Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Examining the stability derivatives of a compound helicopter

  • K. Ferguson (a1) and D. Thomson (a2)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
1. Leishman, J.G. Principals of Helicopter Aerodynamics, 2nd ed, 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
2. Johnson, W. Helicopter Theory, 2nd ed, 1994, Dover Publications, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey, US.
3. Newman, S.J. The Foundations of Helicopter Flight, 1994, Edward Arnold, London.
4. Filippone, A. Flight Performance of Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft, 1st ed, 2006, Elsevier Ltd. Oxford, UK.
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 645656.
6. Prouty, R.W. Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control, 1999, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, In. Malabar, Florida, US.
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.
8. Buhler, M. and Newman, S.J. The aerodynamics of the compound helicopter configuration, Aeronautical J, 1996, 100, (994), pp 111120.
9. Hirschberg, M.J. Joint multi-role moves forward, Vertiflite, 2014, 60, (1), pp 2426.
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 297315.
11. Moodie, A.M. and Yeo, H. Design of a cruise-efficient compound helicopter, J American Helicopter Society, 2012, 57, (3).
12. Yeo, H. and Johnson, W. Optimum design of a compound helicopter, AIAA J Aircraft, 2009, 46, (4).
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.
14. Padfield, G.D. Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying Qualities and Simulation Modelling, 2nd ed, 2007, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
15. Ferguson, K.M. and Thomson, D.G. Flight dynamics investigation of compound helicopter configurations, AIAA J Aircraft, 2014, 52, (1), pp 156167.
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.
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 854863.
18. Rutherford, S. Simulation Techniques for the Study of the Manoeuvring of Advanced Rotorcraft Configurations, PhD Thesis, 1997, University of Glasgow, UK.
19. Mansur, M.H. Development and Validation of a Blade Element Mathematical Model for the AH-64A Apache Helicopter. NASA-TM-108863, 1995.
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 260266.
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).
22. Anderson, J.D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 4th ed, 2007, McGraw-Hill, London, UK.
23. Frandenburgh, E.A. and Segel, R.M. Model and full scale compound helicopter research, Helicopter Society 21st Annual, 1965.
24. Torres, M. A Wing on the SA.341 Gazelle helicopter and its effects, Vertica, 1976, 1, (1), pp 6773.
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.
26. Keys, C.N. Performance prediction of helicopters, Stepniewski, W. Z., editor, Rotor-Wing Aerodynamics, 1981, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, US.
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.
28. Van Dyke, M.D. High-Speed Subsonic Characteristics of 16 NACA Six Series Airfoil Sections. NACA TN 2670, 1952.
29. Tischler, M.B. and Remple, R.K. Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification, 2nd ed, 2012, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Reston, VA, US.
30. Stevens, B.L. and Lewis, F.L. Aircraft Control and Simulation, 2nd ed, John Wiley and Sons, 2003. ISBN 0-471-37145-9.
31. Anon. Handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft. Aeronautical design standard ADS-33E-PRF, United States Army Aviation and Troop Command, 2000.
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.
33. Blake, B.B. and Alansky, I.B. Stability and control of the YUH-61A, J American Helicopter Society, 1977, 22, (1), pp 210.
34. Houston, S.S. The Gyrodyne – a forgotten high performer? J American Helicopter Society, 2007, 52, (4), pp 382391.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Examining the stability derivatives of a compound helicopter

  • K. Ferguson (a1) and D. Thomson (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.