Performance comparison between a conventional helicopter and compound helicopter configurations

Abstract

The compound helicopter is a high-speed design concept that is once again being explored due to emerging requirements for rotorcraft to obtain speeds that significantly surpass the conventional helicopter. This increase in speed, provided efficient hover capability is maintained, would make the compound helicopter suitable for various roles and missions in both military and civil markets. The aim of this paper is to investigate the compounding of the conventional helicopter and how the addition of thrust and wing compounding influences the performance of this aircraft class. The paper features two compound helicopters. The first configuration features a coaxial rotor with a pusher propeller providing additional axial thrust, and is referred to as the coaxial compound helicopter. The second configuration, known as the hybrid compound helicopter, features a wing and two propellers providing thrust compounding. In this study, the performance of these two compound helicopter configurations are assessed and compared with a conventional configuration. The paper presents the standard performance parameters of each configuration which include the power required in steady level flight, the maximum range, the maximum endurance and the hover ceiling of each of the aircraft configurations. Furthermore, a performance analysis of each configuration flying standard helicopter missions is conducted. The results of the hybrid configuration show that the addition of the wing to the design successfully offloads the main rotor at high speeds; however, significant propulsive power is required by the propellers to overcome the airframe drag. Concerning the coaxial configuration, the power required by the coaxial compound and baseline configurations are comparable at low speeds. However, in high-speed flight a significant amount of power is required by the propeller to divorce the coaxial rotor of its propulsive duties. The results also reinforce the importance of reducing airframe drag in a potential compound helicopter design.

Keywords

Compound helicopter rotorcraft and performance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Orchard

Newman

. “The compound helicopter - why have we not succeeded before?”. Aeronaut J 1999; 103(1028): 489–495.

Leishman

. Principals of helicopter aerodynamics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Burgess R. The ABC rotor - a historical perspective. In: American helicopter society 60th annual forum, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2004.

Bagai A. Aerodynamic design of the X2 technology demonstrator main rotor blade. In: American helicopter society 64th annual forum, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2008.

Blackwell R and Millott T. Dynamics design characteristics of the Sikorsky X2 technology demonstrator aircraft. In: American helicopter society 64th annual forum, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2008.

Walsh D, Weiner S, Bagai A, et al. Development testing of the Sikorsky X2 technology demonstrator. In: American helicopter society 65th annual forum, Grapevine, TX, USA, 2009.

Johnson W. Influence of lift offset on rotorcraft performance. In: AHS Specialist’s conference on aeromechanics, San Franciso, CA, USA, 2008.

Johnson W. Rotorcraft aeromechanics applications of a comprehensive analysis. In: HeliJapan 1998: AHS international meeting on rotorcraft technology and disaster relief, Gifu, Japan, 1998.

Yeo

Johnson

. Investigation of maximum blade loading capability of lift-offset rotors. J Am Helicopter Soc 2014; 59(1): 1–12.

10.

Sekula

Gandhi

. Effects of auxiliary lift and propulsion on helicopter vibration reduction and trim. AIAA J Aircraft 2004; 41(3): 645–656.

11.

Prouty R. Helicopter performance, stability, and control. Reprint ed. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc., 1990.

12.

Orchard M and Newman S. Some design issues for the optimisation of the compound helicopter configuration. In: American helicopter society 56th annual forum, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2000.

13.

Buhler

Newman

. The aerodynamics of the compound helicopter configuration. Aeronaut J 1996; 100(994): 111–120.

14.

Yeo H and Johnson W. Optimum design of a compound helicopter. J Aircraft 2009; 46(4).

15.

Moodie A and Yeo H. Design of a cruise-efficient compound helicopter. J Am Helicopter Soc 2012; 57(3).

16.

Filippone A. Flight performance of fixed and rotary wing aircraft. 1st ed. New York: Elsevier Ltd., 2006.

17.

Padfield

. Helicopter flight dynamics: The theory and application of flying qualities and simulation modelling, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

18.

Thomson D. Development of a generic helicopter mathematical model for application to inverse simulation. Internal Report No. 9216, University of Glasgow, UK, 1992.

19.

Ferguson K and Thomson D. Flight dynamics investigation of compound helicopter configurations. J Aircraft 2014.

20.

Thomson

Bradley

. Inverse simulation as a tool for flight dynamics research - principles and applications. Prog Aerosp Sci 2006; 42(3): 174–210.

21.

Bramwell

. Helicopter dynamics, 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1976, pp. 212–212.

22.

Kim

Celi

Tischler

. Forward flight trim and frequency response validation of a helicopter simulation model. J Aircraft 1993; 30(6): 854–863.

23.

Rutherford

. Simulation techniques for the study of advanced rotorcraft, Phd Thesis: University of Glasgow, UK, 1997.

24.

Mansur M. Development and validation of a blade element mathematical model for the AH-64A Apache helicopter. NASA-TM-108863, 1995.

25.

Houston S. Rotorcraft aeromechanics simulation for control analysis - mathematical model definition. Internal Report No. 9123, University of Glasgow, UK, 1991.

26.

Doyle

Thomson

. Modification of a helicopter inverse simulation to include an enhanced rotor model. J Aircraft 2000; 37(3): 536–538.

27.

Bradley R, Padfield G, Murray-Smith D, et al. Validation of helicopter mathematical models. Trans Inst Meas Control 1990; 12(186).

28.

Anderson

. Fundamentals of aerodynamics, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2007.

29.

Ballin M. Validation of a real-time engineering simulation of the UH-60A helicopter. NASA TM-88360, 1987.

30.

Keys C. Performance prediction of helicopters. In: Stepniewski W (ed.) Rotor-wing aerodynamics. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1981, pp.11--12.

31.

Cooke A and Fitzpatrick E. Helicopter test and evaluation. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002.

32.

Yeo

. Investigation of UH-60A rotor performance and loads at high advance ratios. J Aircraft 2013; 50(2): 576–589.

33.

Ormiston R. Low-disk loading compound rotorcraft for high-speed and aerodynamic efficiency. In: International powered lift conference 2010, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2010.

34.

Ruddell A. Advancing blade concept (ABC) development. In: American helicopter society 32nd annual forum, Washington D.C., USA, 1976.

35.

Johnson

. Rotorcraft aeromechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 243–243.

36.

Allan B and Schaeffler N. Numerical investigation of rotorcraft fuselage drag reduction using active flow control. In: American helicopter society 67th annual forum, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2011.

37.

Jordan T, Humpherson D and Benger B. The compound helicopter - The rotorcraft for the 21st Century? In: American helicopter society 49th annual forum, St Louis, MO, USA, 1993.

38.

Kim H and Brown R. A rational approach to comparing the performance of coaxial and conventional rotors. J Am Helicopter Soc 2010; 55(1): 012003.

39.

Kim

Brown

. A comparison of coaxial and conventional rotor performance. J Am Helicopter Soc 2010; 55(1): 012004– 012004.

40.

Harrington R. Full-scale-tunnel investigation of the static-thrust performance of a coaxial helicopter rotor. NACA TN-2318, 1951.

41.

Dingeldein R. Wind-tunnel studies of the performance of multirotor configurations. NACA TN 3236, 1954.

42.

Arents D. An assessment of the hover performance of the XH-59A advancing blade concept demonstration helicopter. USAAMRDL-TN-25, 1977.

43.

Williams R and Montana P. A comprehensive plan for helicopter drag reduction. In: American helicopter society symposium on helicopter aerodynamic efficiency, Hartford, CN, USA, 1975.

44.

Anon. Jane’s all the world’s aircraft. 85^th ed. London: Jane’s Information Group, 1994.

45.

Felker F and Light J. Aerodynamics interactions between a rotor and wing in hover. In: American helicopter society 42th annual forum, Washington D.C., USA, 1986.

46.

Leishman

Ananthan

. An optimum coaxial rotor system for axial flight. J Am Helicopter Soc 2008; 53(4): 366–381.

47.

Johnson

. Helicopter theory, 2nd ed. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1994.

48.

Sanderson A. Projected power and specific fuel consumption development of the Rolls Royce Gem Engine. In: American helicopter society 37th annual forum, New Orleans, LA, USA, 1981.