Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:23:26.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propeller control for takeoff of a heavily loaded coaxial compound helicopter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2023

Y. Zhao Open the ORCID record for Y. Zhao [Opens in a new window] ,
Y. Yuan Open the ORCID record for Y. Yuan [Opens in a new window] ,
R. Chen Open the ORCID record for R. Chen [Opens in a new window]  and
X. Yan Open the ORCID record for X. Yan [Opens in a new window]
Y. Zhao
Affiliation:
National Key Laboratory of Rotorcraft Aeromechanics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Nanjing, China
Y. Yuan
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, Swansea University, UK
R. Chen*
Affiliation:
National Key Laboratory of Rotorcraft Aeromechanics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Nanjing, China
X. Yan
Affiliation:
Zhejiang Lab, Hangzhou, China
*
*Corresponding author. Email: crlae@nuaa.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although a coaxial compound helicopter can takeoff without propeller in the normal condition, the distance should be as short as possible for obstacle avoidance when the vehicle operates in a confined area with heavy loads. Therefore, a suitable propeller control is required to improve the takeoff performance while the total power consumption is no more than the available power. The path is predicted by applying trajectory optimisation. Several varying takeoff parameters, including attitude, liftoff speed and obstacle height, are considered for optimum global performance. Three path indicators are proposed. Apart from typical distance and pilot workload, path sensitivity is quantified based on deviation from takeoff parameter variation. Results indicated that low propeller thrust at hover and moderate allocation on the propeller through flight is recommended. The aircraft achieves significantly improved takeoff performance compared to flight with pure rotors while maintaining the maximum takeoff weight. The distance is shortened by 12.6%, and the longitudinal pilot workload is alleviated by 9.8% and 7.3% from mean and maximum power frequency aspects. Besides, the path is less sensitive to takeoff parameter variations, such as speed, altitude and height.

Keywords

Coaxial Compound Helicopterheavily-loaded aircraftpilot workloadshort takeoffpath sensitivity
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 127 , Issue 1316 , October 2023 , pp. 1832 - 1849
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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

Foote, B.C., Kaye, J.A., Weintraub, A.Q. et al. Speed and maneuverability benefits of Sikorsky’s X2 TechnologyTM versus air-defense artillery, In Vertical Flight Society 75th Annual Forum & Technology Display. AHS International, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019, p 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y., Thomson, D. and Chen, R. Variable rotor speed strategy for coaxial compound helicopters with lift–offset rotors, Aeronaut J, 2020, 124, (1271), pp 96–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y., Thomson, D. and Chen, R. Propeller control strategy for coaxial compound helicopters, Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng, 2019, 233, (10), pp 3775–3789. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0954410018806796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, D., Weiner, S., Arifian, K. et al. High airspeed testing of the Sikorsky X2 Technology Demonstrator, In American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum. AHS International, Virginia Beach, VA, 2011, pp 2999–3010.Google Scholar
Yuan, Y., Chen, R. and Thomson, D. Propeller design to improve flight dynamics features and performance for coaxial compound helicopters, Aerosp Sci Technol, 2020, 106, p 106096. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1270963820307781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. and Thomson, D. Flight dynamics investigation of compound helicopter configurations, J Aircr, 2015, 52, (1), pp 156–167. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C032657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, M.K. Towards a better understanding of the flight mechanics of compound helicopter configurations, PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 2015.Google Scholar
Ruddell, A.J. Advancing Blade Concept (ABCTM) Development, Technical Report USAAVRADCOM-TR-81-D-5, Sikorsky Aircraft Division of United Technologies Corporation, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruddell, A. Advancing blade concept (ABC) development test program. In 1st Flight Test Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 1981, p 2437. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1981-2437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xin, H., Zhang, C., Black, A. et al., S-97 Raider® GENHEL Model development and correlation with flight test data, In Vertical Flight Society (VFS) 77th Annual Forum & Technology Display. AHS International, Virtual Event, 2021, p 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, D., Weiner, S., Arifian, K. et al. Development testing of the Sikorsky X2 Technology Demonstrator, In American Helicopter Society 65th Annual Forum. AHS International, Grapevine, Texas, 2009, pp 1–11.Google Scholar
Hall, C., Zachariadis, A., Brandvik, T. et al. How to improve open rotor aerodynamics at cruise and take-off. Aeronaut J, 2014, 118, (1208), pp 1103–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, F., Strusevich, V., Gribkovskaia, I. et al. Minimization of passenger takeoff and landing risk in offshore helicopter transportation: Models, approaches and analysis, Omega, 2015, 51, pp 93–106. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305048314001030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., Jhemi, A.A. and Chen, R.T.N. Optimal vertical takeoff and landing helicopter operation in one engine failure. J Aircr, 1996, 33, (2), pp 337–346. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/3.46943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibik, P. and Narkiewicz, J. Helicopter optimal control after power failure using comprehensive dynamic model, J Guidance, Control Dyn, 2012, 35, (4), pp 1354–1362. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.51371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enciu, K. and Rosen, A. Safety considerations for helicopter roll on takeoffs. J Aircr, 2011, 48, (3), pp 952–962. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C031183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, F. and Rande Vause, C. A simple, near-optimal takeoff control policy for a heavily loaded helicopter operating from a restricted area, In Mechanics and Control of Flight Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Anaheim, CA, USA, 1974, pp 1–8. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1974-812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, F.H. and Vause, C.R. Near-optimal takeoff policy for heavily loaded helicopters exiting from confined areas, J Aircr, 1976, 13, (5), pp 343–348. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/3.58666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D., Taylor, C., Talbot, N. et al. Investigation of piloting strategies for engine failures during takeoff from offshore platforms, Aeronaut J, 1995, 99, pp 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E.B. Optimal Tiltrotor Aircraft Operations during Power Failure, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA, 1999. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhDT.......225C Google Scholar
Enciu, K. and Rosen, A. Helicopter roll-on takeoff simulation, J Am Helicopter Soc, 2011, 56, (1), pp 12003–12015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiand, P. and Krenik, A. A multi-disciplinary toolbox for rotorcraft design, Aeronaut J, 2018, 122, (1250), pp 620–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. NDARC NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft, Technical Publication NASA/TP—2015–218751, NASA, 2015.Google Scholar
Valkov, T. Aerodynamic loads computation on coaxial hingeless helicopter rotors. In 28th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, volume AIAA 90-0070. Montreal, Canada: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1990, p 14. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1990-70 Google Scholar
Zhao, Y., Yu, X. and Chen, R. Height-Velocity Characteristics Comparisons of Single-rotor and Coaxial Helicopters. In Vertical Flight Society (VFS) 77th Annual Forum & Technology Display. AHS International, Virtual Event, 2021, p 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheeseman, I.C. and Bennett, W. The Effect of the Ground on a Helicopter Rotor in Forward Flight, Reports and Memoranda R&M. No. 3021, Aeronautical Research Council, London, 1955.Google Scholar
Lim, J.W., McAlister, K.W. and Johnson, W. Hover performance correlation for full-scale and model-scale coaxial rotors. J Am Helicopter Soc, 2009, 54, (3), pp 32005–32014. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.4050/JAHS.54.032005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tr, A. Performance and loads data from a wind tunnel test of a full-scale, coaxial, hingeless rotor helicopter. Technical Memorandum NASA-TM-81329, Ames Research Center, 1981.Google Scholar
Pleasants, W.A. A rotor technology assessment of the advancing blade concept. Technical Memorandum NASA-TM-84298, Ames Research Center, 1983.Google Scholar
Yan, X. and Chen, R. Augmented flight dynamics model for pilot workload evaluation in tilt-rotor aircraft optimal landing procedure after one engine failure. Chin J Aeronaut, 2019, 32, (1), pp 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottasso, C.L., Maisano, G. and Scorcelletti, F. Trajectory optimization procedures for rotorcraft vehicles including pilot models, with applications to ADS-33 MTEs, cat-a and engine off landings. In American Helicopter Society 65th Annual Forum, AHS International, 2009, p 15.Google Scholar
Yu, Z., Yan, X. and Chen, R. Prediction of pilot workload in helicopter landing after one engine failure. Chin J Aeronaut, 2020, 33, (12), pp 3112–3124. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S100093612030248X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, V. Optimal Category-A Helicopter Flight Trajectories for Operation from a Clear Heliport, Technical report, Ames Research Center, 1995. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20020011642 Google Scholar
Chi, C., Yan, X., Chen, R. et al. Analysis of low-speed height-velocity diagram of a variable-speed-rotor helicopter in one-engine-failure. Aerosp Sci Technol, 2019, 91, pp 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tritschler, J.K., O’Connor, J.C., Klyde, D.H. et al. Analysis of pilot control activity in ADS-33e mission task elements, In American Helicopter Society 72th Annual Forum. AHS International, 2016, pp 150–174.Google Scholar
Dunham, D.M., Gentry, J.G.L. and Coe, P.L. Jr Low-speed wind-tunnel tests of single- and counter-rotation propellers, Technical Memorandum NASA-TM-87656, NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, 1986. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19860013081 Google Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory Circular 29-2C, Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft, 2008.Google Scholar