U.S. patent application number 09/731150 was filed with the patent office on 2001-05-10 for optimum speed rotor.
Invention is credited to Karem, Abraham E..
Application Number | 20010001033 09/731150 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 22126232 |
Filed Date | 2001-05-10 |
United States Patent
Application |
20010001033 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Karem, Abraham E. |
May 10, 2001 |
Optimum speed rotor
Abstract
A variable speed helicopter rotor system and method for
operating such a system are provided which allow the helicopter
rotor to be operated at an optimal angular velocity in revolutions
per minute (RPM) minimizing the power required to turn the rotor
and thereby resulting in helicopter performance efficiency
improvements, reduction in noise, and improvements in rotor,
helicopter transmission and engine life. The system and method
provide for an increase in helicopter endurance and. The system and
method also provide a substantial improvement in helicopter
performance during take-off, hover and maneuver.
Inventors: |
Karem, Abraham E.; (Lake
Forest, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
350 WEST COLORADO BOULEVARD
SUITE 500
PASADENA
CA
91105
US
|
Family ID: |
22126232 |
Appl. No.: |
09/731150 |
Filed: |
December 5, 2000 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
09731150 |
Dec 5, 2000 |
|
|
|
09434691 |
Nov 5, 1999 |
|
|
|
09434691 |
Nov 5, 1999 |
|
|
|
09253391 |
Feb 19, 1999 |
|
|
|
6007298 |
|
|
|
|
60075509 |
Feb 20, 1998 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
416/44 |
Current CPC
Class: |
B64C 27/04 20130101;
B64C 27/467 20130101; Y10S 416/05 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
416/44 |
International
Class: |
B63H 001/28 |
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method for improving the efficiency of a helicopter for a
specific flight condition, the helicopter comprising a rotor having
radially extending blades and an engine for providing power to
rotate the rotor at various RPM levels, the method comprising the
steps of: selecting a desired efficiency for a flight condition of
a helicopter; determining a rotor blade loading for the selected
efficiency; ascertaining an RPM value for achieving the determined
blade loading; and adjusting the RPM of the rotor to the
ascertained RPM value.
2. A method for improving the efficiency of a helicopter for a
specific flight condition, the helicopter comprising a rotor having
radially extending blades and an engine for providing power to
rotate the rotor, wherein the rotor operates at a range of RPM
levels ranging from 100% to less than 94% of the rotor maximum RPM
level, the method comprising the steps of: determining a rotor
blade loading for improved efficiency for the flight condition,
wherein said rotor blade loading is a function of in RPM;
ascertaining an RPM value for achieving the determined blade
loading; and adjusting the RPM of the rotor to the ascertained RPM
value level.
3. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein the step of determining
comprises the step of determining a range of blade loadings for
improved efficiency for the flight condition, and wherein the step
of ascertaining comprises the step of ascertaining an RPM range for
achieving a blade loading within the determined range of blade
loadings.
4. A method for improving helicopter performance during a flight
condition by decreasing fuel consumption, the method comprising the
steps of: providing a rotor driven to rotate by a powerplant
consuming fuel; operating the rotor for providing lift; monitoring
the fuel consumption; and varying the rotor RPM to any level
required for minimizing the powerplant fuel consumption for the
flight condition while providing sufficient lift for the flight
condition.
5. A method as recited in claim 4 wherein the rotor is a hingeless
rotor.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
1. This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 09/434,691 filed on Nov. 5, 1999, which is a continuation
of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/253,391 filed on Feb. 19,
1999 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,007,298, which claimed the
benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application
No. 60/075,509, filed Feb. 20, 1998, the contents of which are
hereby incorporated by reference.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
2. This invention relates to helicopters and specifically to
helicopters having variable speed rotors for achieving substantial
increases in endurance, range, altitude and speed and reductions in
noise levels and fuel consumption.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
3. The efficiency of an aircraft, whether fixed wing or rotorcraft,
as expressed by the fuel consumption required to achieve a specific
performance as for example, cruise, climb, or maximum speed, is
directly proportional to the power required to achieve such
performance. The power required is inversely proportional to the
ratio of the aircraft lift to the drag (L/D). In order to increase
an aircraft efficiency designers strive to increase the lift to
drag ratio by minimizing the aircraft drag at lift levels required
to counter the aircraft weight and to allow for aircraft
maneuvering.
4. The lift and drag of an aircraft are determined by the following
formulas, respectively:
L=1/2.rho.V.sup.2SC.sub.L (1)
D=1/2.rho.V.sup.2SC.sub.D (2)
5. Where .rho. is the air density, V is the air velocity
(airspeed), S is the reference area of the lifting surface (wing or
rotor blade), CL and CD are non-dimensional lift and drag
coefficients. The lift to drag ratio L/D is equal to coefficient of
lift to the coefficient of drag ratio, CL/CD. Thus, the ratio of
the coefficient of lift to the coefficient of drag, CL/CD, has a
direct effect on performance. The CL/CD is a function of CL as can
be seen by the CL v. CL/CD graph depicted in FIG. 1 for a typical
airfoil. For best cruise efficiency, the coefficient of lift of the
lifting airfoil should be maintained at levels of maximum
CL/CD.
6. In a helicopter the lift and drag of the rotor blades conform to
the same lift formula L=1/2rV2SCL where V is the local airspeed on
the blade which, in a hovering helicopter is a result of the blade
angular velocity in revolutions per minute (RPM). For convenience,
"RPM" as used herein refers to rotor angular velocity. Moreover,
the term "helicopter" as used herein encompasses all types of
rotorcraft.
7. In a hovering helicopter, the speed of the rotor blade increases
radially outward. At any given radial distance from the rotor
center, the speed of the blade is given by the equation: 1 v r = 2
r ( RPM ) 60 ( 3 )
8. where, vr is the rotational speed and r is the radial distance
measured from the rotor center.
9. A helicopter in a substantial forward speed (e.g., 100-200 mph)
experiences problems of control, vibration and limitations in
performance resulting from the asymmetry in the speeds of the
advancing and retreating blades. When traveling in a forward
direction 8, the advancing blade 10 has a speed equal the
rotational speed of the blade plus the forward speed of the
helicopter, whereas the retreating blade 12 has a speed equal the
rotational speed of the blade minus the forward speed of the
helicopter. The speeds along the length of the blades when
traveling forward are shown in FIG. 2. As a result, the advancing
blade has more lift than the retreating blade. To avoid helicopter
roll over due the airspeed asymmetry, the lift on the retreating
blade has to be increased while the speed on the advancing blade
has to be decreased. Because, lift is proportional to the velocity
(i.e., speed) of the blade squared (V2) a substantial increase in
the coefficient of lift (CL) of the retreating blade is required.
The available lift coefficient for a given blade is limited as
shown FIG. 1. Consequently, the asymmetry in speeds between the
advancing and retreating blades has to be limited thereby limiting
the forward speed of the helicopter.
10. Increasing the RPM of the rotor reduces the relative asymmetry
of the airspeed distribution, thus reducing the effects of forward
speed on roll control limits. But such RPM increase is constrained
by the maximum allowable rotor tip speed. The maximum allowable tip
speed is typically lower than the speed of sound (i.e., Mach 1) so
as to avoid the substantial increases in drag, vibration and noise
encountered when the tip speed approaches Mach 1.
11. Current helicopter rotors turn at a constant RPM throughout the
flight because of the complex and severe rotor dynamics problems.
Generally, helicopter designers are content if they succeed in the
development of a single speed rotor, which can go from zero to
design RPM when not loaded on the ground during start and stop
without encountering vibration loads which overstress the
helicopter and rotor structure. When the blades of a conventional
rotor are producing lift, a significant change of the rotor blade
RPM from the design RPM may yield catastrophic results.
12. Conventional helicopter rotors are designed to achieve blade
flap, lag and torsional natural oscillation frequencies, at the
operating RPM, which are adequately separated from the rotor
excitation frequencies occurring at the rates of 1 per revolution,
2 per revolution, 3 per revolution and so forth. For example, for a
rotor operating at 360 RPM, the frequency corresponding to the
occurrence of a rotor excitation frequency of 1 per revolution is 6
Hz (360 RPM is 6 cycles per second), 2 per revolution is 12 Hz, and
so forth. As the rotor RPM is changed so are the excitation
frequencies. For convenience, the frequencies which give rise to
these excitation frequencies are referred to herein by the
excitation frequency occurrence rates. For example a frequency that
gives rise to an excitation frequency that occurs at a rate of 2
per revolution is referred to herein as the "2 per revolution"
frequency. For good dynamic behavior, considering both blade loads
and helicopter vibration, conventional rotors with any number of
blades are designed to avoid the frequencies of 1 per revolution, 2
per revolution, 3 per revolution and so forth. Conventional rotor
blades are designed to operate at 100% of design RPM with the
fundamental flap mode at a frequency above the 1 per revolution
frequency, the fundamental lag mode usually below the 1 per
revolution frequency and sometimes between the 1 per revolution and
the 2 per revolution frequencies, and the blade dynamics tuned so
that higher flap, lag torsion modes avoid the 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . n
per revolution frequencies. The conventional blade design modes
(i.e., modal frequencies) must be kept separated from the 1, 2, 3,
4, . . . n per revolution frequencies to avoid the generation of
vibration loads which may be catastrophic. As a minimum, such
vibration loads will make the helicopter unacceptable for the pilot
and passengers and detrimental to the reliability of its mechanisms
and equipment. To avoid such vibration loads, the rotor angular
velocity is limited to a narrow range around 100% of design RPM,
except for start-up and shut-down at low or no rotor load and low
wind speed.
13. The RPM of helicopter rotors is normally set for a maximum
forward speed at a maximum weight at a certain critical altitude.
The RPM of the rotor is such that at maximum forward speed, the tip
of the advancing blade is traveling at speeds near but below Mach
1, to avoid the substantial increases in drag, vibration and noise
encountered at speeds approaching Mach 1. At any other flight
conditions, the rotor RPM and thus, the power required to turn the
rotor are substantially higher than that required for efficient
operation.
14. Some research helicopters such as the Lockheed XH-51A compound
helicopter have experimented with rotor RPM reduction at certain
flight conditions by incorporating a wing for producing most of the
required lift and a jet or a propeller driving engine for producing
the required forward thrust. The use of the wings and engine
relieve the rotor of its duty to produce lift and thrust, thus
allowing the unloaded rotor to operate at reduced RPM. In this
regard, a helicopter can fly at higher speeds before the tip of the
advancing blade approaches the speed of sound and encounters the
increased levels of vibration and noise as well as drag.
15. Another aircraft, the V-22 Osprey incorporates 2-speed tilt
rotors. The V-22 Osprey aircraft has wings for generating lift. The
rotors are typically "tilted" from a first position where their
axis of rotation is vertical and where the rotor acts as a regular
helicopter rotor to a second position where their axis of rotation
is relatively horizontal and the rotor acts as a propeller
producing forward thrust. When at their first position these rotors
operate only to create lift for vertical take-off and landing and
for hovering. When the needing to go forward, the rotors are
"tilted" to provide the forward thrust. When in a "tilted" position
providing forward thrust, the RPM of the rotor can be varied much
like a variable speed propeller.
16. Other attempts have been made in improving helicopter maximum
forward speeds and/or reducing noise at maximum speed by using
2-speed gearboxes. These gearboxes allow the rotor to rotate at two
RPM values while maintaining a constant engine RPM. The rotor is
set to rotate at a lower RPM when at high forward speed so as to
reduce the rotor tip speed. In all other conditions, the rotor is
set to rotate at the higher RPM. However, these attempts do not
substantially improve the efficiency of the helicopter by reducing
fuel consumption.
17. Another helicopter uses 10% reduction in rotor RPM during
takeoff and landing in order to conform to very strict noise
limitations. Because of this reduction in rotor RPM, the helicopter
performance is compromised during take-off and landing.
18. While these aforementioned endeavors attempted to increase
maximum speed and reduce noise during take-off and landing, neither
attempted to improve the efficiency of the helicopter. Neither
attempted to reduce the fuel consumed and power required for a
given performance or attempted to increase a helicopter performance
without increasing the fuel consumed and the power required. As
such there is a need for a helicopter rotor system which will
improve helicopter range, altitude and speed performance while
reducing fuel consumption and noise levels.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
19. The present invention provides a variable speed rotor and a
method for using the same for improving helicopter performance and
efficiency while reducing fuel consumption. The RPM of the rotor
system of the present invention can be varied to multiple and even
infinite settings depending on the helicopter flight conditions to
maintain a blade loading for optimum performance and fuel
efficiency. The present invention allows for reduced rotor RPM at
reduced forward speeds achieving an increase in rotor blade lift
coefficient at the lower forward speeds and higher blade lift to
drag ratio and thus, higher aerodynamic efficiency, lower required
power, fuel consumption and noise level. By decreasing the RPM of
the rotor, the power required to drive the rotor at the decreased
RPM is also decreased. The adjustment to rotor RPM and power can be
accomplished manually or automatically as for example by
computer.
20. In order to be able to operate over a wide RPM range, the rotor
system of the present invention is designed specifically to be able
to operate close to or on rotor excitation frequencies. To achieve
such unique capability, the rotor blades are designed to be very
stiff and lightweight. The blades should be substantially stiffer
and lighter than conventional rotor blades.
21. In an exemplary embodiment, the rotor blades flap, lag and
torsion stiffness as well as the blade weight per unit length are
continuously decreasing from the blade root to the blade tip. As a
general rule, applicant discovered that to achieve operation at a
wide range of angular velocities, the blades of the present
invention require a flap stiffness and a blade weight as
follows:
22. Flap Stiffness:
23. EI.sub.flap.gtoreq.25 D.sup.4 at 10% of rotor radius measured
from the center of rotor rotation
24. EI.sub.flap.gtoreq.10 D.sup.4 at 30% of rotor radius measured
from the center of rotor rotation
25. Total Blade Weight:
26. W.ltoreq.0.0015D.sup.3
27. where D is the rotor diameter and is measured in feet, W is
pounds, and EI is in lbs-in2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
28. FIG. 1 depicts a graph the ratio of Coefficient of Lift to
Coefficient of Drag v. Coefficient of Lift for a typical
airfoil.
29. FIG. 2 is a schematic of an airspeed distribution of rotor in
forward flight.
30. FIG. 3 depicts a graph of Blade Loading v. Advance Ratio
showing a useful limit blade loading and an optimum range of blade
loadings for a typical helicopter.
31. FIGS. 4A, 4B, and 4C are top, side and end views, respectively
of an exemplary embodiment blade of the present invention.
32. FIG. 5A is a table depicting design data for the exemplary
embodiment blade shown in FIG. 4A.
33. FIG. 5B is a cross-sectional view of the shank of the exemplary
embodiment blade shown in FIG. 4A.
34. FIG. 5C is a cross-sectional view of the exemplary embodiment
blade shown in FIG. 4A at the blade 20% station.
35. FIG. 5D is a cross-sectional view of the exemplary embodiment
blade shown in FIG. 4A at the blade 70% station.
36. FIG. 6 is a partial cross-sectional view of the shank of the
exemplary embodiment blade shown in FIG. 4A mated to a hingeless
rotor.
37. FIG. 7A depicts a table comparing the exemplary embodiment
blade shown in FIG. 4A to a conventional helicopter blade for use
on an articulated rotor.
38. FIG. 7B depicts a further table comparing the exemplary
embodiment blade shown in FIG. 4A to a conventional helicopter
blade for use on an articulated rotor.
39. FIG. 7C depicts top views of the two blades being compared in
FIGS. 7A and 7B in scaled comparison.
40. FIG. 8 is a graph of Airspeed v. Power Required for helicopter
operating with the rotor system of the present invention at
variable speed and at 380 RPM at sea level at low weight of 1400
lbs.
41. FIG. 9 is a graph of Airspeed v. Power Required for helicopter
operating with the rotor system of the present invention at
variable speed and at 380 RPM at sea level at medium weight of 2600
lbs.
42. FIG. 10 is a graph of Airspeed v. Power Required for helicopter
operating with the rotor system of the present invention at
variable speed and at 380 RPM at sea level at high weight of 4000
lbs.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
43. The present invention provides for an optimum speed rotor whose
RPM can be varied to multiple and even infinite settings depending
on the helicopter flight conditions for optimum flight performance.
The optimum speed rotor system of the present invention when
incorporated on a helicopter allows for a substantial improvement
in range, altitude and airspeed with less fuel consumption and
noise levels. For descriptive purposes the optimum speed rotor
system of the present invention is referred to herein as Optimum
Speed Rotor or OSR. The OSR can be driven by any powerplant such as
a reciprocating engine or a turbine engine.
44. The present invention allows for reduced rotor RPM at reduced
forward speeds and/or at reduced rotor lift achieving an increase
in rotor blade lift coefficient and higher blade lift to drag ratio
and thus, higher aerodynamic efficiency, lower required power, fuel
consumption and noise level. The present invention OSR is able to
accomplish this while being fully loaded, i.e., while producing
lift without the aid of a fixed wing.
45. Because the lift coefficient of a rotor blade varies along the
blade length as well as with the blade angular position, it is
common to evaluate the lift characteristics of a rotor blade by
ascertaining its loading. Blade loading (CT/.sigma.) is a parameter
which is a function of the rotor blade average lift coefficient
(CL) and is defined by the equation: 2 C T = T S V T 2 ( 4 )
46. where T=rotor thrust, S=rotor disc area, VT=rotor tip speed
47. T is approximated at T=nW where n is the vertical maneuver
factor and W is the helicopter weight. The solidity factor,
.sigma., is the ratio of weighted total blade area to the rotor
disc area. 3 V T = 2 R ( RPM ) 60 ( 5 )
48. The term "blade loading" or "rotor blade loading" as used
herein refers to CT/.sigma.. The useful limit of blade loading for
any helicopter rotor system can be derived experimentally, i.e.,
through flight testing. The useful limit blade loading for a
typical rotor system is given in FIG. 3 by curve 14 as function of
the helicopter advance ratio m, i.e., the ratio of helicopter
forward speed to the rotor tip rotational tip speed VT. As can be
seen from FIG. 3 at advance ratios greater than 0.4, there is a
sharp decline of blade loading limit. Thus, to avoid the sharp
reduction of rotor lift limit, at a maximum forward speed a certain
minimum rotor RPM has to be maintained to avoid increasing the
advance ratio beyond 0.4-0.5. An optimum range 16 of blade loading
can also be derived through flight test for a specific helicopter
rotor system as a function of advance ratio as shown in FIG. 3. For
a given advance ratio, the optimum blade loading range is defined
by the blade loadings required to optimize the various flight
performance parameters such as endurance, range, and climb
rate.
49. The OSR of the present invention allows for the adjustment to
the rotor RPM to maintain a blade loading within the optimum range.
By operating below 100% of RPM, the power required to drive the
rotor at the decreased RPM is also decreased. The adjustment to
rotor RPM and power can be accomplished manually or automatically
as for example by computer. In a manual OSR system, for best
endurance, the pilot will manually adjust the rotor RPM and engine
power to minimize fuel consumption (either directly measured or by
observing an indication of engine power). For best cruise range,
the pilot will adjust RPM and airspeed for maximizing the miles
traveled per unit of fuel. In climb at a given power setting, the
pilot will adjust the rotor RPM and airspeed for maximizing the
climb rate. An automated OSR will operate the same way. Information
such as fuel consumptions and miles traveled per unit of fuel
consumed will be monitored by the computer. The pilot will select
the flight performance parameter that needs to be optimized, e.g.,
range, endurance, rate of climb, etc. and the computer will adjust
the rotor RPM, power and airspeed settings accordingly for
maximizing the selected performance. Alternatively, the optimum
blade loading range as a function of advance ratio is predetermined
from flight testing and stored on the computer which in turn will
adjust the rotor RPM and power settings so as to maintain the blade
loading within the predetermined range for any pilot controlled
airspeed and rate of climb.
50. Applicant discovered that he can overcome the structural
dynamics problems associated with significant changes of rotor RPM
by building a rotor system consisting of blades 18 having reduced
mass and increased stiffness (FIGS. 4A, 4B, 4C and 7B). The
applicant was able to design a blade having a continuously
decreasing flap, lag and torsion stiffness from the root 20 to the
tip 22 of the blade and having continuously decreasing mass from
the root to the tip of the blade. The flap 24, lag 26 and torsional
28 directions are depicted in FIGS. 4B, 4C and 4D, respectively.
These blades when mounted on a rotor hub will allow for significant
changes in rotor RPM without being subject to the structural
dynamics problems of conventional blades. An exemplary embodiment
of such a blade is shown in FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C which is made of a
carbon-epoxy advanced composite material.
51. In order to be able to operate over a wide RPM range, the OSR
is designed specifically to be able to operate close to or on rotor
excitation frequencies. The OSR is capable of operating a long time
under full rotor lift load at or near such frequencies. To achieve
such unique capability, the OSR rotor blades are designed to be
very stiff and lightweight. By increasing the stiffness of the
blades in flap in relation to the feathering axis 30 (FIG. 4A), the
blade is better able to operate at or near the rotor excitation
frequencies. Lag stiffness tends to be less sensitive to the
excitation frequencies but if kept at a ratio to flap stiffness of
on average greater than 2 it helps reduce oscillatory lag loads and
helicopter vibration levels.
52. The OSR rotor blades should be substantially stiffer and
lighter than conventional rotor blades. As a general rule,
applicant discovered that to achieve operation at a wide range of
angular velocities, the OSR blades require a flap stiffness and a
blade weight as follows:
53. Flap Stiffness:
54. EI.sub.flap.gtoreq.25 D.sup.4 at 10% of rotor radius measured
from the center of rotor rotation
55. EI.sub.flap.gtoreq.10 D.sup.4 at 30% of rotor radius measured
from the center of rotor rotation
56. Total Blade Weight:
57. W.ltoreq.0.0015D.sup.3
58. where D is the rotor diameter and is measured in feet, W is
pounds, and EI is in lbs-in2.
59. The exemplary OSR blade of the present invention shown in FIGS.
4A, 4B and 4C has a length 32 including the shank 33 of about 17.84
feet, a maximum width 34 of about 18 inches and a minimum width 36
at its tip of about 9 inches (FIG. 4A). The blade has a shank
length 40 of about 14 inches and a shank diameter 42 of about 3.75
inches. The exemplary blade has the dimensions (in.), stiffness
(lbs-in2) and weights per unit length (lbs/in.) depicted in table
of FIG. 5A. As can be seen from FIG. 5A, the exemplary blade has a
continuously reducing flap and lag stiffness from the hub center to
the blade tip. The blade cross-sections at the blade 20% station
5C--5C, and the 70% station 5D--5D, are depicted in FIGS. 5C and
5D, respectively. The 20% and 70% stations are at 20% and 70% of
the rotor radius, respectively, as measured from the center of
rotor rotation. The cross-section of the blade shank is depicted in
FIG. 5B. The blade is constructed of a carbon-epoxy spar/shank and
a carbon epoxy leading edge. The trailing edge is a lightweight
section made of thin carbon-epoxy top and bottom skins and a
full-depth honeycomb core.
60. In the exemplary OSR blades, adequate torsional stiffness was
easily achieved. In stiffer OSR blades the use of hub flexbeams
provide for a flap and lag effective spring inboard of the
feathering axis 30 to reduce the load and vibration levels typical
of rigid rotor blades. But, the spring rate of such flexbeams is
not "tuned" to avoid natural frequency/RPM "crossings" i.e., the
rotor excitation frequencies.
61. The blades can be mounted in any type or rotor hub such as
hingeless, teetering or articulated, to form the rotor system.
However, in a preferred embodiment, the blades are mounted in a
hingeless rotor system. A hingeless rotor is well known in the art.
It consists of sleeves 59 for mounting the blades 18. The sleeves
are fixed relative to the hub mast 61. When mounted on a hingeless
rotor hub 60, the blades can not pivot in the flap and lag
directions relative to the hub (FIG. 6). The preferred embodiment
hingeless rotor is made of steel. The rotor hub structure is chosen
to have a hub stiffness in flap and lag matched to the blade
corresponding stiffness at the blade root. The bearing system 62
incorporated for blade pitch changes about the feathering axis is
also required to resist moments that are substantially greater than
those for an articulated rotor system.
62. FIGS. 7A and 7B present two tables, respectively, comparing
dimensions and design parameters of the exemplary OSR blade
incorporated in a hingeless rotor to a conventional blade of an
articulated rotor system. FIG. 7C depicts a scaled comparison
between the OSR blade 18 and the conventional blade 70 being
compared in the tables of FIGS. 7A and 7B. The compared
conventional blade 70 has a length 72 of about 13.17 feet, a
constant width 74 of about 6.75 inches and a shank length 76 of
about 19 inches. As can be seen from FIG. 7A, the OSR blades are 85
fold stiffer at about 10% radius than the conventional articulated
rotor blades which are hinged at the root in the flap direction
(up-down) and lag direction (forward-aft in the plane of the
rotor). The conventional blades must be heavy enough in order to
achieve adequate centrifugal forces to avoid excessive upward
bending ("coning angle"). In spite of its 85 fold increase in
stiffness the OSR blades weight per blade surface area is less than
half that of the conventional blade. This increase in stiffness and
reduction in weight per blade surface area is achieved on the OSR
blades by 3.5 fold increase in maximum blade thickness using
tapered planform, large root chord and thick root airfoils and use
of high stiffness/weight carbon-epoxy materials. The stiff light
weight OSR blades do not require weights at their tips as do
conventional blades.
63. A rotor system of the present invention can operate from 0 to
100% RPM under full lift load without reducing the rotor structural
integrity. Moreover, the vibration levels produced by the rotor of
the present invention are within acceptable levels as related to
crew fatigue, passenger comfort and payload performance. The rotor
systems of the present invention are able to avoid the structural
stability, loads and vibration problems associated with the
operation of the rotor over a wide range of RPM.
64. The exemplary embodiment OSR blades mounted on a hingeless
rotor forming an exemplary OSR were analyzed, optimized and its
performance verified using 9 integrated dynamics analysis tools for
Computational Fluid Dynamics, structures, structural dynamics and
control dynamics. The most important of these tools is CAMRAD II
(originated by Wayne Johnson and available Analytical Methods Inc,
Redmond, Wash.) which was used extensively for evaluating rotor
stability, loads, vibrations, performance and control, including
Higher Harmonic Control. All performance and structural dynamic
data presented are results of CAMRAD II runs with non-uniform
inflow. In the extensive CAMRAD II analysis, the exemplary OSR
exhibited no rotor dynamics instability anywhere in the design RPM
range.
65. The CAMRAD II analysis revealed that the exemplary OSR can
reduce its angular velocity to as low as 150 RPM (tip Mach number
of 0.25) or at any other interim RPM to optimize lift/drag ratio,
reduce power and achieve longer endurance and range or achieve
higher altitude and forward speed for the same power level. It is
expected that the rotor RPM of an OSR can be lowered to as much as
40% of the maximum rotor design RPM while providing the required
lift for a helicopter at its minimum weight.
66. FIGS. 8-10 depict power requirements when operating the OSR of
the exemplary embodiment consisting of 3 blades and a hingeless
hub, using a low drag unmanned helicopter fuselage, at various RPM
values for improved efficiency (curve 50) and when operating the
same rotor at a constant angular velocity of 380 RPM (curve 52), at
a helicopter weight of 1400 lbs, 2600 lbs, and 4000 lbs,
respectively at sea level. FIGS. 8-10 were created from data
obtained from the CAMRAD II analyses.
67. The advantage of OSR is dramatic at the lower speeds and light
weight range (loiter at the end of fuel and with light payload).
The reduction of 60% -70% in power required at 1400 lbs. at 40-80
knots (FIG. 8) provide an equal impact on fuel consumption. The
reduction in tip Mach number (about 40%-50%) of the advancing blade
may provide 10-15 dBA reduction rotor noise levels. The 15 knot
increases in speed at constant power of 270 HP and the 50 knot
increase at a constant power of 120 HP are dramatic and indicative
of the level of inefficiency of conventional constant RPM rotors
especially for a low weight helicopter loitering at low speed.
68. FIG. 9 shows the performance gains at an average weight of 2600
lbs. As can be seen form FIG. 8, the 45% reduction in required
power and fuel consumption at a loiter speed of about 60 knots will
provide an 82% increase in maximum endurance for the same total
fuel capacity. Similarly, the 38% reduction in power required at 80
knots should provide a 61% increase in maximum range.
69. FIG. 10 shows that even at an overload weight of 4000 lbs. the
reduction in power of about 25% required at 65-80 knots and the
increase in speed at a constant power level are substantial.
70. A similar power required analysis conducted for hover Out of
Ground Effect (OGE) indicated that OSR offers 23% increase in
take-off weight with constant engine power (may provide double the
payload weight in most helicopters) and 30% reduction in tip speed
(may reduce noise level 8 dBA). The reduction in power required
offers 7,000 feet increase in hover OGE ceiling out of ground
effect with the same engine.
71. In an alternate embodiment, instead of operating at a wide
range of RPM, the OSR can be made to operated at 2 or more angular
velocities. With such an OSR, the benefits in efficiency will be
substantial but not as great as the benefits achieved by using an
OSR that operates over a wide range of RPM.
* * * * *