Search Results (2)

This present study investigates the effect of blade tip configurations, such as the sweepback angle and anhedral angle, on the performance and hub vibratory loads for the lift-offset coaxial rotor of a 30,000-pound-class high-speed long-range utility helicopter. The rotorcraft comprehensive analysis code, CAMRAD II, is utilized to conduct the performance and hub vibratory load analyses for the present lift-offset coaxial rotor. The total rotor thrust, torque, and individual rotor’s hub pitch moment and hub roll moment are considered the trim targets. The general properties for the lift-offset coaxial rotor are designed from the X2TD, S-97 Raider, and SB > 1 Defiant, which are lift-offset compound helicopters. The rotor performance and hub vibratory loads are studied with the various blade tip configurations including the sweepback angle and anhedral angle. The rotor power when the rotor blade tip considers only the sweepback angle (20°) is lower than the baseline rotor model by 41.25% at 170 knots. The maximum rotor effective lift-to-drag ratio (L/D_e) for the lift-offset coaxial rotor using only the sweepback angle and the rotor with both sweepback (20°) and anhedral angles (10°) at 170 knots increase by 10.82% and 5.02%, respectively, compared with the baseline rotor model without both sweepback and anhedral angles. The vibration index (VI) for the rotor with only the sweepback angle is higher than that for the baseline rotor model without both sweepback and anhedral angles by 37.14%. Furthermore, when the rotor blade tip has the anhedral angle, the magnitude of the Blade Vortex Interaction (BVI) decreases compared with the rotor without the sweepback and anhedral angles. Full article

The aerodynamic performance of a reduced-scale coaxial rigid rotor system in hover and steady forward flights was experimentally investigated to gain insights into the effect of interference between upper and lower rotors and the influences of the advance ratio, shaft tilt angle and lift offset. The rotor system featured by 2 m-diameter, four-bladed upper and lower hingeless rotors and was installed in a coaxial rotor test rig. Experiments were conducted in the Φ3.2 m wind tunnel at China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center (CARDC). The rotor system was tested in hover states at collective pitches ranging from 0° to 13° and it was also tested in forward flights at advance ratios up to 0.6, with specific focus on the shaft tilt angle and lift offset sweeps. To ensure that the coaxial rotor was operating in a similar manner to that of the real flight, the torque difference was trimmed to zero in hover flight, whilst the constant lift coefficient was maintained in forward flight. An isolated single-rotor configuration test was also conducted with the same pitch angle setting in the coaxial rotor. The hover test results demonstrate that the figure of merit (FM) value of the lower rotor is lower than that of the upper rotor, and both are lower than that of the isolated single rotor. Moreover, the coaxial rotor configuration can contribute to better hover efficiency under the same blade loading coefficient (${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{T}}/\mathsf{\sigma }$). In forward flight, the effective lift-to-drag (L/De) ratio of the coaxial rigid rotor does not monotonously change as the advance ratio increases. Increases in the required power and drag in the case with a high advance ratio of 0.6 leads to the decreasing L/De ratio of the rotor. Meanwhile, the L/De ratio of the rotor is relatively high when the rotor shaft is tilted backward. The increasing lift offset tends to result in reduced required rotor power and an increase in the rotor drag. When the effect of the reduced rotor power is greater than that of the increased rotor drag, the L/De ratio increases as the lift offset increases. The L/De ratio can benefit significantly from lift offset at a high advance ratio, but it is much less influenced by lift offset at a low advance ratio. The forward performance efficiency of the upper rotor is poorer than that of the lower rotor, which is significantly different from the case in the hover flight. Full article