is significantly reduced when the hub(s) are faired ... rigidity of a rotor ... closer... to the fuselage."
Good point, well made. In fairness a rigid single rotor would still have less drag, but perhaps not significantly so.
Mart
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman;
There is no conflict.
Twin main rotor configurations, Advancing Blade Concept, Higher Harmonic Control, Active Blade Twist, and Reverse Velocity Utilization are all compatible. Very compatible.
Dave
There is no conflict.
Twin main rotor configurations, Advancing Blade Concept, Higher Harmonic Control, Active Blade Twist, and Reverse Velocity Utilization are all compatible. Very compatible.
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 23rd May 2005 at 00:42.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Read Wayne Johnsons book page 118 "It follows that by operating the rotors coaxially the induced power required is increased by a factor of ..... 41%. and again on page 119.... "As the separation decreases, the increase in power approaches the 41% of coaxial rotors."
I take that quote to mean that the coaxial configuration requires 41% more power than twin tandem. I can not find any other better reference on the difference between configurations. Several references state that coaxial has double the disc loading, so that should explain the efficiency loss of coaxial.
An intermesher would only be slightly better than coaxial in power efficiency in my view.
P.S. induced power is quoted above, but I bet profile power and tip loss is more also with extra blades.
Read Wayne Johnsons book page 118 "It follows that by operating the rotors coaxially the induced power required is increased by a factor of ..... 41%. and again on page 119.... "As the separation decreases, the increase in power approaches the 41% of coaxial rotors."
I take that quote to mean that the coaxial configuration requires 41% more power than twin tandem. I can not find any other better reference on the difference between configurations. Several references state that coaxial has double the disc loading, so that should explain the efficiency loss of coaxial.
An intermesher would only be slightly better than coaxial in power efficiency in my view.
P.S. induced power is quoted above, but I bet profile power and tip loss is more also with extra blades.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slowrotor,
Sorry. You were reading 'Helicopter Theory'.
Adding more blades or increasing the disk loading will increase the power-to-thrust ratio. On pages 118-21 Johnson is using only Momentum Theory, so let's forget anything to do with the blade count.
The 41% (root 2) increase in power is the result of 'high' disk loading. The disk loading is based upon the method that is used to determine the disk area. As two independent disks are moved closer together, both horizontally and vertically, the area of overlap will increase. When they are vertically aligned (coaxial) and are very close to each other, the calculations are based on half the disk area of two identical but independent disks. Therefor the disk loading, in this situation, is twice as much, and the power requirement is 41% greater.
There is no universally accepted standard for determining the disk area of twin main rotor configurations, but this page will give a little more insight into the subject.
The optimum configuration for minimizing the power-to-thrust ratio MAY(*) be a 1-blade or 2-blade single rotor. However, other performance characteristics are being demanded from helicopters and this will necessitate three or more blades.
A coaxial rotor with 2-blades per rotor will normally have a better power-to-thrust ratio than a 4-blade single rotor, if all three rotor diameters (not total disk areas) are the same. This is because the tail rotor will consume more power than the interference (less swirl recovery) of two main rotors will consume.
(*) Large slow turning coaxials have been used in an attempt to achieve man-powered flight.
Dave
Edited to clarify, and to add sub note.
Sorry. You were reading 'Helicopter Theory'.
Adding more blades or increasing the disk loading will increase the power-to-thrust ratio. On pages 118-21 Johnson is using only Momentum Theory, so let's forget anything to do with the blade count.
The 41% (root 2) increase in power is the result of 'high' disk loading. The disk loading is based upon the method that is used to determine the disk area. As two independent disks are moved closer together, both horizontally and vertically, the area of overlap will increase. When they are vertically aligned (coaxial) and are very close to each other, the calculations are based on half the disk area of two identical but independent disks. Therefor the disk loading, in this situation, is twice as much, and the power requirement is 41% greater.
There is no universally accepted standard for determining the disk area of twin main rotor configurations, but this page will give a little more insight into the subject.
The optimum configuration for minimizing the power-to-thrust ratio MAY(*) be a 1-blade or 2-blade single rotor. However, other performance characteristics are being demanded from helicopters and this will necessitate three or more blades.
A coaxial rotor with 2-blades per rotor will normally have a better power-to-thrust ratio than a 4-blade single rotor, if all three rotor diameters (not total disk areas) are the same. This is because the tail rotor will consume more power than the interference (less swirl recovery) of two main rotors will consume.
(*) Large slow turning coaxials have been used in an attempt to achieve man-powered flight.
Dave
Edited to clarify, and to add sub note.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 23rd May 2005 at 17:45.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Twin main rotor configurations, Advancing Blade Concept, Higher Harmonic Control, Active Blade Twist, and Reverse Velocity Utilization are all compatible."
OK Dave, but my concern is to avoid a potential FMECA (Failure Modes Effect and Criticality Analysis), or even dynamic, knightmare. HHC can be done by servo trimming of basic control input, ABT can be be developed independently - but all on one project sounds very risky, especially before the basic ARR concept is proven! If this were a research project for a heli company, i am convinced they would want it broken down into solvable chunks - not that it wouldn't get funded.
Still, regarding the theory i remain unclear as to whether Stepniewski had a prefered intermeshing rotation direction (at least i couldn't find it). Also if there are adverse interference effects from rotors in close proximity, why use the retreating blade to upset the air for the advancing blade? The reverse velocity utilisation should surely only be used to allow dragless passage of the retreating blade through the downwash (ie no lift). I appreciate your velocity diagrams, but would be much more convinced by either tunnel work or CFD:
http://www.cfdrc.com/bizareas/aerosp...edictions.html
BTW the animation is pretty neat...
Mart
OK Dave, but my concern is to avoid a potential FMECA (Failure Modes Effect and Criticality Analysis), or even dynamic, knightmare. HHC can be done by servo trimming of basic control input, ABT can be be developed independently - but all on one project sounds very risky, especially before the basic ARR concept is proven! If this were a research project for a heli company, i am convinced they would want it broken down into solvable chunks - not that it wouldn't get funded.
Still, regarding the theory i remain unclear as to whether Stepniewski had a prefered intermeshing rotation direction (at least i couldn't find it). Also if there are adverse interference effects from rotors in close proximity, why use the retreating blade to upset the air for the advancing blade? The reverse velocity utilisation should surely only be used to allow dragless passage of the retreating blade through the downwash (ie no lift). I appreciate your velocity diagrams, but would be much more convinced by either tunnel work or CFD:
http://www.cfdrc.com/bizareas/aerosp...edictions.html
BTW the animation is pretty neat...
Mart
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mart,
It is broken down into chunks. The most difficult (but theoretically best functioning) method of achieving the most difficult feature is currently being tackled. If it fails then the next best method for achieving the most difficult feature will be attempted
After this, the second most difficult feature will be tackled. Top down.
This question was answered in a reply to your post, 15 days ago. Intermeshing Helicopters thread posted 8th May 2005
Reverse Velocity Utilization is little more than a very large Active Blade Twist. (simplistically speaking)
Dave
but all on one project sounds very risky ...... i am convinced they would want it broken down into solvable chunks
After this, the second most difficult feature will be tackled. Top down.
Still, regarding the theory i remain unclear as to whether Stepniewski had a prefered intermeshing rotation direction (at least i couldn't find it)
Reverse Velocity Utilization is little more than a very large Active Blade Twist. (simplistically speaking)
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 23rd May 2005 at 20:08.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Québec, Canada
Age: 69
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simplified synchro!
What do you think of this configuration, for recreational purposes, without the wings and their rig, and a synchromesh rotor with only actuation of the collective pitch of each rotor?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Dave, another evening spent reading up on choppers! 
But i keep my weekends for engine design.
"It is broken down into chunks..."
OK. Looking through 1st method i'm guessing you've done quite a bit of high tech boat building? I can't really comment since composites to this level are outside of my expertise - willing learner though. I say only: measure twice cut once, but test three times!
Can i suggest another clawback option: "the floating tip method". Basically as BERP approach, in that trailing edge forces tip to fixed AOA. This still gets the torsional flexure development, but avoids complexity of elastomeric bush along blade.
"This question was answered in a reply to your post, 15 days ago."
Doh!
Does this mean you are unconvinced about alternative means to make outward-advance have breaststroke stability?
[BTW was my explanation of breaststroke stability, in that same thread, any use?]
"Reverse Velocity Utilization ... Active Blade Twist."
OK, but my point is why introduce additional vortices from retreating blades into advancing blades (assuming Stepniewski rotation). For Stepniewski's ABC there is a gap between hub and fuselage, while there is none in your intermeshing concepts. Therefore doesn't retreating blade downwash either produce fuselage download or advancing blade vortex slap?
[BTW please note i altered my last post in thread:
http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=4
I reread it and decided i was being unecessarily critical]
---
"What do you think of this configuration..."
Looks pretty cool Quadrirotor, but i'll bet it guzzles fuel like there's no tomorrow! Probably easy to fly, but likely to need lots of mechanic time after high hours. I have wondered the same about the Moller SkyCar. Lots of threads on this forum about failed driveshafts and gearbox input/output bearings...
http://www.moller.com/
Mart
But i keep my weekends for engine design.
"It is broken down into chunks..."
OK. Looking through 1st method i'm guessing you've done quite a bit of high tech boat building? I can't really comment since composites to this level are outside of my expertise - willing learner though. I say only: measure twice cut once, but test three times!
Can i suggest another clawback option: "the floating tip method". Basically as BERP approach, in that trailing edge forces tip to fixed AOA. This still gets the torsional flexure development, but avoids complexity of elastomeric bush along blade.
"This question was answered in a reply to your post, 15 days ago."
Doh!
Does this mean you are unconvinced about alternative means to make outward-advance have breaststroke stability?[BTW was my explanation of breaststroke stability, in that same thread, any use?]
"Reverse Velocity Utilization ... Active Blade Twist."
OK, but my point is why introduce additional vortices from retreating blades into advancing blades (assuming Stepniewski rotation). For Stepniewski's ABC there is a gap between hub and fuselage, while there is none in your intermeshing concepts. Therefore doesn't retreating blade downwash either produce fuselage download or advancing blade vortex slap?
[BTW please note i altered my last post in thread:
http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=4
I reread it and decided i was being unecessarily critical]
---
"What do you think of this configuration..."
Looks pretty cool Quadrirotor, but i'll bet it guzzles fuel like there's no tomorrow! Probably easy to fly, but likely to need lots of mechanic time after high hours. I have wondered the same about the Moller SkyCar. Lots of threads on this forum about failed driveshafts and gearbox input/output bearings...
http://www.moller.com/
Mart
Last edited by Graviman; 25th May 2005 at 20:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quadrirotor,
It might be an ideal "configuration, for recreational purposes". In fact, here are some prospective customers looking it over.
Seriously;
Here is some information on it (the Vanguard Omniplane), and on the similar GE-Ryan XV-5A
Dave
[German stuff moved to a more appropriate thread.]
It might be an ideal "configuration, for recreational purposes". In fact, here are some prospective customers looking it over.
Seriously;
Here is some information on it (the Vanguard Omniplane), and on the similar GE-Ryan XV-5A
Dave
[German stuff moved to a more appropriate thread.]
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 24th May 2005 at 19:52.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh...
Go on Dave, you can't just duck out when the questions get too hard!
Any concerns i raise are not intended to poke holes, but just to understand how your project will deal with aspects that might otherwise cause problems. Having degrees in engineering and physics, i've made a career in thinking outside of the box. I think your basic concept is sound, but (like any project) will need to keep evolving during it's course - you've even convinced me of a few things (like rotor effective dihedral) along the way. If you can defend you project at this stage, it makes it a whole lot easier later on - believe me i know...
Best regards,
Mart
Any concerns i raise are not intended to poke holes, but just to understand how your project will deal with aspects that might otherwise cause problems. Having degrees in engineering and physics, i've made a career in thinking outside of the box. I think your basic concept is sound, but (like any project) will need to keep evolving during it's course - you've even convinced me of a few things (like rotor effective dihedral) along the way. If you can defend you project at this stage, it makes it a whole lot easier later on - believe me i know...
Best regards,
Mart
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman,
I assume that you are talking about the edits to your previous post.
In addition, it is difficult to answer a 'shotgun' of questions. Fewer questions per posting and better-focused questions are preferred.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "fixed AOA". The angle of attack at the tip must vary around the disk.
As I am sure you are aware, Reverse Velocity Utilization means that a large portion of the blade, which is experiencing airflow from the 'trailing' edge to the 'leading' edge, has a negative pitch. This portion of the blade can now also produce lift. A preferred way to do this is to have the ABT have a large range of twist.
The UniCopter is not an ideal candidate for Reverse Velocity Utilization, because the span of the reverse velocity region on the retreating blade is relatively small. However, the speed of the craft might be increased in the future. In addition, it's fun to work on futuristic ideas.
Regarding fuselage download; to have control over the retreating blade's pitch that is located directly above the fuselage will help to; reduce negative lift, minimize vortex generation and help feed air to the upper segment of the pusher propeller.
Dave
you can't just duck out when the questions get too hard!
In addition, it is difficult to answer a 'shotgun' of questions. Fewer questions per posting and better-focused questions are preferred.
Can i suggest another clawback option: "the floating tip method". Basically as BERP approach, in that trailing edge forces tip to fixed AOA.
Does this mean you are unconvinced about alternative means to make outward-advance have breaststroke stability?
"Reverse Velocity Utilization ... Active Blade Twist." Therefore doesn't retreating blade downwash either produce fuselage download or advancing blade vortex slap?
The UniCopter is not an ideal candidate for Reverse Velocity Utilization, because the span of the reverse velocity region on the retreating blade is relatively small. However, the speed of the craft might be increased in the future. In addition, it's fun to work on futuristic ideas.
Regarding fuselage download; to have control over the retreating blade's pitch that is located directly above the fuselage will help to; reduce negative lift, minimize vortex generation and help feed air to the upper segment of the pusher propeller.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
"Fewer questions per posting and better-focused questions are preferred."
OK, point well made. This is very difficult when the original post seems to be intended for debate, while i am still very unclear of ultimate project objectives.
Since you mention "no tail rotor" in the first post, i assume you mean intermesher applications. In the previous post on intermeshers, i was still very confused as to why you prefer to have Synchrolite rotor rotation opposite to Unicopter (i see one as a development of the other).
---
"Please elaborate on what you mean by "fixed AOA". The angle of attack at the tip must vary around the disk."
I mean that the angle of attack of the tip relative to the airflow remains at an optimum constant. This means that angle of attack relative to tip path plane will vary cyclically, depending on overall airflow. Root would still be swash-plate controlled.
---
"The UniCopter is not an ideal candidate for Reverse Velocity Utilization, because the span of the reverse velocity region on the retreating blade is relatively small."
OK, so again is the project objective R.V.U or the Unicopter? I am very confused now, since you seem to be tooling up for a rotor system - for what aircraft?
"In addition, it's fun to work on futuristic ideas."
Agreed, but as an engineer i really struggle when there isn't a specific focus.
---
"Regarding fuselage download; to have control over the retreating blade's pitch that is located directly above the fuselage will help to; reduce negative lift, minimize vortex generation and help feed air to the upper segment of the pusher propeller."
OK but, bearing in mind my utter confusion about what aircraft this rotor head is being designed for, an intermeshing configuration would neatly achieve this by feathering retreating blade to local airflow. Hence my suggestion of "fixed AOA" tip.
Mart
[Edit: Typos only]
"Fewer questions per posting and better-focused questions are preferred."
OK, point well made. This is very difficult when the original post seems to be intended for debate, while i am still very unclear of ultimate project objectives.
Since you mention "no tail rotor" in the first post, i assume you mean intermesher applications. In the previous post on intermeshers, i was still very confused as to why you prefer to have Synchrolite rotor rotation opposite to Unicopter (i see one as a development of the other).
---
"Please elaborate on what you mean by "fixed AOA". The angle of attack at the tip must vary around the disk."
I mean that the angle of attack of the tip relative to the airflow remains at an optimum constant. This means that angle of attack relative to tip path plane will vary cyclically, depending on overall airflow. Root would still be swash-plate controlled.
---
"The UniCopter is not an ideal candidate for Reverse Velocity Utilization, because the span of the reverse velocity region on the retreating blade is relatively small."
OK, so again is the project objective R.V.U or the Unicopter? I am very confused now, since you seem to be tooling up for a rotor system - for what aircraft?
"In addition, it's fun to work on futuristic ideas."
Agreed, but as an engineer i really struggle when there isn't a specific focus.
---
"Regarding fuselage download; to have control over the retreating blade's pitch that is located directly above the fuselage will help to; reduce negative lift, minimize vortex generation and help feed air to the upper segment of the pusher propeller."
OK but, bearing in mind my utter confusion about what aircraft this rotor head is being designed for, an intermeshing configuration would neatly achieve this by feathering retreating blade to local airflow. Hence my suggestion of "fixed AOA" tip.
Mart
[Edit: Typos only]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman,
The objective of this thread was to invoke a discussion about what the future of rotorcraft might be as significant developments are applied to the main-rotors. The intent was to consider the probable end of the tail-rotor and the potential for all counterrotating twin-main-rotor configurations.
I think that this thread has run its course.
Dave
The objective of this thread was to invoke a discussion about what the future of rotorcraft might be as significant developments are applied to the main-rotors. The intent was to consider the probable end of the tail-rotor and the potential for all counterrotating twin-main-rotor configurations.
I think that this thread has run its course.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
OK, but i'm disappointed that every attempt to better understand the project objectives leads to the same impasse.
From this thread:
"Simply put, it is a reiterative top down approach"
In engineering terms "top down" means you have established what the final concept will look like, and are developing complete systems specifically for that concept. Bottom up focuses on specific components for general applications...
Mart
OK, but i'm disappointed that every attempt to better understand the project objectives leads to the same impasse.
From this thread:
"Simply put, it is a reiterative top down approach"
In engineering terms "top down" means you have established what the final concept will look like, and are developing complete systems specifically for that concept. Bottom up focuses on specific components for general applications...
Mart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail rotors cost somewhere between 3 to 6% of the power needed to hover, and about 1% in cruise. Dave sells soap very well, and he needs horrendous tail rotor losses (he says 10% when he started this thread) to sell this particular brand of soap he is hawking.
That being said, active on-blade control is the future of helicopter technology. Of course, we could ask dave why that is so tied to the old warhorse he drags out on the forum every 6 weeeks or so, the perennial loser, the syncropter.
That being said, active on-blade control is the future of helicopter technology. Of course, we could ask dave why that is so tied to the old warhorse he drags out on the forum every 6 weeeks or so, the perennial loser, the syncropter.