ABSTRACT

Title of dissertation: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

OF SWASHPLATELESS HELICOPTER ROTOR
WITH TRAILING EDGE FLAPS AND TABS

Jaye Falls, Doctor of Philosophy, 2010

Dissertation directed by: Professor Inderjit Chopra

Department of Aerospace Engineering

This work studies the design of trailing edge controls for swashplateless heli-

copter primary control, and examines the impact of those controls on the perfor-

mance of the rotor. The objective is to develop a comprehensive aeroelastic analysis

for swashplateless rotors in steady level flight. The two key issues to be solved for

this swashplateless control concept are actuation of the trailing edge controls and

evaluating the performance of the swashplateless rotor compared to conventionally

controlled helicopters. Solving the first requires simultaneous minimization of trail-

ing flap control angles and hinge moments to reduce actuation power. The second

issue requires not only the accurate assessment of swashplateless rotor power, but

also similar or improved performance compared to conventional rotors. The analy-

sis consists of two major parts, the structural model and the aerodynamic model.

The inertial contributions of the trailing edge flap and tab are derived and added

to the system equations in the structural model. Two different aerodynamic models

are used in the analysis, a quasi-steady thin airfoil theory that includes arbitrary
hinge positions for the flap and the tab, and an unsteady lifting line model with air-

foil table lookup based on wind tunnel test data and computational fluid dynamics

simulation.

The design aspect of the problem is investigated through parametric studies

of the trailing edge flap and tab for a Kaman-type conceptual rotor and a UH-60A

swashplateless variant. The UH-60A model is not changed except for the addition

of a trailing edge flap to the rotor blade, and the reduction of pitch link stiffness to

imitate a soft root spring. Study of the uncoupled blade response identifies torsional

stiffness and flap hinge stiffness as important design features of the swashplateless

rotor. Important trailing edge flap and tab design features including index an-

gle, aerodynamic overhang, chord and length are identified through examination

of coupled trim solutions in wind tunnel conditions at high speed. Flap and tab

configurations that minimize both the control angles and hinge moments required

to trim are developed for both the Kaman-type and UH-60A models, and the rotors

are successfully trimmed across the range of forward flight speed.

The conventionally controlled UH-60A rotor model is validated with data from

the UH-60A Flight Test Program. Excellent correlation is obtained for rotor power

in hover and in forward flight. It is shown that the magnitude of the predicted

power, but not the trend versus forward speed, is affected by the calculation of

inflow distribution. Both uniform inflow and a pseudo-implicit free wake model

are used to calculate the inflow distribution for the swashplateless rotor. Using

the free wake model, the predicted swashplateless rotor power is sensitive to the

pattern of trailed vorticity from the rotor blade. Trailed vortices are added at the
inboard and outboard boundaries of the trailing edge flap, and the flap deflection is

used to calculate an effective angle of attack for the calculation of the near and far

wake. This wake model predicts the swashplateless rotor requires less main rotor

power than the conventional UH-60A helicopter from hover to µ = 0.25. As the

forward flight speed increases, the swashplateless predicted power increases above

the conventional rotor, and the rotor lift-to-drag ratio decreases below that of the

conventional rotor.
 Design and Performance Prediction of Swashplateless Helicopter
Rotor with Trailing Edge Flaps and Tabs

by

Jaye Falls

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2010

Advisory Committee:
Professor Inderjit Chopra, Chair/Advisor
Dr. Anubhav Datta, Co-Advisor
Professor Darryll Pines
Professor Norman Wereley
Associate Professor James Baeder
Professor Michael Coplan, Dean’s Representative
c Copyright by
Jaye Falls
2009
 Acknowledgments

I am pleased to acknowledge all those who have contributed to this work as I

finally bring it to completion.

My deepest thanks to my advisor, Inderjit Chopra, for his many years of

encouragement and support. He convinced me to add aerospace engineering to my

education at a point when an easier topic might have been tempting for a young

parent with a full complement of suburban distractions, and I have never regretted

the undertaking. His contributions to my research, from the general to the detail

level, have been large and greatly appreciated.

Dr. Anubhav Datta has acted as both my colleague and mentor in rotor

dynamics. The excellence of his scholarship is well known, but his patience and

kindness should also earn him fame. The thought-provoking discussions we had

about rotor dynamics frequently clarified my thinking and bolstered my motivation.

I would also like to thank the other members of my advisory committee, Drs.

Baeder, Coplan, Pines and Wereley, for their ongoing interest in and support for

this work.

This work was supported in part by Kaman Aerospace Corporation. John Wei

and Mike Bielefield provided useful discussion, guidance and data in the initial stages

of the project. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Vertical Flight Foundation

of the American Helicopter Society provided generous financial support for several

years.

My colleagues from the Alfred Gessow Rotorcraft Center have been a welcome

ii
source of encouragement and technical assistance over the years. I am obliged to

the CFD research group led by Dr. Baeder. Arun Jose contributed to the success

of this work by enabling my use of CFD. His analysis of trailing edge flaps was

of great benefit to me. My ideas about the effect of a trailing edge flap on rotor

wake were improved and sharpened in discussion with Dr. Shreyas Ananthan. Drs.

Jinwei Shen and Judah Milgram helped me understand trailing edge flaps and ways

to implement them in UMARC. Beatrice Roget, Jayant Sirohi and Jinsong Bao

were particularly generous with their time during my years in the lab. Many others,

including Ron, Jason, Abhishek, Felipe, Julie, Anne, Paul, Beerinder, Carlos, Ben,

Peter and Brandon, were the sources of much friendly interaction and intellectual

cross-pollination.

My husband, Britton Ward, and our children, Hunter and Schuyler, have

been a wellspring of support and joy. Without them, the process may have been

shorter but the achievement would not be nearly as sweet. For the last two years in

particular, Hunter has exhibited patience far beyond his years as his mother spent far

more time working and less time playing video games than he would have preferred.

Thanks also to my grandmother, aunts and cousins, and to my sisters- and brothers-

in-law, who have made brief holidays into concentrated occasions of happiness. To

my mother who has always been my inspiration, gratitude and my assurance that

I believe my student days may be over. Finally, thanks to my parents-in-law, who

have so ably shown Britt and me how to earn a PhD while raising a family.

iii
 Table of Contents

List of Figures vii

List of Abbreviations xv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Helicopter Primary Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 Swashplate Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Swashplateless Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 Kaman Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Active Controls and Helicopter Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.1 Higher Harmonic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.2 Individual Blade Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4 Trailing Edge Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.1 Vibration Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.2 Primary Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.3 Experimental and Numerical Characterization of Flapped Air-
foils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.4.4 Wake of Flapped Airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.4.5 Performance Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.4.6 Gurney Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.4.7 Tab Actuated Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.5 Objective of Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.6 Scope of Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.7 Overview of Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2 Analytic Model 53
2.1 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.1.1 Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.1.1.1 Rigid Blade Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.1.1.2 Elastic Blade Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.1.2 Nondimensionalization and Ordering Scheme . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.1.3 Using Hamilton’s Principle to Derive the Equations of Motion 61
2.1.4 Rigid Blade Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.1.5 Elastic Blade Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.2 Aerodynamic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.2.1 Quasi-steady Flapped Airfoil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.2.2 Table Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.2.3 Drag of Flapped Airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.2.3.1 Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.2.3.2 CFD Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.2.4 Inflow and Wake Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.3 Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

iv
 2.3.1 Free Flight Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.3.2 Wind Tunnel Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.3.3 Blade Response Calculations Using Finite Elements in Time
and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.3.4 System Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.3.5 Rotor Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.4 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

3 Design Studies of Swashplateless Rotor 122

3.1 Rigid Blade Linear Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.2 Swashplateless Conceptual Rotor in Wind Tunnel Trim . . . . . . . . 125
3.2.1 Rotor Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.2.2 Parametric Study of Trailing Edge Flap and Tab . . . . . . . 126
3.3 Comprehensive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.3.1 Description of Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.4 Swashplateless UH-60A Rotor with Trailing Edge Flap . . . . . . . . 135
3.4.1 Uncoupled Blade Response to Flap in Hover . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.4.2 Coupled Wind Tunnel Trim Solution with Flap in Forward
Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.5 Swashplateless UH-60A Rotor with Trailing Edge Flap and Tab . . . 142
3.5.1 Uncoupled Blade Response to Flap and Tab in Hover . . . . . 143
3.5.2 Coupled Wind Tunnel Trim Solution with Flap and Tab in
Forward Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.6.1 Swashplateless Rotors with Tab Actuated Trailing Edge Flap . 150
3.6.2 Swashplateless Rotor with Trailing Edge Flap Only . . . . . . 152

4 Performance Studies of Swashplateless Rotor 186

4.1 Baseline UH-60A Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.1.1 Pitch Control Angles and Elastic Twist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.2 Swashplateless Rotor in Hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.3 Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, in Wind Tunnel Trim . . . . 194
4.3.1 Effect of Wake Model on Swashplateless Rotor Power Prediction194
4.3.1.1 Blade Angle of Attack Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
4.3.2 Refining the Wake Model to Include Trailing Edge Flaps . . . 200
4.4 Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, in Vehicle Trim . . . . . . . 203
4.4.1 Effect of Increasing Rotor Thrust on Swashplateless Performance204
4.4.2 Effect of Fuselage Drag on Swashplateless Performance . . . . 206
4.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
4.5.1 Validation of Baseline Rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
4.5.2 Hover Performance of Swashplateless Rotor . . . . . . . . . . 209
4.5.3 Forward Flight Performance of Swashplateless Rotor . . . . . 210

v
5 Conclusions 263
5.1 Key Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
5.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

vi
 List of Figures

1.1 Schematic of Typical Swashplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 Hub and Swashplate of UH-60 Blackhawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Limits of the Rotor Performance Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.4 Schematic Diagram of Generic Rotor Blade with Varying Trailing

Edge Flap Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.1 Measured Drag for the NACA 23012 (Ames and Sears [1]) and Apache
HH-06 and HH-10 (Hassan et al. [2]) Flapped Airfoils. Positive (4◦ )
and Negative (−4◦ ) Flap Deflections Shown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

2.2 Measured Drag for Flapped HH-06 Airfoil, M = 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . 113

2.3 Empirical Model of Drag for Flapped HH-06 Airfoil, Showing ±4◦
TEF Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

2.4 Empirical Model of Drag for Flapped SC1095R8 Airfoil, M = 0.3,

Showing ±10◦ TEF Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2.5 Extended Empirical Model of Drag for Flapped SC1095R8 Airfoil,

Showing ±10◦ TEF Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2.6 Grid for 2-D CFD Analysis of Flapped SC1095R8 Airfoil. Shown
with Flap Chord cf = 0.15c, Positive Flap Deflection. . . . . . . . . . 114

2.7 Comparison of CFD Predicted and Measured Baseline SC1095R8 Air-

foil Properties at M = 0.3, No Flap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

2.8 CFD Drag Prediction for ±10◦ TEF Deflection for Flapped SC1095R8,
cf = 0.15c, No Overhang, M = 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

2.9 Comparison of CFD Drag Prediction and Empirical Model for Flapped
SC1095R8, cf = 0.15c, No Overhang, M = 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

2.10 Plan View of Rotor Blade Schematic with Trailed Near Wake and
Tip Vortex Free Wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

2.11 Schematic of Trailed Near Wake and TEF Trailers Free Wake . . . . 117

2.12 Side View of Swashplateless Rotor Wake with Flap Trailers at µ =

0.11, 6 Turns. Illustration of Wake Formed By Three Trailers on Each
Blade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

vii
2.13 Top View of Swashplateless Rotor Wake with Flap Trailers at µ =
0.11, 6 Turns. Illustration of Wake Formed By Three Trailers on Each
Blade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2.14 Rear View of Swashplateless Rotor Wake with Flap Trailers at µ =

0.11, 6 Turns. Illustration of Wake Formed By Three Trailers on Each
Blade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

2.15 Radial Distribution of Bound Circulation at 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ and 270◦

Azimuth Angles, µ = 0.11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

3.1 Schematic of Airfoil with Flap and Tab, Showing Hinges, Deflections
and Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

3.2 Effect of Index Angle on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,
µ = 0.35, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

3.3 Effect of Index Angle on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Rotor,
µ = 0.35, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

3.4 Effect of Advance Ratio on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Ro-
tor, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

3.5 Effect of Advance Ratio on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Ro-
tor, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

3.6 Effect of Combined Chord on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type

Rotor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . 157

3.7 Effect of Combined Chord on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type

Rotor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . 158

3.8 Effect of Radial Position on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Ro-
tor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . 158

3.9 Effect of Radial Position on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type

Rotor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . 159

3.10 Effect of Flap Overhang on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Ro-
tor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . 159

3.11 Effect of Flap Overhang on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type

Rotor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . 160

3.12 Effect of Tab Overhang on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,
µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

viii
3.13 Effect of Tab Overhang on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Ro-
tor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . 161

3.14 Comparison of Baseline and Improved Tab Control Angles for Kaman-
type Rotor, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

3.15 Comparison of Baseline and Improved Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-
type Rotor, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

3.16 Fan Plot of UH-60A Baseline Rotor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

3.17 Fan Plot of Swashplateless Rotor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

3.18 Uncoupled Blade Pitch Response to TEF Input for Varying Torsional
Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ . . . . . . . . . . . 165

3.19 Uncoupled Blade Loading Response to TEF Input for Varying Tor-
sional Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ . . . . . . . 166

3.20 Effect of Advance Ratio on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

3.21 Effect of Index Angle on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084 . . 168

3.22 Effect of Flap Chord on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ
= 0.084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

3.23 Effect of Flap Overhang on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . 170

3.24 Effect of Flap Span on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment, UH-
60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ =
0.084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

3.25 Effect of Flap Span on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment, UH-
60A Type Rotor, θidx = 20◦ , overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ =
0.084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

3.26 Effect of Advance Ratio on Improved Flap Configuration, UH-60A

Type Rotor, θidx = 20◦ , ovh = 0.33cf , CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . . . . . 173

3.27 Uncoupled Blade Pitch Response to Tab Input for Varying Torsional
Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Aileron Fre-
quency = 2.15/rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

ix
3.28 Uncoupled TEF Response to Tab Input for Varying Torsional Fre-
quency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Aileron Frequency
= 2.15/rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

3.29 Uncoupled Blade Loading Response to Tab Input for Varying Tor-
sional Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Aileron
Frequency = 2.15/rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

3.30 Uncoupled Blade Pitch Response to Tab Input for Varying Aileron
Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Torsional Fre-
quency = 1.9/rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

3.31 Uncoupled TEF Response to Tab Input for Varying Aileron Fre-
quency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Torsional Frequency
= 1.9/rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

3.32 Uncoupled Blade Loading Response to Tab Input for Varying Aileron
Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Torsional Fre-
quency = 1.9/rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

3.33 Effect of Index Angle on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

3.34 Effect of Tab Chord Ratio on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . 181

3.35 Effect of Combined Chord Ratio on Tab Control Angles and Hinge
Moment, UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084 . 182

3.36 Effect of Flap Overhang on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . 183

3.37 Effect of Tab Overhang on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,
UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . . . 184

3.38 Effect of Advance Ratio on Improved Trailing Edge Flap and Tab
Configuration, UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 18◦ , CT /σ = 0.084 . . . . 185

4.1 Predicted and Measured Shaft Angles for UH-60A in Forward Flight,
CW /σ = 0.0783 (FW: free wake) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

4.2 Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ

= 0.0783 (FW: free wake, Uniform: uniform inflow) . . . . . . . . . . 217

4.3 Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Pitch Collective for Rotor

in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

x
4.4 Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Half Peak-to-Peak Pitch
Cyclic for Rotor in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . 219

4.5 Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Predicted Power for Rotor

in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

4.6 Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Predicted Shaft Angles for

Baseline in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

4.7 Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Blade Tip Elastic Twist

Distribution for Rotor in Forward Flight, µ = 0.368, CW /σ = 0.0783 . 222

4.8 Variation of Pitch Collective with Torsional Frequency for a Range

of Thrust in Hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

4.9 Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Hover, Uniform Inflow 224

4.10 Predicted and Measured Figure of Merit for UH-60A in Hover, Uni-
form Inflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

4.11 Effect of Index Angle (idx) on Predicted Power, in Hover . . . . . . . 225

4.12 Effect of Index Angle on Figure of Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

4.13 Effect of Index Angle on Figure of Merit at Low Thrust . . . . . . . . 226

4.14 Effect of Index Angle on Blade Angle of Attack at 75%R, in Hover . . 227

4.15 Effect of Index Angle on Required TEF Deflection, in Hover . . . . . 227

4.16 Predicted Power in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Uniform Inflow . 228

4.17 Predicted Power in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Free Wake . . . 228

4.18 Mean Flap Control Angles in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Uni-

form Inflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

4.19 Mean Flap Control Angles in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Free

Wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

4.20 Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline Rotor, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . 230

4.21 Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Swashplateless, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . 231

4.22 Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors,

Uniform Inflow, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

xi
4.23 Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors,
Free Wake, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

4.24 Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ
= 0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

4.25 Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake,

for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

4.26 Angle of Attack Components, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =

0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

4.27 Angle of Attack Components, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for

µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

4.28 Lift and Drag Envelope, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.30 at
0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

4.29 Lift and Drag Envelope, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =
0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

4.30 TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Uniform Inflow, for
µ = 0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

4.31 TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =
0.30 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

4.32 Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors,

Uniform Inflow, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

4.33 Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors,

Free Wake, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

4.34 Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ
= 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

4.35 Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake,

for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

4.36 Angle of Attack Components, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =

0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

4.37 Angle of Attack Components, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for

µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

4.38 Lift and Drag Envelope, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.11 at
0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

xii
4.39 Lift and Drag Envelope, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =
0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

4.40 TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Uniform Inflow, for
µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

4.41 TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =
0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

4.42 Effect of Free Wake Model on Predicted Power in Forward Flight,

CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

4.43 Angle of Attack vs. Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors,

Tip Vortex and TEF Trailer Wake Models, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . 247

4.44 Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Swashplateless Rotor, TEF Trailer

Wake Model, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

4.45 Lift and Drag Envelope, Swashplateless Rotor, TEF Trailer Wake
Model, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

4.46 TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Tip Vortex and TEF
Trailer Wake Models, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

4.47 Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.0783, W-L Near Wake and Free Wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

4.48 Predicted and Measured Rotor Shaft Angles for UH-60A in Forward
Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

4.49 Predicted Power of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . 250

4.50 Predicted Shaft Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight,

TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . 250

4.51 Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.0891, W-L Near Wake and Free Wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

4.52 Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.1000, W-L Near Wake and Free Wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

4.53 Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Power for UH-60A in For-

ward Flight. (Flt 85: CW /σ = 0.0783; Flt 84: CW /σ = 0.0891; Flt
88: CW /σ = 0.1000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

xiii
4.54 Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Rotor Shaft Angles for UH-
60A in Forward Flight. (Flt 85: CW /σ = 0.0783; Flt 84: CW /σ =
0.0891; Flt 88: CW /σ = 0.1000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

4.55 Predicted Power of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0891 . . . . . . . . . . 254

4.56 Predicted Shaft Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight,

TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0891 . . . . . . . 254

4.57 Flap Control Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . 255

4.58 Flap Control Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0891 . . . . . . . . . . 256

4.59 Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Power of Swashplateless Ro-

tor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim . . . . 256

4.60 Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Shaft Angles of Swashplate-

less Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim 257

4.61 Effect of Increasing Thrust on Flap Control Angles of Swashplateless

Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim . . . 257

4.62 Distribution of Parasite Drag (Ref. [3]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

4.63 Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Predicted Power of Swashplate-

less Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim,
CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

4.64 Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Predicted Shaft Angles of Swash-

plateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle
Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

4.65 Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Flap Control Angles of Swash-

plateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle
Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

4.66 Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Lift-to-Drag Ratio of Swash-

plateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle
Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

xiv
List of Abbreviations
α Angle of attack

β Blade flap angle

δT Variation of kinetic energy

δU Variation of potential energy

δW Virtual work

θ0 Blade rigid pitch

θ1 Blade twist

θ1c Blade lateral cyclic pitch

θ1s Blade longitudinal cyclic pitch

θcoll Blade collective pitch

θtw Blade linear twist

λ Lock number

µ Advance ratio

σ Rotor solidity

φ̂ Blade elastic twist

ψ Azimuth angle

Ω Angular velocity

a Reference lift curve slope

c Blade nominal chord

cb Blade chord

cf Flap chord

CT Rotor thrust coefficient

ct Tab chord

d Distance from blade elastic axis to flap hinge

f Distance from flap hinge to tab hinge

ia Flap second mass moment of inertia

xv
it Tab second mass moment of inertia

kp Flap hinge stiffness

kq Tab hinge stiffness

M Mach number

m0 Blade mass per unit length

Mp Trailing edge flap hinge moment

Mq Trailing edge tab hinge moment

Mβ Rigid blade flap hub moment

Mθ Rigid blade pitch hub moment

p Flap deflection (positive flap down)

q Tab deflection (positive tab down)

sa Flap first mass moment of inertia

st Tab first mass moment of inertia

t Time

u Blade elastic axial displacements

v Blade elastic lag displacements

w Blade elastic flap displacements

x Blade spanwise position

CQ Rotor torque coefficient

CW Gross weight coefficient

GJ Blade torsional rigidity

(..)′ First derivative with respect to x

¨
(..) Second derivative with respect to time

δ(.) Virtual variation

˙
(..) First derivative with respect to time

xvi
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Conventional helicopter design includes the swashplate control mechanism,

which although generally successful, is mechanically complex, highly loaded, heavy,

and incurs a drag penalty. Therefore, alternative rotor pitch control concepts that

enable swashplateless designs have been an active area of research. Individual blade

control (IBC) is an active control concept developed for vibration control that can

be adapted for the purpose of primary control; trailing edge flaps (TEFs) are one

method for producing the changes in blade pitch required for trim. A tab actuated

trailing edge flap is proposed for primary, swashplateless control of rotor systems.

The purpose of the current work is to (1) develop a comprehensive analysis for rotors

with flap-tab based primary control, (2) to understand the fundamental response of

a flap-tab control system, identifying the key geometric and design parameters and

(3) to accurately predict control angle requirements and the consequent changes in

rotor performance in steady, level flight at a range of flight speeds.

1
1.2 Helicopter Primary Control

The defining characteristics of the helicopter are the abilities to hover and to

take off and land vertically. These attributes combined with low-speed maneuvering

permit the delivery and retrieval of valuable payloads in space restricted areas. Once

helicopter technology matured, it was quickly perceived as an indispensable part of

both military and civil air fleets. Unfortunately, the demand for reliable, affordable

rotorcraft has stifled innovation that might jeopardize reliability or affordability,

and for many decades technological development has tended to be evolutionary

rather than revolutionary. Thus the rotor control system has changed incrementally,

shedding parts and thus weight and complexity, but for most helicopters remains

centered on the swashplate which is intrinsically heavy and complex.

The purpose of the helicopter control system is to manage the magnitude

and direction of the thrust generated by the rotor. Typically, the magnitude of

thrust is determined by the collective pitch of the rotor blades, and the direction

of thrust is determined by the direction of the plane formed by the rotating blade

tips, the tip-path-plane (TPP). The direction of the TPP is a function of the blade

flapping angles, which occur in response to cyclic pitch inputs. The swashplate is a

mechanism which allows control of blade pitch motions at the rotor hub.

Although the conventional hub and swashplate are mechanically complex and

aerodynamically inefficient, the system provided a reliable solution to the problem

of asymmetric aerodynamic loads on helicopters in forward flight. This solution per-

mitted designers to concentrate on improving critical metrics of flight performance

2
such as range, speed and payload while reducing the vibration and noise resulting

from the highly unsteady and complex aerodynamic flow over the rotor.

Design is cyclical however, and having made progress on the problems of vi-

bration and noise [4], attention has returned to the hub, where the high part count,

heavy and expensive components and exposed linkages add weight, cost and drag

that can be remedied. New primary control concepts may eliminate the swashplate

altogether. On-blade controls such as trailing edge flaps are used to indirectly con-

trol the blade pitch through the manipulation of pitching moment. The flaps are

actuated, and flap deflection can change both the local aerodynamic properties of

the blade and the distribution of lift, drag and pitch moment over the blade. By

combining state-of-the-art hub design with swashplateless control, exposed linkages,

bearings and hinges are removed from the aircraft profile, reducing the vehicle drag

and weight. The result is that fabrication and maintenance become easier, relia-

bility improves and the acquisition and operating costs of the mechanism may be

reduced. To realize maximum benefit from the concept, it is important to assess

the performance of the new hub configuration accurately. Then the designer will

be able to weigh the definite advantages of reduced weight and drag against the

possible disadvantages caused by changes in rotor performance.

Although the benefit of a new primary control concept can best be realized

by including the concept from the initial stages of design, the exigencies of military

and commercial cost restrictions may preclude such an effort. Instead, designers

may be able to consider the concept in the context of retrofitting, where existing

blade and fuselage designs are retained. The articulation and/or hinge arrangement

3
of the hub may also remain unchanged, with the main alteration being reduced

torsional stiffness at the blade root to facilitate maximum blade twist in response to

flap deflections on the blade. In this case, there is still a potential advantage to the

swashplateless concept: the parasitic drag of the hub and the mechanical complexity

and thus fabrication and repair costs can be reduced.

1.2.1 Swashplate Mechanism

The aerodynamic loads encountered by the helicopter blade in forward flight as

it moves from the advancing side to the retreating side are unsteady and unequal.

This asymmetry creates destabilizing loads on the aircraft. The solution to this

problem was the implementation of cyclic pitch; the swashplate was invented by

Hafner in the 1920’s [5] and became the preferred way to produce cyclic pitch by

the 1930’s [6]. The mechanism consists of rotating and non-rotating plates connected

through bearings, as shown in Figs. 1.1,1.2. Hydraulic actuators in the fixed frame

move the fixed plate in accordance with pilot collective and cyclic inputs, forcing the

rotating plate to move similarly. The rotating plate is connected to the blades with

linkages, and as it moves vertically or tilts, the blade pitch collective and cyclic are

changed. The collective is the steady pitch angle controlling the magnitude of thrust

generated, and is produced by the vertical movement of the fixed plate. When the

rotating plate is tilted, the pitch of each blade is altered as it moves around the

azimuth, at a frequency of once per revolution. The cyclic pitch causes a change

to the tilt of the tip-path-plane (TPP) which controls the direction of the thrust

4
vector. The system has proven to be so reliable that it has been in use for 70 years

without major alteration.

The swashplate and rotor hub are sometimes covered by aerodynamic fairings

which reduce the parasitic drag of the vehicle. Nevertheless, empirical data [3, 7]

suggests that the swashplate can account for nearly half of the hub drag and the

hub about 35% of the total parasitic drag.

Figure 1.1: Schematic of Typical Swashplate

5
 Figure 1.2: Hub and Swashplate of UH-60 Blackhawk

1.2.2 Swashplateless Control

Other attempts to solve the problem of asymmetric rotor lift followed the

lead of Corradino d’Ascanio in 1930, who produced cyclic lift using trailing edge

servo-tabs on the blades of his helicopter [7]. Blade twist is induced in response

to the moment created by deflection of the servo-tab. Kaman put this system

into production in the late 1940’s with external servo-flaps, and Kaman Aerospace

helicopters still use servo-flaps today.

Servo-flaps are separate airfoils located aft of the main blade in order to create

large moment authority. These flaps are centered at the 75% radius of the blade,

and are connected with linkages. The rotor is soft in torsion to maximize blade

twist response to the aerodynamic moment created by the deflection of the servo-

flap. Typically, the torsional frequency of servo-flap rotors is below 2/rev, compared

to 3-5/rev for swashplate controlled rotors. Kaman uses two designs to produce

6
torsional softness: (1) a torsion bearing at the root in combination with a tension-

torsion strap and (2) soft torsional rigidity (GJ) of the blade. To minimize the

servo-flap deflection required to twist the blade into trim position, the blades are

given a pre-collective called the index angle. This arrangement results in several

advantages compared to the conventional swashplate control [8–11]. Although the

servo-flap is small compared to the blade, the moment arm from the blade feathering

axis to the flap is long, and the torsional softness of the blade means that the blade

undergoes significant twist in response to small flap deflections. Consequently, the

control forces required to deflect the servo-flaps with these designs are very low,

and hydraulic actuation either may not be necessary or the requirement becomes

minimal. In the Kaman rotors, the low control forces lead to clean hub designs

through the lack of large bearings or hinges. The flap is controlled with push-pull

rods in the rotating frame that connect to pilot collective and cyclic inputs in the

fixed frame through a swashplate. The system tends to allow the pilot to have a

good feel for the controls. The flaps on each blade are a decentralized control, which

enhances vehicle survivability in the case of hub damage in flight.

There are also disadvantages to a flap-controlled rotor. The extra wetted area

of external servo-flaps, plus the exposed linkages connecting the foils to the blades

creates additional drag. Because the control mechanism is located in the rotating

frame, it (the servo-flap) is subject to high rotational speeds and correspondingly

high centrifugal loading. This affects not only the design of the servo-flap and the

linkages, but also the interaction of multiple blades, where minor dissimilarities in

mass or aerodynamic profile relating to the flap attachments are magnified into

7
major rotor imbalances. Thus the similitude of the blades, in mass and in profile,

becomes even more important than for swashplate rotors, and the servo-flap rotor

requires extra time and attention for proper tracking. The flap, the attachments

linking the flap to the blade, and the actuator driving the flap add mass to the blade,

and the center of that additional mass must be carefully located to avoid stability

problems.

1.2.3 Kaman Helicopters

Kaman Aerospace Corporation has a long history with servo-flap rotors. In-

spired by the successes of Pescara [12] and d”’Ascanio [13], Kaman created his own

servo-flap helicopter [14] and put it into production. These rotors are characterized

by low torsional stiffness and the use of index angles.

As the only industrial experts on servo-flap rotors, Kaman Aerospace has been

historically the primary source of servo-flap research. Kaman [15–19] conducted a

study with the U.S. Army on the controllable twist rotor (CTR), a dual control

rotor with both a swashplate/pitch horn arrangement at the hub and servo-flaps

on the blades. The swashplate was used for primary control and the servo-flaps

controlled the blade twist. They found that with torsionally soft blades, they were

able to reduce the diameter and solidity of the rotor while increasing performance

in hover and forward flight. This was accomplished with high negative twist in the

blades in hover, and less blade twist in forward flight. The concept was extended to

include vibration reduction using multicyclic flap deflections. Full-scale wind tunnel

8
tests were conducted in support of the concept, but the complexity and weight of

the dual control systems and the hydraulic actuation was an obstacle to production.

The concept was modified by Lemnios and Jones [8], who proposed a system for

simultaneous primary and vibration control, using a hydraulic actuation system in

the rotating frame to provide multicyclic servo-flap deflections via a hydraulic slip

ring.

Several investigations have addressed the analysis and improvement of Ka-

man’s production rotors. An analysis was developed from the C81 rotorcraft simula-

tion software that could model either conventional or servo-flap rotors, and used air-

foil tables for aerodynamic properties [20]. The SH-2F model was validated against

flight test data, and showed good correlation for flap deflection and rotor torque. Wei

proposed variable indexing [21], which would allow the index angle to be changed

in flight, producing performance improvements and hover and reduced vibration in

high speed forward flight. Both of these effects are related to the alteration of blade

airload distribution caused by trim position of the servo-flap. As the index angle

is changed, the flap trim position also changes. Wei and Gallagher [9] observed

that positive flap deflection or uploading, characterized by flap down deflection, im-

proved the hover and forward flight performance on the SH-2G by redistributing the

airloads over the blade, reducing the tip loading and making the total distribution

more uniform. The switch to uploading from downloading on the Kaman rotors

was achieved with significant modification of the fuselage and the introduction of

composite blades. There have been investigations of the vibration characteristics

of Kaman rotors [22–24]. Recently, spectral analysis has been used to identify the

9
primary servo-flap design features affecting vibration energy distributions [24].

Kaman Aerospace is examining the merits of integrated flaps [10, 25] compared

to the external servoflaps that they have traditionally used. Integrating the flap into

the airfoil section reduces the moment arm of the flap so that a larger flap and/or

larger flap deflections are required for trim. The flapped section of the K-MAX

intermeshing rotor blade was re-designed to integrate the external servo-flap into

the main blade section. For the flapped section, the blade chord was increased

so that the new chord length matched the original cross-sectional length of the

main blade and servo-flap. The airfoil profile of the combined surfaces matched

the original blade airfoil and the newly integrated trailing edge flap was hinged at

its leading edge. The result of this reconfiguration was to improve performance,

primarily through the increase of the lift-to-drag ratio. The elimination of the gap

between the foils and the reduction of exposed linkages were the main sources of

drag reduction. The lift of the new section increased significantly compared to the

original blade section, for both positive and negative flap deflections. When the

servo-flap is entirely integrated with the blade chord, it becomes a plain flap, and

its pitching moment arm is significantly reduced. Consequently, the entire blade

and rotor designs must be reconsidered to best take advantage of the strengths

of the plain flap, and to reduce its disadvantages. Some of the most important

design considerations are summarized in Ref. [25]. Despite positive results from

this research, the current performance and potential advances of the trailing edge

servo-flap rotor have been so satisfactory that major new designs do not appear to

be in the immediate future of the company.

10
1.3 Active Controls and Helicopter Performance

Active controls have been proposed for helicopter rotors as methods for either

vibration or noise reduction. These methods change the aerodynamic input to the

vehicle system, rather than addressing the structural response like traditional pas-

sive controls, i.e., absorbers or isolators. The theory is to counteract the periodic

aerodynamic excitation produced by the flight environment with periodic inputs

from the blades. The input is optimally timed and phased to reduce one or more

target loads. Such a periodic input is generally referred to as multicyclic control. As

the primary studies in noise and vibration have matured, research focus has widened

to include the effect of the active controls on rotor performance metrics like rotor

torque and forward flight speed. This has occurred because it is important to ensure

that improvements to the vibration and/or noise profiles do not carry concomitant

penalties to rotor performance.

The term performance can cover a broad array of helicopter design terms

including the classic metrics of speed, payload, range and general categories like

specific productivity or environmental performance [3]. For the purpose of the cur-

rent investigation, rotor performance refers exclusively to rotor shaft power and

rotor lift-to-drag ratio. In this section, two major categories of active rotor control

research, higher harmonic control and individual blade control, are reviewed in the

context of rotor performance.

11
1.3.1 Higher Harmonic Control

Helicopter forward flight speed is limited by compressibility on the advancing

blade and stall on the retreating blade. Agility and maneuverability require high

rotor tip speed, which in turn is limited by consideration of rotor noise. These

boundaries create a performance envelope (see Fig. 1.3) which constrains every

helicopter design.

Figure 1.3: Limits of the Rotor Performance Envelope

It has been shown that helicopter performance can be enhanced with higher

harmonic control (HHC). This is a control method by which small blade pitch in-

puts are added to the primary control inputs in the fixed frame, by including pitch

frequencies above 1/rev. The additional actuation is usually applied through the

existing swashplate, minimizing alteration to the vehicle but increasing weight with

additional hydraulic actuators. The actuators must be capable of applying signif-

icant force at a wide range of frequencies. For a three or four bladed rotor, blade

12
pitch inputs at 3/rev and higher can push the stall limit beyond the compressibility

limit of the advancing side [26]. Arcidiacono [27] found that 2/rev inputs could

also be effective in delaying stall, and thus increasing the maximum forward flight

speed. The concept was proven to be feasible in the early 1980s with wind tunnel

tests of a model scale rotor [28, 29], which showed likely penalties for rotor torque

across the range of forward flight speed. Nguyen et al. studied [30–32] expanding

the performance envelope by delaying stall with HHC. A distinction was made be-

tween delaying stall and reducing rotor torque, as a multi-harmonic pitch schedule

that reduces stall by 75% at cruise and high speed for the BO-105 only decreases

rotor torque by 0.5%. In general, retreating side stall can be effectively suppressed

with HHC for some rotors, but not usually in conjunction with a rotor performance

improvement.

Comprehensive experimental studies of a 40% Mach-scaled BO-105 rotor was

conducted to improve understanding of the effect of blade vortex interaction (BVI)

on rotor noise and vibration, both with and without higher harmonic control. The

Higher-harmonic-control Aeroacoustic Rotor Test (HART) and the subsequent se-

ries of tests on the same rotor (HART-II) produced a large database of test data,

valuable for the examination of vibration and noise reduction, as well as detailed

measurements of the rotor wake, blade pressure and rotor performance [33–36].

Most of the subsequent studies of the database have focussed on noise and vibration

primarily, rather than performance.

Recently, Cheng has studied the effect of 2/rev HHC on rotor performance

[37, 38], and found that adjusting the phase of the pitch input could produce small

13
reductions in power for a four-bladed, articulated rotor similar to the UH-60A Black-

hawk. The major difference in the rotor model was the elimination of the UH-60A

swept tip from the blade. Further gains can be realized by optimizing the pitch in-

put schedule to minimize power, maximize thrust, or minimize rotor speed. Using a

linear inflow model, an 11% increase in maximum thrust was realized at high speed,

but a free wake model produced smaller improvements in all areas. It was shown

that 2/rev HHC input changes lift distribution over the rotor disk, so more lift is

generated at the front and rear of disk, as opposed to the advancing and retreating

sides. It was indicated that the optimum input schedule was adequately predicted

with linear inflow and rigid blades, followed by refinement with more refined aero-

dynamic and structural models.

Wachspress et al. [39] suggested that the most effective way to improve rotor

performance is to reduce induced power. Induced power is the primary component

of total power in hover, and a significant portion of the total power in forward flight.

The result of using either 2/rev or 3/rev HHC on a 4-bladed rotor in forward flight

was a 3 % to 4% reduction of induced power. It was also observed that the accuracy

of predictions concerning the effect of HHC on rotor power is significantly affected

by the fidelity of the wake model used.

1.3.2 Individual Blade Control

Individual Blade Control (IBC) describes a collection of rotor excitation meth-

ods that are located in the rotating frame, on each blade of the rotor. Many of the

14
systems that fall into this category were developed as an extension of HHC, and

intended for application to similar problems, but eliminating the disadvantages of

fixed frame actuation. Compared to HHC, the major advantages of IBC methods

are the ability to operate at any desired frequency on each blade and the potential

reduction in weight and power penalties. The frequency flexibility means not only

an increase in potential applications (or simultaneous pursuit of multiple goals), but

also the ability to operate with blades that are dissimilar.

Initial design concepts [15, 18, 40, 41] for IBC included hydraulic actuation in

the rotating frame, which required complex sliprings and mechanical arrangements.

The disadvantages of hydraulic actuation are being overcome by the recent advent of

smart actuators characterized by low weight, compact size and high bandwidth [42].

Advances in smart materials and hybrid actuation schemes have allowed researchers

in individual blade control to concentrate primarily on vibration reduction and noise

reduction, with the hope that IBC suitable actuators will be available in the future.

The many different concepts that have been proposed for individual blade con-

trol can be divided into broad categories: blade pitch, blade twist, and active airfoils.

Direct control of blade pitch is similar to swashplate control, but with the possibility

of independent amplitude and phase control for each blade. Original concepts used

active pitch links driven by hydraulic actuators, which required either a hydraulic

slip ring or hydraulic pumps in the rotating frame. Guinn [40] described the design

of a swashplateless control system of this type that used fly-by-light to integrate the

hydraulic actuators, pumps and power supplies, and smart hydraulic pumps to vary

pressure based on actuator load. The elimination of the swashplate and associated

15
linkages, and addition of mast fairing, was estimated to produce a 40% reduction in

rotor profile drag. The estimated weight of the proposed control system was 40%

less than the conventional fixed-frame system. Although higher harmonic control

inputs were noted as a possible future advantage, the actuators were sized for 1/rev

control. The study included only design and was not corroborated by experimental

results, but highlighted some of the advantages of IBC. Ham [43] suggested that IBC

could be used to control a variety of dynamic phenomena, including gust response

and flutter. A BO105 helicopter fitted with hydraulic pitch link actuators was tested

both in flight and in the wind tunnel [44, 45]. Although some improvement in vi-

bration and noise were shown, significant improvements to rotor shaft power were

not observed. Primary control was not part of this investigation. The last decade of

advances in direct pitch IBC largely have been made in the development of control

algorithms [46], rather than any major changes to the technology. An exception is

the replacement of the hydraulic actuation system with hybrid piezohydraulic actu-

ators [47]. These new actuators incorporate self-contained hydraulic pumps in each

actuator unit, and are driven by electricity delivered through an electrical slip ring.

Weight and complexity are greatly reduced, improving the potential of the direct

pitch control concept.

Active twist blades control blade pitch through actuation of the entire blade,

rather than just the root. Chen [48] designed, fabricated and tested a Froude scale

rotor blade embedded with piezoceramic elements. The magnitude of blade twist

was on the order of 0.5◦ at the tip, enough to offer some vibration control. A

Mach-scaled model of a similar concept achieved 2◦ of blade twist in hover testing.

16
The blade was actuated up to 3/rev, and showed good thrust authority, which

may indicate that this concept has potential for swashplateless control. The joint

NASA/Army/MIT project on the active twist rotor (ATR) designed and fabricated

a four-bladed rotor model to test in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel.

These model tests satisfy Mach, Froude and Lock number scaling simultaneously.

Active fiber composite (AFC) actuators were embedded in the blades as part of

the structure, layered through the thickness of the spar and oriented to produce

maximum torsional control. These actuators had no failures during 40 hours of

blade twisting, and demonstrated no loss of actuator authority during testing, which

offers a promising indication of actuator robustness. Maximum blade twist was on

the order of 1.52◦ [49–51]. Significant control authority for vibration reduction in

hover and across the range of forward flight speed was demonstrated. There was

little study of the effect of active twist on rotor performance, and primary control

was outside the scope of the investigation. A brief design study by Kim et al.

[52] proposed a piezoelectric tube actuator to twist the blade, and concluded that

swashplateless primary control should be possible with active twist blades. However,

required control moments were not compared to actuator capabilities to support the

concept.

Active airfoils affect blade pitch indirectly, by causing the blade to twist in

response to a change in the aerodynamic environment caused by the motion of

the active part of the airfoil. The concept is frequently applied with additional

airfoil elements like hinged trailing edge flaps, and may also be implemented with

conformable airfoils or active camber control. One major advantage of this class of

17
active rotor concept is that the actuation power required is much less than for either

the active pitch link or active twist concepts. This is because instead of moving the

whole blade starting from the root, the actuated section is usually confined to only a

fraction of the chord and span of the blade. A study of variable camber using trailing

edge flaps in the early 1980s [53] found the potential for significant reduction of shaft

power at high speed and thrust, but the concept was not pursued at the time for lack

of suitable actuation. Advances in smart actuators increase the attractiveness of the

active airfoil concepts [42], as their compact size allows them to fit within the blade

profile, minimizing or eliminating exposed linkages and thus reducing associated

profile drag.

Trailing edge flaps have been a popular research topic in the category of active

airfoils. A drawback of trailing edge flaps is the discontinuity of airflow created at

the flap boundaries. There are several sources of such discontinuity. Chordwise gaps

that are difficult to seal occur if the flap is hinged aft of its leading edge, although

aerodynamic overhang is useful in reducing hinge moment requirement and thus

actuation power. Flaps with overhang protrude into the airflow when deflected.

Spanwise gaps create the potential for trailed vorticity that adds to induced power

losses and possibly to blade vortex interaction (BVI). Some of these issues will be

examined more thoroughly in the following sections.

Conformable or variable camber airfoils work similarly to trailing edge flaps,

with the advantage that there are no discrete flap boundaries that can cause aero-

dynamic penalties through increased profile drag or additional trailing vortices. The

best airfoil design will have the flexibility and actuation to achieve maximum de-

18
flection at the trailing edge, while being stiff enough to maintain its shape under

load. Anusonti and Gandhi have shown in a numerical investigation that actuator

distribution and airfoil skin thickness are key design parameters [54]. The European

aerospace agencies have started a joint project to investigate active trailing edges

[55, 56]. The first phase of the project is actuator development and testing. Current

smart actuator technology is sufficient to produce moderate deflections for a rea-

sonable bandwidth, so this concept also may have some potential for both vibration

and rotor primary control.

The focus of this investigation is the suitability of trailing edge flaps and tabs

for helicopter primary control. Accordingly, the next section will review in detail

prior trailing edge flap research.

1.4 Trailing Edge Flaps

A summary of the literature review of the trailing edge flaps may be found in

Table 1, at the end of this chapter.

1.4.1 Vibration Control

The majority of current trailing edge flap research is directed to vibration

and noise reduction through multicyclic deflections. This is in contrast to the early

decades of helicopter development, when flaps were exclusively studied and used for

primary control at 1/rev [12–14]. It wasn’t until 1958 that a higher harmonic flap

deflection was proposed by Payne [26], who noted that 3/rev blade pitch motions

19
can delay stall, and that multicyclic flap inputs might be applicable to vibration con-

trol. The first thorough study of the concept was carried out in the 1970s, when the

Multicyclic Controllable Twist Rotor (MCTR) was designed, tested and analyzed in

a joint Kaman Aerospace-US government project [15–19]. The multicyclic portion

of the project was an extension of the original program, which studied a controllable

twist rotor (CTR) for performance improvements. A 56 ft. diameter, 4-bladed, ar-

ticulated rotor was fitted with servo-flaps 0.08R in length on the outboard section

of the blade, and tested in a wind tunnel. The steady and 1/rev flap deflections

were controlled by a swashplate in the fixed system, while the multicyclic deflections

were produced by electro-hydraulic actuators in the rotating system. The servo-flaps

were shown to have a significant effect on blade loads. The forces or moments most

affected were determined by the weighting of different parameters in the control ob-

jective function. The analysis of the MCTR included a comprehensive aerodynamic

model, including airfoil table look up, stall effects, and a prescribed wake. Although

reduction of blade loads was demonstrated at 2/rev, the complexity and weight of

the multiple control systems made this concept unattractive.

The creation of smart actuators with high bandwidth, low power requirements,

light weight and compact size resurrected interest in trailing edge flaps for rotor

applications in the 1990s. Because the actuators could fit inside the blade profile,

plain flaps became a practical alternative to servo-flaps, offering a reduction in drag

as exposed linkages and large hinge gaps are eliminated. Figure 1.4 offers plan and

section views of a generic rotor blade with a servo-flap, a plain flap and a flap-tab.

A trailing edge flap system has been designed and installed on an MD-900

20
Figure 1.4: Schematic Diagram of Generic Rotor Blade with Varying Trailing Edge

Flap Configurations

21
helicopter as part of the DARPA sponsored Smart Material Actuated Rotor Tech-

nology (SMART) program [57–60] at Boeing. The 5-bladed rotor is composite and

bearingless, and has diameter 34 ft, with one flap per blade. The trailing edge

flap has 0.25c chord, span of 0.18R and an overhang of 0.40cf . The first phase of

this long-term program developed the smart actuators that can provide both large

displacement and high force in the demanding flight environment [59]. In the next

phase, the full-scale rotor with flaps and piezoelectric actuators was whirl-tower

tested to demonstrate the reliable operation of the flaps [60]. Parameters includ-

ing blade loads, pitch link loads, flap loads and flap actuator displacements were

measured. The flaps were actuated at harmonics up to 6/rev, and also given static

deflections. Flap damage was simulated by giving one flap static deflections while

the remaining flaps received dynamic input. The flaps were observed to produce

approximately 10% oscillatory thrust at medium actuation voltage, indicating that

the flap system as designed could meet the requirements for vibration reduction in

forward flight. The wind tunnel testing of the rotor reached speeds of at least 155

knots, and tested different deflection schedules for the flap. Preliminary reports

suggest that measured noise was reduced by 50%. Comprehensive analysis of the

SMART rotor proceeded concurrently with experiments [57, 58]. CAMRAD/JA is

based on a mode shape approach and was modified for trailing edge flaps. The aero-

dynamic model of the flap uses either thin airfoil theory or airfoil table lookup. The

structural model includes a flap hinge spring and damper, but does not include the

inertial effects of the flap on the blade. CAMRAD II is a higher level code that is

based on the finite element method. It includes unsteady aerodynamics and varying

22
wake models. In this code, the flap inertial effects are included, and the flap motion

can either be prescribed or a degree of freedom. It was found that the lower level

analysis adequately captured rotor response and flap loads to permit initial design

studies. The higher level analysis becomes necessary to predict blade and flaps loads

with greater accuracy, and to assess the coupled blade-flap dynamics.

Eurocopter also has a full-scale active flap rotor [61–63]. The Advanced Tech-

nology Rotor (ATR) was modified with one 0.15c trailing edge flap per blade. The

flap span is 0.10R, located at the 75% radius of the blade. This 4-bladed hinge-

less rotor is 11m in diameter and fits the BK117 helicopter. In the first phase of

the project, different acutation concepts were designed and tested on the bench,

in rotation for centrifugal load and in the wind tunnel. A piezoelectric actuator

was developed that fits within the blade section and maintains the CG near the

quarter-chord. Whirl tower tests in the next phase of the program demonstrated

the robustness of the rotor and flap components. The flaps were controlled in two

different ways: 1)voltage inputs were given that corresponded to the desired flap

deflection, or 2)the flap deflection was monitored and voltage adjusted to match the

desired prescribed deflection. The second method was tested extensively: measure-

ments were taken of blade and flap loads which compared well to predicted values.

The flight tests which began in 2005 collected vibration data at the gearbox for 60

and 100 kts flight speeds, using open-loop control of the flaps. Subsequent flight

testing with a closed-loop controller has demonstrated significant simultaneous re-

duction of the vertical force and pitch and roll moments at the hub, for a wide range

of speeds in steady level flight. The flap design for this effort was produced with

23
numerical predictions from CAMRAD II, with airfoil lookup tables and flap iner-

tia included. The aerodynamic properties for flapped airfoils were obtained from a

combination of CFD studies and thin airfoil theory.

The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has also undertaken a

research and development program for the active flap [64, 65]. The primary focus of

this project is noise reduction. Having developed a piezoelectric actuation system,

the flapped section of the blade was recently tested in a transonic wind tunnel where

flap deflection and surface pressure were measured. Test cases simulated landing,

hover and maximum cruise speed conditions. The flap system achieved adequate

deflection at a range of harmonics from 2/rev to 5/rev. Whirl tower and wind tunnel

tests of the complete rotor are planned.

Many experimental investigations at the model scale have also been carried

out. Hall et al. [66] developed the piezoceramic bimorph actuator to fit within

a model scale blade. The refined design produced flap deflections of ±11◦ at 100

Hz on the bench, and was predicted to be able to produce at least ±5◦ at typical

helicopter operating speeds. Fulton and Ormiston [67] and Koratkar and Chopra

[68] used wind tunnel tests of Mach-scaled rotors in hover and in forward flight to

demonstrate sufficient flap authority for multi-function vibration suppression. Roget

and Chopra [69] developed and tested a control algorithm for dissimilar blades with

trailing edge flaps. Using individual control input for each blade, instead of phase-

shifted identical inputs for all blades, allowed significant reduction of vibration loads.

Numerical analysis of rotors with trailing edge flaps has been seriously studied

since the early 1990s. Millott and Friedmann [70, 71] started their investigation

24
of servoflaps on a hingeless rotor using rigid blades, an aerodynamic model based

on thin airfoil theory and uniform inflow. Flap inertia was included in the struc-

tural model, and the hinge gap was considered with the inclusion of an efficiency

factor applied to the hinge moment. The analysis was then enhanced with the in-

clusion of flexible blades, which significantly changed vibrations predictions, but

not overall flap behavior in the system. Parameter studies of flap size, spanwise

location and blade torsional stiffness at the root showed that flap effectiveness was

affected significantly by blade torsional stiffness and by spanwise location. Locating

the flap near the node of the second flap mode of the blade resulted in maximum

flap authority. A comparison to other vibration active control methods indicated

that the flap could be as effective as IBC, while requiring less power [71]. Milgram

and Chopra built a comprehensive analysis based on the University of Maryland

Advanced Rotorcraft Code (UMARC), that included an unsteady, indicial aerody-

namic model and a free wake model. The wake model did not include the effects

of trailed vorticity at the flap boundaries. A parametric design study with a mul-

ticyclic controller examined the effect of flap chord, length, spanwise location and

controller parameters. In general, the flap effectiveness at vibration reduction was

found to be insensitive to flap size or location, since the controller compensated

for differences in performance by varying the flap amplitude within the boundaries

of ±5◦ . One exception is flap length which could not be reduced below a certain

minimum, beyond which the required flap inputs would exceed the prescribed max-

imum. The flap was predicted to be effective at all advance ratios. The results

were compared to both CAMRAD/JA and experimental data from wind tunnel

25
testing [72]. Although both analyses showed fair agreement with the baseline rotor

for blade loads, the trailing edge flap predictions varied from fair to poor. Myrtle

and Friedmann [73] proposed a new aerodynamic model for the active flap called

the rational function approach (RFA) which used two-dimensional unsteady effects

and compressibility in the time domain. Compared to a quasisteady model based on

Theodorsen’s thin airfoil theory [74], similar vibration control was achieved, but flap

actuation power increased. Zhang et al. [75] studied active and passive vibration

reduction by combining optimum blade structural design with active flap control.

The goal was to reduce vibration with minimum control input and to identify the

key design features for a rotor blade with integrated flap, so as to stay within the

stroke limitations of current smart actuators. By using simultaneous optimization of

the blade structure and the flap design, it was found that similar vibration reduction

could be achieved compared to a rotor blade retrofitted with a flap, but with 30% to

60% less flap deflection across the range of forward flight speed. The effectiveness of

the flap actuated at 3/rev, 4/rev and 5/rev was enhanced by a blade tuned to have

its second flap mode at 3/rev and its third flap mode at 5/rev. Depailler and Fried-

mann [76] concentrated on reducing vibration when dynamic stall is also present, at

forward flight speeds ranging from µ = 0.3 to µ = 0.45. The study used both single

and dual flaps, and limited the total flap deflection to ±4◦ . The single flap was 0.12

of the blade length, located at 0.75R. The dual flaps were each 0.06 long, located at

0.72R and 0.92R. The dual flaps seemed to be more effective at controlling vibration

due to dynamic stall, but both configurations could reduce vibration to acceptable

levels. The US Army and NASA developed an active elevon rotor (AER) in a joint

26
project [77]. Both dual and single flap systems were studied on an Apache blade

model modified to reduce torsional stiffness. Patt, Liu and Friedmann [78] used dual

flaps to examine the simultaneous reduction of noise and vibration, and validated

results with experimental data. The simultaneous solution requires compromised

results for both vibration and noise, with neither being as successfully controlled as

they can be with a dedicated solution.

1.4.2 Primary Control

Subsequent to the renewed interest in trailing edge flaps as active control

devices Ormiston [79], conducted a feasibility study of flaps for primary control.

The analytical model used rigid blades, quasi-steady thin airfoil theory and uniform

inflow. Elevon (trailing edge flap) reversal was identified as a key phenomenon for

the flap controlled swashplateless rotor. Reversal is defined as the point at which

the lift directly produced by flap deflection is equal to or less than the opposing lift

caused by the induced elastic twist. Since the range of operation for a moment flap is

predicted to be larger than for a lift flap, a flap controlled helicopter should typically

operate beyond flap reversal speed. The conclusion drawn from this observation was

that the torsional frequency should be low enough to maximize the twist induced

by the flap. It was also noted that blade pitch indexing would have the effect of

reducing the total required flap deflections.

Shen et al. [80–84] conducted the first in-depth, methodical investigation of

trailing edge flaps for swashplateless primary control. A series of numerical stud-

27
ies were carried out with UMARC on an ultralight teetering rotor, the bearingless

McDonnell-Douglas Advance Rotor Technology (MDART) rotor, and a heavy util-

ity rotor. The aerodynamic model included thin airfoil theory and an unsteady

model for flaps without aerodynamic balance. Flap drag was estimated with the

unsteady model. Simultaneous primary and vibration control was examined with

a multicyclic controller, and the stability of the flapped rotor was determined with

eigenanalysis. Results for the baseline, unflapped MDART rotor were compared to

wind tunnel test data and predictions from CAMRAD II and showed fair agree-

ment. The primary design parameters for the swashplateless rotor were found to be

index angle and torsional frequency. The blade pitch angles of the conventional and

swashplateless rotor were compared, with both rotors at 2.1/rev torsional frequency.

It was observed that the blade collective, longitudinal cyclic and lateral cyclic pitch

angles induced by the trailing edge flap deflections on the swashplateless rotor were

similar to the conventional rotor pitch control angles in both magnitude and trend.

When positive flap deflections contributed additional lift, the swashplateless rotor

had a slightly lower blade collective pitch angle than the conventional rotor. The

swashplateless MDART rotor could be trimmed across the range of forward flight

speeds with mean flap angles of ±5◦ and half peak-to-peak angles less that 6◦ , and

99% reduction of vibration loads was predicted with small additional deflections. In-

vestigation of the heavy utility rotor proceeded with linear inflow and quasi-steady

thin airfoil theory for the aerodynamic model. A parametric study of the flap con-

figuration examined flap overhang, chord, span, spanwise location and blade index

angle in to minimize flap control angles and hinge moment at high speed. It was

28
shown that flap control angles can be reduced significantly with the selection of

index angle and flap length. Flap hinge moment was sensitive to the size of the flap

overhang. Overall, the parameters that were most effective at reducing flap control

angles and hinge moment were similar for all of the examined rotors, regardless of

weight-class. Improving the flap geometry and location with the results of the para-

metric studies resulted in moderate flap collective and half peak-to-peak angles, and

moderate actuation power required.

Ganguli et al. [85, 86] have also studied the swashplateless rotor concept, and

have proposed various enhancements to improve feasibility. The primary control

inputs of a swashplateless rotor with individual blade control are typically predicted

to be higher than the inputs required for vibration or noise control. This larger

requirement conflicts with the limited stroke capabilities of smart actuators. It

was suggested that the blade cyclic deflections could be reduced or eliminating

by shifting the location of the vehicle center of gravity (cg). Sensitivity studies

indicated that optimal location of the cg in combination with blade pitch indexing

could reduce the maximum required half peak-to-peak blade deflections by almost

50%. It was further recommended that active cg positioning be investigated for

micro- and unmanned rotorcraft. For small vehicles, the active cg could reduce blade

cyclics to zero across the range of forward flight speed. Survivability is a concern

with the swashplateless rotor, as any damage to a blade automatically compromises

the control system. Damage was simulated on one blade of a BO105 rotor model

in UMARC by suppressing pitch collective, longitudinal cyclic and lateral cyclic,

both individually and in combination. In the event of partial or complete damage

29
to one blade, the individual blade control deflections of the remaining blades are

reconfigured to maintain trim. In hover, loss of collective control for one blade

results in increased collective for the three undamaged blades, and 1/rev forces and

moments. In forward flight, it was predicted that the rotor could still be trimmed at

low and moderate advance ratios, but at high advance ratio, either a collective failure

or a collective and lateral cyclic failure leads to difficulty in trimming. The difficulty

in trimming is directly related to the magnitude of longitudinal cyclic deflection in

the damaged blade. Damage in forward flight also produces large 1/rev and 2/rev

loads.

1.4.3 Experimental and Numerical Characterization of Flapped Air-

foils

Although plain flaps have long been in use on fixed wing aircraft, they do

not have a similarly long rotorcraft history. Consequently, the experiments con-

ducted and published tend to include flight conditions, aerodynamic properties and

Reynolds numbers most suitable to fixed wing aircraft. Early wind tunnel tests of

plain flaps were sometimes conducted at Reynolds numbers below 1 × 106 , mean-

ing that viscous effects such as flow separation might be more influential in the

test results than they would at the higher Reynolds numbers at which helicopters

typically operate. Most frequently, the goal of the experiment had been to iden-

tify incremental changes in lift and pitching moment coefficients due to flap and/or

tab deflections, and drag was not considered in these studies. Occasionally, when

30
both flap and tab were installed on an airfoil, only positive flap deflections were

tested, even when both positive and negative tab deflections were included in the

test matrix.

Abbott and von Doenhoeff [87] describe a variety of high-lift devices for fixed

wing airfoils and reviewed the state of the art up to 1950. Plain flaps were observed

to act as a change of camber, and for unseparated flow and no gaps the resulting

change in lift and pitching moment could be well predicted by thin airfoil theory.

Hinge moment and flap lift predictions were less accurate due to increased viscosity

effects over the aft section of the airfoil. The changes to aerodynamic properties can

be calculated for either symmetric or cambered airfoils as increments that add to

the baseline properties of the unflapped section. From experiments with plain flaps

on a selection of cambered airfoils [88, 89], it is shown that although significant

increases in maximum lift coefficient can be achieved, the angle of maximum lift

coefficient decreases with positive flap deflection. For unstalled, unseparated flow,

at positive angles of attack a positive flap deflection produces an increase in airfoil

lift, and increase in drag and a nose-down pitching moment. Conversely, in the

same conditions, negative flap deflections produce opposite changes. Wenzinger et

al. [90, 91] compared different flap types to identify the configuration producing the

maximum increase in lift. Tests were conducted at Reynolds numbers up to 8.0e6,

and measurements of airfoil lift, drag, pitching moment and flap hinge moment were

taken. Slotted flaps and split flaps were the primary focus. Similar to the plain flap,

the slotted flap increases lift by increasing effective camber, but it also delays flow

separation over the flap by ducting air from the lower surface to the upper surface

31
of the airfoil. The split flap allows deflection only of the lower surface of the flap,

and like the slotted flap, is designed to deflect only in one direction (positive).

Wenzinger’s results showed that the best combination of high lift and low drag is

produced by the slotted flap.

Ames, with co-authors Street [92] and Sears [93, 94], conducted a series of

wind tunnel tests on NACA 0009 airfoils with plain flap and tab. For each case,

the total chord size of the flap and tab combined (cf + ct ) was fixed, and three

tabs of 10, 20 and 30 percent flap chord were studied. In the case of a 50 percent

flap [92], cf + ct = 0.5c, and this results in the following pairings: 10% tab, 40%

flap (0.10ct , 0.40cf ); 20% tab, 30% flap; 30% tab, 20% flap. The purpose of the

tests was to generate 2-D sectional aerodynamic data for the design of airplane tail

surfaces. The gaps at the leading edges of both the flap and the tab were sealed

to prevent airflow between the top and bottom surfaces of the airfoil. The section

angles of attack covered the range from −15◦ to 10◦ , while the flap angle was varied

from 0◦ to 45◦ (positive flap angle is flap down), and the tab angles were varied

from −30◦ to 30◦ . The section was fitted with pressure tubes in a single row on

both the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil, the flap, and the tab, and tested at

Re = 3.4e6. The properties measured were airfoil normal force and pitching moment,

flap normal force and hinge moment, and tab normal force and hinge moment; drag

is not reported. These tests produced a fundamental description of the airfoil-flap-

tab system. Positive tab deflection produces an increase in airfoil normal force, and

the slope of the normal force increment is not very sensitive to tab chord size or

deflection. The tab loses its effectiveness against airfoil pitching moment and flap

32
hinge moment as tab deflections increase in either direction, and also as tab chord

increases. Airfoil normal force and pitching moment are significantly and linearly

affected by flap deflection, until stall is reached. The experimental data were used

to produce parameterized design curves [95] for the estimation of changes to airfoil

lift and pitching moment and flap hinge moment based on flap and tab chord and

flap and tab deflections. These curves are compared to the results of thin airfoil

theory, and show fair agreement for unstalled conditions. When the flap or tab are

stalled, agreement is poor. Other NACA investigations of the plain flap and tab

indicated that the most increase in lift with the least increase in drag was achieved

when the tab was large compared to the flap [96]. This result was found when the

flap and tab deflected in the same direction and hinge gaps were sealed. Liddell [97]

showed that the inclusion of aerodynamic balance or overhang on the flap, where

the flap hinge is behind the leading edge, significantly reduces flap hinge moment

while protecting the gains to lift. However, profile drag is increased, especially as

the flap deflection increases.

As flapped airfoils recently have been considered for helicopter applications,

researchers have used both tests and simulations to evaluate airfoils and flap config-

urations. Hassan, Straub and Noonan [2] conducted two-dimensional wind tunnel

tests of flapped versions of the HH-06 and HH-10 airfoils. The intention was to

create airfoil lookup tables suitable for use in comprehensive analysis codes, and

thus the test matrix covered a wide range of Mach numbers, angles of attack and

flap deflection, which varied from ±8◦ . The flaps all had aerodynamic balance or

flap overhang. This is an important parameter for helicopter applications, since flap

33
hinge moment requirement can be reduced with the use of overhang. Reducing flap

hinge moment leads to lower actuation power required, which is key for lightweight,

compact, on-blade actuation. The flap hinge was fixed at 0.75c on the airfoil, and

the overhang, measured with respect to the flap chord, varied from 0.35cf to 0.45cf .

Gaps between the airfoil and flap were not sealed. The aerodynamic properties mea-

sured included airfoil lift, drag and pitching moment, flap lift and hinge moment,

at Mach numbers from 0.45 to 0.75, and Reynolds numbers from 2.7e6 to 5e6. The

wind tunnel tests were followed by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions,

for which the airfoil-flap system was modeled as one piece, with no gap. From these

tests, it was observed that the size of the flap overhang had a significant effect on

airfoil pitching moment, airfoil drag and flap hinge moment coefficients. The flap

overhang also tended to cause a slight decrease in airfoil lift coefficient, due to flow

through the hinge gap. The flap hinge moment coefficients also were shown to be

sensitive to airfoil thickness ratio. Accuracy of the CFD predictions was greatly af-

fected by the configuration of the grid at the flap leading edge. Previously observed

effects of flap deflection on aerodynamic properties were noted again, showing that

for positive angles of attack, positive flap deflection increases airfoil lift and drag

coefficients and negative flap deflections decreases airfoil lift and drag coefficients

compared to the baseline value measured at neutral flap position.

The time and expense required to wind tunnel test a flapped airfoil through the

range of conditions necessary to construct an airfoil lookup table is considerable, and

difficulty increases as the Mach numbers become transonic. However, accuracy and

computational expense prevented simulation from being a viable substitute for the

34
wind tunnel. Recently, improvements in methodology and advances in computing

speed have made automated generation of airfoil lookup tables with CFD feasible.

Mayda and van Dam [98] generated tables for the UH-60A airfoils, SC1095 and

SC1094R8, for Mach numbers from 0.4 to 0.8. Good agreement with experimental

data is shown at M=0.4, but agreement is only fair at M=0.8, where solutions are

more difficult to obtain [99, 100]. Ongoing research in refining CFD turbulence

models may lead to prediction improvements for stalled and separated flow [101].

Automating the table generation seems not to degrade the accuracy of the data,

and greatly improves the feasibility of studies using novel airfoil modifications.

Jose and Baeder conducted CFD investigations of flapped airfoils to predict

basic aerodynamic properties of flapped airfoils [102], and to develop improved tech-

niques for modeling flap overhang and hinge gap [103]. In both cases, the goal is

to characterize flapped airfoils for rotorcraft applications. For subsonic Mach num-

bers, CFD predictions show good agreement with thin airfoil theory for airfoil lift,

pitching moment and flap hinge moment. As the flow becomes transonic, the pre-

diction captures flow phenomena that causes it to diverge from the predictions of

thin airfoil theory. The major discernible effect of airfoil thickness is to reduce flap

hinge moment. It was shown for several airfoils that the effect of flap deflection on

airfoil drag can be estimated using an effective angle of attack. The effective angle

of attack serves to convert drag from a function of angle of attack and flap deflection

to solely a function of angle of attack. This is a powerful conclusion, suggesting that

for any airfoil, the aerodynamic properties, including drag, of a flapped alternative

in subsonic and unstalled flow can be well approximated using the properties of the

35
original section and an effective angle of attack.

The effect of flap overhang was also examined using CFD, comparing the

resulting predictions to the wind tunnel tests conducted by Hassan et al. on the

HH-06 airfoil [2]. The gap between the airfoil and the flap was modeled using

two different CFD mesh techniques. Gap averaging simulates the gap by averaging

the flow over the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil, thus setting the density,

pressure and velocity equal on either side of the gap. The gap is not directly modeled,

resulting in a single, continuous mesh that can be the same as the mesh used with

no gap. The patched mesh method uses an additional mesh in the gap, which

has a high number of grid points in both the chordwise and through thickness

directions. Although the gap is constrained to be no more than 0.01c, the high

grid point density is required to accurately model the boundary layer and the flow

through the gap. It was seen that the gap averaging method, which is simpler to

model and computationally less expensive, produces aerodynamic predictions that

compare well to experimental data. One effect of the gap is to reduce flap authority

by decreasing lift and pitching moment while increasing drag and hinge moment.

Current CFD results on the effect of the hinge gap are supported by older wind

tunnel tests conducted for fixed-wing investigations [96, 97, 104].

The combination of advanced simulation techniques and partial validation with

experimental data allows the exploration of many flap configurations, with some

confidence in the accuracy of the results.

36
1.4.4 Wake of Flapped Airfoils

An important addition to the aerodynamic model of the comprehensive anal-

ysis used in the current investigation is the effect of the trailing edge flap on the

blade wake. Accordingly, current flap wake research is reviewed here.

Johnson [6] describes the fundamental physics of the rotor vortex wake. The

bound circulation due to the lift on the rotor blade is trailed into the wake from

the tip and the root. The radial variation of the bound circulation leads to trailed

vorticity, while the the azimuthal variation leads to shed vorticity. The combination

of shed and trailed vorticity forms a vortex sheet behind the rotating blade. The

bound circulation reaches a maximum strength on the outboard section of the blade,

then drops to zero over a short distance. This abrupt decrease in circulation strength

produces a large vorticity strength at the blade tip, which attracts the other vortices

and causes them to roll up into a concentrated tip vortex. The strength of the tip

vortex grows to match the maximum bound circulation. At the blade root, the

bound circulation also decreases to zero, but more gradually so that the strength of

the trailed vortex at the root is much lower than at the tip. It is common to analyze

the wake thus described using a vortex lattice model, which is computationally

intensive. A simplified vortex lattice model neglects the inboard shed and trailed

vorticity, leaving only the trailed vorticity on the outboard section or the single

concentrated tip vortex. This approach captures the essential behavior of the wake

and is computationally efficient.

The introduction of a trailing edge flap on the outboard section of the blade

37
requires a reassessment of the tip vortex wake model. Lee et al. measured tip vortex

position and strength on an oscillating NACA 0015 wing with no twist, taper or tip

shaping [105, 106]. Models with both full and partial span flaps were fitted with

endplates to ensure two-dimensional flow, and 48 pressure taps were distributed over

both surfaces of the wing. A triple hot-wire probe was used to measure the velocities

of the tip vortex, and was computer controlled to follow the movement of the vortex.

The maximum flap deflection in either direction was 7.5◦ , and the flap was deflected

at varying start times, for an actuation period corresponding to one-half of the wing

oscillating cycle. It was observed that negative (flap up) deflections instigated at

the onset of flow reversal mitigate the nose down pitching moment that results from

dynamic stall. This effect was attributed to suction pressure on the lower surface

of the flap, and a reduction in suction pressure (with an accompanying loss of lift)

on the upper surface of the wing. Flap deflection in either direction changed the

radial position, strength and shape of the tip vortex. For the full span flap, positive

(flap down) deflection moved the vortex centroid outboard, increased the strength

of the vortex while decreasing peak vorticity compared to baseline, and diffused

the vortex. Negative flap deflection moved the centroid inboard, concentrated the

vortex, and reduced its strength. The results for the partial span flap were similar,

except the negative flap deflections resulted in a more diffuse tip vortex than the

baseline wing. Further tests on the partial span flap examined the effect of higher

harmonic actuation on the tip vortex [107]. The maximum flap deflection was ±8◦ ,

at 2, 3, and 4/rev harmonics. Harmonic flap motion significantly decreased peak

vorticity, while increasing core radius. The general conclusion of the all the tests

38
was that trailing edge flap deflections have an effect on the strength, concentration

and location of the tip vortex, but further tests on a rotating wing are required.

1.4.5 Performance Improvement

In hover, rotor induced drag is reduced by off-loading blade tip (weakening tip

vortex) with taper, swept tips, anhedral, and primarily, large negative blade twist.

All of these blade design features help to redistribute blade lift more evenly across

the span. However, highly twisted blades are a disadvantage in forward flight. One

way to reconcile the conflict between high performance in hover and in forward flight

is to achieve good hover performance with low blade twist. The HIMARCS (High

Maneuverability and Agility Rotor and Control System) rotor [108] is a test platform

for evaluating lift enhancement devices such as leading edge slats and trailing edge

flaps. Slats and flaps at fixed deployments were studied at a range of rotor lift

coefficients, advance ratios and vehicle parasite areas. It was concluded that for a

low blade twist of −8◦ , a leading edge slat with a moderate 6◦ deflection produced

the best improvement in rotor performance (reduction in rotor torque) compared

to the baseline blade, a 10◦ slat and a 3◦ flap. Further studies of the rotor using

3D viscous CFD analysis [109] found that trailing edge flaps at fixed deflections

in combination with low twist rotor blades allow good performance in both hover

and high speed flight. A blade with −7◦ twist and an inboard flap matches the

performance of an unflapped blade with −13◦ twist.

Glaz and Friedmann [110] combined active/passive optimization with the RFA

39
aerodynamic model to study both vibration reduction and rotor performance at

high advance ratios. The flap aerodynamics were represented by thin airfoil theory

augmented with a semi-empirical model which assumed positive and negative flap

deflection produced the same increase in drag, and did not consider the effects of

blade angle of attack or Mach number. Considering the baseline blade without

a flap, the optimization was able to achieve either a 23% reduction in vibration

with a 4% increase in rotor power, or a 5% reduction in power with a 5% increase in

vibration. A multi-objective function design without a flap showed an 11% reduction

in vibration and a 5% reduction in rotor power. An active/passive configuration

with optimized structural design and an active flap, controlled for both vibration

and rotor power reduction, achieved about 25% vibration reduction and 5% power

reduction. Liu et al. [111] extended the study to include dynamic stall at high

advance ratios.

Yeo compared seven active controls in their effect on rotor performance: IBC,

trailing edge flap, active twist, oscillatory jet, Gurney flap, leading edge droop,

leading edge slat [112]. The rotor model was based on an Apache with updated

airfoils, modified as necessary to implement each control. The aerodynamic model in

CAMRAD II was enhanced with airfoil tables specific to each type of active control.

Each set of tables was generated with different combinations of wind tunnel testing

and numerical simulation, with at least four different baseline airfoils. Calculated

increments in lift, drag and pitching moment were added to the baseline for the

investigation. The performance metrics used were rotor lift-to-drag ratio at one

thrust and a range of advance ratios and blade loading sweeps at two airspeeds. It

40
was shown that IBC, active twist and trailing edge flaps improved the rotor lift-to-

drag ratio when controlled at 2/rev, but did not increase maximum blade loading.

The other active controls increased the maximum blade loading when deployed over

the retreating side, but did not improve the lift-to-drag ratio.

1.4.6 Gurney Flaps

A Gurney flap is a thin plate perpendicular to the pressure surface of the airfoil,

devised as a control for the separation of trailing edge flow. Depending on chord

size and placement, the Gurney flap offers an increase in maximum lift coefficient,

a slight delay in stall angle, and an increase in nose-down pitching moment for

small increase in drag. Gai and Palfrey [113] conducted wind tunnel tests with

flow visualization to show that the Gurney flap reduces or eliminates separation on

the upper surface of the airfoil, with a small region of separation upstream of the

flap on the lower surface. One of the most important parameters determining the

effectiveness of the Gurney flap is its size relative to the airfoil chord. As long as the

flap remains within the boundary layer, the drag penalty remains small. As the size

of the flap increases, the drag penalty increases as unsteady wake effects increase.

By moving the flap forward of the trailing edge some small amount, it is possible to

add an actuation system that fits within the profile of the airfoil, and enabling the

Gurney flap to be deployed at advantageous flight conditions and retracted at other

times. This retains the improvements to lift while reducing the drag penalty [114].

Chandrasekhara et al. [115] proposed using a Gurney flap to recover lift lost by a

41
variable droop airfoil. The variable droop controls compressible dynamic stall at

the cost of a significant decrease in Clmax . Combining the two controls retained the

improvement to dynamic stall while reducing drag and moment coefficients. Kinzel

et al. [116] numerically examined the effectiveness of Gurney flaps for improving

rotor performance. Increases in maximum flight speed, rotor lift-to-drag ratio and

achievable thrust were predicted. It was suggested that deployable Gurney flaps

could be used for vibration control in addition to performance enhancement.

1.4.7 Tab Actuated Flaps

The tab actuated flap was suggested by Loewy and Tseng [117] as a type of

aeroelastic amplification for smart actuators. Amplification is required to boost the

limited stroke capabilities of the typical smart actuator, but the desire to locate

the actuator on the rotor blade severely constrains the size and weight envelope.

By actuating the tab instead of the flap, and using amplification, relatively small

inputs of actuator power and stroke can result in larger flap deflections than would

be achieved with direct flap actuation. The investigation used a one degree of

freedom system with a fixed wing, prescribed tab and free floating flap. The design

variables of the system were the flap hinge position and the hinge stiffness. A

feedback loop was used to control static instability in the system. It was predicted

that the design variables would control both the system gain (ratio of flap deflection

to tab deflection) and its frequency response. Heinze and Karpel [118] tested the

concept on a high aspect ratio wing in a low speed wind tunnel. The piezoceramic

42
bimorph actuator mounted in the flap produced no more than ±3◦ tab deflection at

frequencies up to 20 Hz; the maximum gain measured was 1.8. At low frequency,

the flap deflection was 180◦ out of phase with the tab, but as actuation frequency

increased, the phase difference decreased. The key parameters for performance were

found to be flap hinge stiffness and flap inertia, so that a light weight flap with low

stiffness yields the best gain and frequency response to tab deflection.

1.5 Objective of Current Research

The objective of this research is to examine the feasibility of using tab ac-

tuated flaps and trailing edge flaps as primary control systems for swashplateless

helicopters. In doing so, an understanding of the fundamental physics of the system

is established.

There are two key barriers to the successful design and implementation of such

a system. First, the magnitude of the control angles and hinge moments required

to trim the swashplateless rotor must be compatible with the stroke, force and

bandwidth capabilities of an actuator that fits within the profile of the helicopter

airfoil. Second, the effect of the flap and tab deflections on the performance of the

swashplateless helicopter, as measured by rotor torque and rotor lift-to-drag ratio,

must be predicted accurately for comparison to the performance achieved by the

conventional swashplate system.

A state of the art, comprehensive analysis is refined to include a trailing edge

flap and a tab-actuated flap. In analyzing a conventional rotor, blade pitch angles

43
are used to produce a coupled trim solution. For the swashplateless variation, trim

procedure is modified so that the control angles are provided by either flap (for a

trailing edge flap system)or tab (for a tab-actuated flap system) deflections.

To accurately predict the control requirements and performance effects of the

flaps and tabs, aerodynamic models are developed which include the incremental

effect of the trailing edge controls on the sectional airfoil properties. Then the inflow

model is expanded to include both the near and far wake effects of the deflected

controls.

An initial goal is to understand the control requirements and key design pa-

rameters of the tab actuated flap system using a simplified, rigid blade model and

a conceptual rotor with torsionally soft blades. A parametric study examines the

effect on primary control of design variables such as index angle, blade root and

flap spring stiffness, flap and tab radial length, chord length, midspan location, and

overhang.

Next, a thorough investigation of an existing helicopter, the UH-60A, is carried

out with the comprehensive analysis. A parametric study using key design variables

is conducted to minimize the control angles and hinge moments required to trim the

swashplateless rotor at high speed, in steady level flight.

Finally, the consequences of replacing the swashplate with on-blade, trailing

edge controls are evaluated. The performance of the swashplateless rotor is calcu-

lated and compared to the baseline rotor at various levels of thrust and for different

values of parasite drag.

In the present work, a helicopter model with a swashplate is referred through-

44
out as conventional, or as baseline. When making comparisons between a conven-

tional and swashplateless helicopter, the modifications to the swashplateless model

have been limited to the addition of trailing edge flaps and tabs, and the reduction

of the pitch spring stiffness at the blade root. This is because the analysis does not

include an explicit structural representation of the swashplate; instead the mecha-

nism is represented through the stiffness and damping characteristics of the pitch

links.

1.6 Scope of Current Research

The focus of the current research is the development of a comprehensive aeroe-

lastic analysis of swashplateless helicopter rotors with trailing edge flaps and tabs

for primary control. The kinetic and potential energy expressions, and governing

equations, are derived using Hamilton’s Principle and solutions are produced using

finite element methods in space and in time. The beam finite elements of the blade

have fifteen degrees of freedom, allowing the continuity of deflection and slope of

axial extension, flap, lag and torsion. For this investigation only one flap deflec-

tion and one tab deflection are permitted per blade, but the flap and the tab can

extend over multiple blade elements. Two aerodynamic models are used in the in-

vestigation. The first is a quasi-steady model developed from thin airfoil theory

by Theodorsen and Garrick [119]. This model includes a trailing edge flap and a

tab with arbitrary hinge locations. The second model uses airfoil table lookup to

obtain sectional aerodynamic coefficients for the control surfaces. The coefficients

45
are based on blade angle of attack, Mach number, flap deflection and tab deflection,

and are compared to the baseline airfoil (either unflapped or with control surfaces

at zero deflection) to calculate an incremental change to the blade lift, drag and

pitch moment. Uniform inflow is generally used for studies in hover. The Bagai-

Leishman pseudo-implicit free wake model was used in forward flight. The free wake

model was modified to include the effect of the trailing edge flap in the near and

the far wake by adding vorticity trailers to the blade at the radial bounds of the

flap. The solution of the structural response is coupled with an aerodynamic model

and a trim procedure using the vehicle equilibrium equations. This allows the rotor

to be examined either in isolation or as part of a vehicle in free flight. The wind

tunnel trim analysis conditions prescribe longitudinal and lateral shaft angles, and

tail rotor collective. Trim solutions can be produced for targeted thrust and hub

moments, or for targeted thrust and first harmonic blade flapping.

First, a swashplateless conceptual rotor similar to servo-flap rotors produced

by Kaman Aerospace is studied with a rigid blade analysis. The rotor has blades

that are very soft in torsion, and the flaps and tabs are integral to the blade profile.

The purpose of the study is to establish the feasibility of using tab actuated flaps for

primary control of the rotor. The rigid blade model includes degrees of freedom for

blade flap, blade torsion, trailing edge flap and tab. A forward differencing scheme is

used to calculate a steady state, wind tunnel solution for the rotating system, where

the control inputs to the system are provided by the tab angles. A parametric design

study reveals the sensitivity of the rotor system to design variables such as index

angle, span, chord length, midspan location and hinge position of the flap and tab.

46
The purpose of the study is to reduce both control angles and hinge moments so

that the actuation power required for the tab is minimized.

Then a second swashplateless rotor model is created as a variant of the UH-60A

helicopter by adding a trailing edge flap and a tab to each blade, and reducing the

torsional stiffness of the root spring. All other properties of the rotor are unchanged.

The control angles and hinge moments required to trim the rotor are evaluated with

parameter studies. These studies were conducted in two parts: (1) uncoupled blade

response in hover, and (2) wind tunnel trim in forward flight and at high speed. The

uncoupled blade response study illuminates the fundamental physics of the system

by testing the effect of such variables as blade torsional stiffness and trailing edge flap

spring stiffness. This study used uniform inflow and the thin airfoil aerodynamic

model. Key design variables were identified in the second part of the parameter

study, where properties such as index angle, flap and tab span, flap and tab chord

length, midspan position of the flap/tab, and hinge position of the flap and tab

were examined for their effect on the control angles and hinge moments. This study

used non-uniform inflow distribution with the free wake model, and thin airfoil

aerodynamics.

The comprehensive analysis is used to validate the structural and aerodynamic

models of a baseline UH-60A rotor. This rotor was selected for examination because

it has been extensively studied in the NASA/Army UH-60A Airloads Program.

Predicted blade pitch angles, rotor shaft angles and rotor performance are compared

to flight test data in hover and in forward flight.

Next, the drag of flapped airfoils is examined, using both experimental and

47
numerical data. A general empirical model is developed for the drag of flapped

airfoils. This model can be used in analyses of trailing edge flap airfoils, in the

absence of detailed test or numerical data. A set of airfoil tables are generated for a

flapped SC1094r8 airfoil, using computational fluid dynamics analysis. These tables

are employed in all performance predictions for the swashplateless rotor.

The performance of the swashplateless rotor is compared to the baseline heli-

copter. The behavior of the baseline rotor as the torsional frequency is reduced is

investigated for insight into the behavior of the swashplateless rotor. Performance

in hover for the swashplateless and baseline rotors in wind tunnel trim with uniform

inflow is methodically studied for the figure of merit, main rotor power and twist

distribution. In forward flight, the rotors are first examined in wind tunnel trim,

using a free wake model with a single tip vortex. The effect of the inflow model

upon the main rotor power prediction is explored through close study of the blade

angle of attack distribution and operating envelopes for the Mach number, lift and

drag coefficients. The inflow model is refined to include the effect of the trailing

edge flap in the near and far wake, and the power prediction is re-evaluated for the

swashplateless rotor. Vehicle trim solutions are calculated for the swashplateless

and baseline rotors, and the power and rotor shaft angle are compared.

Finally, a systematic performance study compares the swashplateless rotor to

the baseline through rotor power and rotor lift-to-drag ratio at several levels of

thrust and for incremental reduction of parasite drag.

48
1.7 Overview of Dissertation

Chapter 1 reviews the history and evolution of helicopter primary control sys-

tems. Alternatives to the swashplate system are examined, and their strengths and

disadvantages are described. The various trailing edge controls are discussed, in-

cluding flaps, tab actuated flaps and gurney flaps, and a survey is made of numerical

and experimental research with these controls for vibration reduction and primary

control. The objective and scope of the current work are presented.

In chapter 2, the details of the aeroelastic formulation of the comprehensive

analysis are described through the derivation of the governing equations of the tab

actuated flap system; the aerodynamic, inertial and structural contributions of the

flap and tab are given. The wind tunnel and vehicle trim procedures are outlined

for the swashplateless rotor. The development and improvement of the trailing edge

flap aerodynamic model is outlined.

Chapters 3 and 4 present the results of this investigation. First the parameter

studies of a Kaman-type rotor with torsionally soft blades and the UH-60A are

described, where the purpose is to minimize the control angles and hinge moments

required to trim the rotors. Next, the impact of the trailing edge flap on rotor

performance is studied in hover and in forward flight.

Chapter 5 discusses the key conclusions of the current work, and offers recom-

mendations for future work.

49
 Table 1: Summary of Trailing Edge Flap Literature by
Category

Description Vibration Primary Performance

Experimental Numerical
Straub et al. Straub and Has- Pescara [6], Payne [9]
[2], Straub and san [4], Straub d’Ascanio [7],
Kennedy [3] and Charles [5] Kaman [8]
Toulmay et al. Lemnios and
[10], Dieterich Smith [13], Mc-
et al. [11], Kon- Cloud [14], Lem-
Full-scale
stanzer et al. nios and Dunn
[12] [15], McCloud
and Weisbrich
[16], Wei and
Weisbrich [17]
Noburu et al.
[18], Noboru and
Saito [19]
Spangler and Noonan et al.
Hall [20], [21]
Fulton and
Ormiston [22],
Koratkar and
Model-scale
Chopra [23],
Roget and
Chopra [24]
Millott and Ormiston [26], Glaz et al. [27],
Friedmann [25],
Friedmann and Shen [29], Liu et al. [30],
Millott [28],
Milgram et al. Shen et al. [32], Yeo [33],
Analytical [31],
Myrtle and
Shen and Gagliardi and
Friedmann [34], Chopra [35], Barakos [36]
Zhang et al. [37],
Shen and
Chopra [38],
Depailler and Shen et al. [40],
Friedmann [39],
Continued on next page

50
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Description Vibration Primary Performance
Experimental Numerical
Fulton [41], Ganguli et al.
[42],
Patt et al. [43] Ganguli et al.
[44]
Wenzinger and
Ames [45],
Wenzinger and
Harris [46],
Street and Ames
[47],
Ames and Sears
Airfoils
[48],
Ames and Sears
[49],
Ames and Sears
[50],
Sears and Purser
[51],
Liddell [52],
Hassan et al.
[53],
Jose and Baeder
[54],
Jose et al. [55]
Gerontakos and
Lee [56],
Wake Panagakos and
Lee [57],
Lee and Pereira
[58]
Gai and Palfrey Chandrasekhara
[59], et al. [60],
Gurney Standish and Kinzel et al. [62]
van Dam [61]

Continued on next page

51
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Description Vibration Primary Performance
Experimental Numerical
Theodorsen and
Garrick [63],
Flap-Tabs Loewy and
Tseng [64]
Heinze and
Karpel [65]

52
Chapter 2

Analytic Model

This chapter describes the aeroelastic analysis of a swashplateless helicopter

rotor controlled with trailing edge flaps and tabs. For such rotors, the swashplate

and pitch links that directly control blade pitch in typical rotors have been replaced

with a soft torsion spring at the root. The blade pitch control is achieved indirectly,

by inducing the blade response to aerodynamic loads generated by the deflections

of the tab and flap. When both a flap and a tab are present, deflection of the tab

generates aerodynamic forces and a moment about the tab hinge which cause the flap

to respond by deflecting about its hinge in the opposite direction. The blade in turn

is induced to twist in the direction opposite to the flap so that equilibrium with the

new aerodynamic environment is achieved. The actuator chosen for this application

must have sufficient stroke to meet the required deflection angle and must generate

enough force to overcome the hinge moment. Therefore, the magnitude of the control

angles and hinge moments required to trim the rotor determine the characteristics

of the actuator chosen to drive the control surface. The control angles are also

significant for their effect on the aerodynamic properties of the rotor blades, since

the changes to the rotor lift, drag and pitch moment will change the power required

to trim the rotor. Accordingly, the purpose of this investigation is twofold: first,

to predict the control angles and hinge moments required for trim, and second, to

53
assess the effect of the trailing edge controls on rotor performance.

The analysis is based on the blade equations of motion and their solution

using finite element methods in space and in time. This solution is coupled with an

aerodynamic model and a trim procedure using the vehicle equilibrium equations.

This allows the rotor to be examined either in isolation or as part of a vehicle in

free flight.

The derivation of the governing equations is described in Section 2.1, and

their implementation is discussed in Section 2.2. The aerodynamic models and the

specific steps taken to incorporate the flap and tab are presented in Section 2.3.

2.1 Governing Equations

The equations of motion have been derived for a rigid blade model and for

an elastic blade model, using Hamilton’s Principle, with the assumption of steady

level flight. In the rigid model, the rotor has four degrees of freedom: blade flap,

torsion, trailing edge flap deflection and tab deflection. This provides a simple

approximation of the tab control angles required in hover and forward flight and a

basic understanding of the rotor response to tab inputs. In the elastic model, the

long slender blades are discretized into one dimensional beam elements capable of

flap and lag bending, elastic torsion and axial deformation. In addition, each elastic

blade has been modified to include degrees of freedom for the trailing edge flap and

tab deflections, which includes the structural and inertial contributions of the flap

and tab.

54
2.1.1 Coordinate Systems

2.1.1.1 Rigid Blade Frames

In the rigid blade rotor system, the four degrees of freedom are blade flap,

β, blade pitch, θ, trailing edge flap deflection, p, and trailing edge tab deflection,

q. Four rotating coordinate frames are used. The undeformed frame is defined by

the unit vectors (î1 ,ĵ1 ,k̂1 ). î1 is aligned with the pitch axis and is positive radially

outward. ĵ1 is positive toward the leading edge. k̂1 is along the shaft k̂1 = î1 ×ĵ1 . The

frame (î2 ,ĵ2 ,k̂2 ) has origin at the flap hinge and follows the flap deformation. The

frame (î3 ,ĵ3 ,k̂3 ) has origin at the flapped pitch axis and follows nose up torsion. The

frames (î4 ,ĵ4 ,k̂4 ) and (î5 ,ĵ5 ,k̂5 ) have origins at the aileron and tab hinge respectively,

and rotate with the aileron and the tab. The transformations are given below.
    
ˆ2  ˆ1 
   



 i 

  cos β 0 sin β 



 i 



 
     
 
ˆ =
j2    0 1 ˆ
0   j1 
 (2.1)

     

 
   

 kˆ2  ˆ
   
− sin β 0 cos β k1 
  
 

    
ˆ3  iˆ2 
   



 i 

  1 0 0  
 


  
  

  
ˆ3
j = 0 cos θ sin θ  
 ˆ
j2  (2.2)

 
   

 
   

 kˆ3  ˆ
   
0 − sin θ cos θ  k2 
   
    
iˆ4   iˆ
   
 1 0 0
 





  2 


  
  

  
ˆ
j4  =  0 cos(θ + p) sin(θ + p)   jˆ2
 (2.3)

    


 
   

kˆ4   kˆ2
   

  0 − sin(θ + p) cos(θ + p)  


55
     
iˆ5  iˆ2 
   


   1
 0 0 

 


 
  
   
 

jˆ5 =
 0 cos(θ + p + q) sin(θ + p + q)

 jˆ2  (2.4)

 
   

 
   

 kˆ5  kˆ2 
   
0 − sin(θ + p + q) cos(θ + p + q)
  
 

2.1.1.2 Elastic Blade Frames

There are six rotating coordinate frames used for the elastic blade equations

with the flap and tab. These are the hub fixed frame, the hub rotating frame, the

blade undeformed frame, the blade deformed frame, and the flap and tab coordi-

nate frames, denoted by H, R, U, D, f and t, respectively. The hub rotating frame

(X,Y,Z), unit vectors (îR ,ĵR ,k̂R ), rotates at constant angular velocity Ωk̂R with re-

spect to the fixed frame, with the origin defined at the intersection of the rotor shaft

axis and the blade elastic axis. îR is aligned with the pitch axis and is positive ra-

dially outward. ĵR is in the plane of rotation, and positive toward the leading edge.

k̂R is along the shaft k̂R = îR × ĵR . The transformation between the hub rotating

frame and the hub fixed frame is

      
ˆR  iˆH  iˆH 
     



 i 

  cos ψ sin ψ 0 

 



 


 
   
 
 

    
ˆ
jR  =  − sin ψ cos ψ 0

 jˆH  = TRH  jˆH  (2.5)

 

  












 
 kˆR  ˆ ˆ
    
  0 0 1 
 kH 
 
 kH 

where the azimuth angle, ψ is Ωt. Given a point P on the elastic axis of the

undeformed blade, the coordinate system of the cross section at that point is (x, y, z),

with axes along and normal to the principal axes of the cross section. The blade

undeformed frame, unit vectors (îU ,ĵU ,k̂U ), is rotated by the precone angle, βp , about

ĵR . The transformation between the blade undeformed frame and the hub rotating

56
frame is
      
iˆU  iˆR  iˆR 
     


   cos βp 0 sin βp
 

 



 


 
    
   
 
 
 

jˆU =
 0 1 0 
 jˆR  = TU R  jˆR  (2.6)

 
     

 
  
 
 

 
 kˆU  kˆR  kˆR 
    
 − sin βp 0 cos βp
 
  
 

As the blade deforms, the arbitrary point P moves to P ′ , where the coordinate

system corresponding to the cross section at that point is (ξ, η, ζ). In the undeformed

frame, the x-axis is aligned with the undeformed blade elastic axis; in the deformed

frame, the ξ-axis is aligned with the deformed elastic axis. By assuming an Euler-

Bernoulli beam, where plane sections remain plane, the deformed blade and the

movement of point P to P ′ can be described by three elastic translations (u,v,w)

and the blade rotation (θ1 ). The transformation from the blade undeformed frame

to the blade deformed frame (îD ,ĵD ,k̂D ) is

   
ˆD  iˆU 
   



 i 










 
 
 

ˆ
jD  = T DU ˆ
jU  (2.7)

  
 

 
 
 

 kˆD  ˆ
   
kU 
  
 

The transformation matrix TDU from the undeformed to the deformed frame

can be assembled using rotations about the three axes of the (x, y, z) system to move

to the (ξ, η, ζ) coordinate system. The rotations are θ1 , β̄, ζ̄ about (î, ĵ, k̂), resulting

in the matrix:

57
  
 cos β̄ cos ζ̄ cos β̄ sin ζ̄ sin β̄ 
 
 
 − sin θ sin β̄ cos ζ̄ − cos θ sin ζ̄ − sin θ cos β̄ sin ζ̄ − cos θ cos ζ̄ sin θ cos β̄ 
 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
− cos θ1 cos β̄ cos ζ̄ + sin θ1 sin ζ̄ − cos θ1 sin β̄ sin ζ̄ − sin θ1 cos ζ̄ cos θ1 sin β̄

(2.8)

By defining the rotations in terms of the elastic deformations (u, v, w) and

the blade twist θ1 , the transformation from the undeformed frame to the deformed

frame can be approximated with the following :

  
1 ′2 1 ′2
iˆU 
 
 1− v − w v ′
w ′ 
2 2  

  

  
 −v ′ cos θ − w′ sin θ
 1 1 (1 − 12 v ′2 ) cos θ1 − w′ v ′ sin θ1 (1 − 21 w′2 ) sin θ1  
 ˆ
jU 
  
  

v ′ sin θ1 − w′ cos θ1 −(1 − 12 v ′2 ) sin θ1 − w′ v ′ cos θ1 1 ′2 ˆ
 
(1 − 2 w ) cos θ1   kU 

(2.9)

where the blade twist θ1 = θ0 + φ̂, and includes rigid blade pitch control and pre-

twist, plus elastic twist. The rigid blade pitch θ0 = θtw + θc oll + θ1c cosψ + θ1s sinψ.

The blade elastic twist (φ̂) is about the deformed elastic axis.

The frames (îf ,ĵf ,k̂f ) and (ît ,ĵt ,k̂t ) have origins at the aileron and tab hinge

respectively, and rotate with the aileron and the tab. The hinge lines of each con-

trol surface are defined as parallel to the blade elastic axis. The transformations

between the the aileron and blade deformed frames, and between the tab and aileron

58
deformed frames are given below.
      
iˆf  iˆD  iˆD 
     
 1 0 0

    

 
   
 


 
   
 
 

    
jˆf = dîD + 
 0 cos p sin p

 ˆ
jD  = TfD ˆ
jD  (2.10)

 
    
 

 
   
 
 

 kˆf  ˆ ˆ
     
  0 − sin p cos p 
 kD 
 
 kD 

      
iˆt  iˆf  iˆf 
     
 1 0 0

    

 
   
 


 
   
 
 

    
jˆt = tîf + 
 0 cos q sin q

 ˆ
jf  = Ttf ˆ
jf  (2.11)

 
    
 

 
   
 
 

ˆ ˆ
     
 k̂t 
  0 − sin q cos q 
 kf  
 kf 

The origin of each frame is at the control surface hinge line. The flap coordinate

frame is offset by a distance d from the elastic axis of the blade. The tab coordinate

frame is offset by a distance t from the hinge line of the flap.

2.1.2 Nondimensionalization and Ordering Scheme

The derivation and implementation of the equations of motion are nondimen-

sional, both to keep the analysis generally applicable and to minimize scaling issues.

The physical properties of the system are nondimensionalized by reference param-

eters as shown in Table 2.1. These reference parameters are used throughout the

formulation.

As the equations of motion are derived using Hamilton’s Principle, many

higher order terms occur that complicate the expressions without adding signifi-

cant precision. Accordingly, an ordering scheme has been consistently followed to

simplify the analysis. Terms of the third order or higher have been discarded unless

59
 Physical Property Reference Parameter

Length R

Time 1/Ω

Mass/Length m0

Velocity ΩR

Acceleration Ω2 R

Force m 0 Ω2 R 2

Moment m 0 Ω2 R 3

Energy or Work m 0 Ω2 R 3

Table 2.1: Nondimensionalization of Physical Properties

they are necessary to maintain the symmetry of the mass and stiffness matrices of

the system. In addition, higher order terms that contribute to the gyroscopic cou-

plings from the Coriolis effect are retained. The parameter ε is defined, such that

ε << 1, of the same order as the nondimensional blade flap, w, or lag, v, deflections.

The orders of magnitude of the nondimensional physical quantities of the system

are listed in Table 2.2.

In this listing, a is the reference lift curve slope, and m0 is the reference mass

per unit length. m0 is defined as the mass per unit length of an equivalent uniform

blade having the same flap inertia of the blade modeled, such that
RR
3Iβ 3 0
mr2 dr
m0 = 3 = (2.12)
R R3

The small angles φ̂, p, q are approximated with Taylor series so that sin φ ≈

60
 Nondimensional Quantity Order

EA
m0 Ω2 R2
O(ε−2 )
MxF MyF MzF
, ,
m0 R m0 R m0 R
O(ε−1 )

x h xCG yCG m ∂ ∂
, , R , R , m0 , ∂ψ
R R
, ∂x O(1)

µ, cos ψ, sin ψ, θ0 , θtw , θ75 , θ1c , θ1s , ca1 , da2 O(1)

EIy I
, EIz , GJ , IxF , yF
m0 Ω2 R4 m0 Ω2 R4 m0 Ω2 R4 m0 R3 m0 R3
O(1)

v w η ζ
, , , , φ, βp , kRA , kR
R R R R
m1 km2
, R O(ε)

p, q, αs , φs , λ, ηRc , ca0 , da1 , fa0 O(ε)

EB2
, EC2
m0 Ω2 R5 m0 Ω2 R5
O(ε)

, , , x˙F , y˙F , z˙F , α̇s , φ˙s

ed eg eA
R R R
O(ε3/2 )

λT , Ru , da0 , fa1 O(ε2 )

EB1
, EC1
m0 Ω2 R6 m0 Ω2 R6
O(ε2 )

Table 2.2: Ordering Assumptions for Nondimensional Quantities

2 3
φ− φ2 and cos φ ≈ 1− φ6 . In most cases, the ordering scheme described here reduces

these expressions to those obtained with the small angle assumption, but some of

the additional terms are retained for symmetry.

2.1.3 Using Hamilton’s Principle to Derive the Equations of Motion

The governing equations for the rigid model and the finite element energy

expressions for the elastic model are derived using the generalized Hamilton’s prin-

ciple. This principle states that for a conservative system, the true motion of a

61
system, between prescribed initial conditions at time t1 and final conditions at time

t2 , is that particular motion for which the time integral of the difference between the

potential and kinetic energies is a minimum. For rotor systems, there are noncon-

servative forces which are not derivable from a potential function. The generalized

principle for nonconservative systems is given as

Z t2
δΠb = (δU − δT − δW )dt = 0 (2.13)
t1

where δU , δT , and δW represent virtual work from conservative forces (variation of

potential energy), inertial forces (variation of kinetic energy), and non-conservative

forces. The current investigation considers the rotor alone, and neglects any dis-

cussion of the fuselage. The external forces are discussed in Section 2.3, under

Aerodynamic Modeling.

2.1.4 Rigid Blade Equations

In order to prevent confusion in notation for the aileron deflection δ and the

variational parameter δ, the aileron and tab deflections are denoted by p and q

radians. The flap and torsion deflections are β and θ. The aileron spans from ra1 to

ra2 . The tab spans from rt1 to rt2 . The main blade section extends from the leading

edge LEb to the trailing edge T Eb , and has chord c. Over the aileron span, the

main blade extends from the LEb to a shorter trailing edge up to the aileron T Eba ,

so that its chord is cb . The aileron extends from LEa to T Ea with chord cf , except

over the tab span, where it extends from LEa to T Eat . The tab extends from LEt

to the T Et , with chord ct . In general, T Et or T Ea need not be the same point as

62
T Eb . T Eba need not be same as LEa and T Eat need not be the same as LEt because

of the gaps between the main blade and aileron and the aileron and flap.

The variation of potential energy is given by

δU = kβ δβ + kθ δθ + kp δp + kq δq (2.14)

The virtual work from non-conservative forces is given by

δW = Mβ δβ + Mθ δθ + Mp δp + Mq δq (2.15)

where Mβ , Mθ , Mp , and Mq are the aerodynamic moments about the flap hinge,

pitch bearing, aileron hinge, and tab hinge. The variation of kinetic energy is given

by
Z Z Z
δT = ρb vb .δvb + ρa va .δva + ρt vt .δvt (2.16)
b a t

Each integral denotes the separate contributions of the blade (b), aileron (a), and

tab (t). Each has appropriate spatial variables and limits.

The derivation follows the standard procedure of expressing the position vector

r and velocity v of a generic point on the blade, aileron, or tab in the undeformed

rotating frame coordinates.

r = x1 î1 + y1 ĵ1 + z1 k̂1 (2.17)

The angular velocity vector, Ω = Ωk̂1 , then leads to

∂r
v= + Ω × r = (x˙1 − Ωx1 )î1 + (y˙1 + Ωy1 )ĵ1 + z˙1 k̂1 (2.18)
∂t

The variational expression is then

v · δv = (−ẍ1 + Ω2 x1 )δx1 + (−ÿ1 + Ω2 y1 )δy1 − z̈1 δz1 (2.19)

63
where, anticipating definite integral over time, terms of the form ẋ1 δ x˙1 , x1 δ ẋ1 , etc,

have been replaced with −ẍ1 δx1 , −ẋ1 δx1 , etc. For example,

Z t2 Z t2 Z t2
ẋ1 δx1 = ẋ1 δx1 |t2
t1 − ẍ1 δx1 = 0 − ẍ1 δx1 (2.20)
t1 t1 t1

The contribution to kinetic energy variation from the blade is obtained by integrating

over the blade alone. This also holds for the aileron and tab, i.e. the parts

Z Z Z
ρvb · δvb dηb dr, ρva · δva dηa dr, and ρvt · δvt dηt dr
b a t

have the following integration limits

Z Z ra1 Z LEb Z ra2 Z LEb Z R Z LEb

= + + (2.21)
b e T Eb ra1 T Eba ra2 T Eb

Z Z rt1 Z LEa Z rt2 Z LEa Z ra2 Z LEa

= + + (2.22)
a ra1 T Ea rt1 T Eat rt2 T Ea
Z Z rt2 Z LEt
= (2.23)
t rt1 T Et

where ηb , ηa and ηt are the local chordwise coordinate directions of the main blade,

aileron, and tab. ηb is zero at the blade elastic axis and is positive forward. ηa and

ηt are zero at the aileron and tab hinges and positive forward. For example, if d is

the distance of the aileron hinge lying behind the elastic axis, and f is the distance

of the tab hinge lying behind the aileron hinge, then generic points on the main

blade, aileron, and tab are given by the following expressions.

rb = eî1 + (r − e)î2 + ηb ĵ3

ra = eî1 + (r − e)î2 − dĵ3 + ηa ĵ4 (2.24)

rt = eî1 + (r − e)î2 − dĵ3 − f ĵ4 + ηt ĵ5

64
e is the flap hinge offset. Assuming small deformations and neglecting non-linear

terms, a straight-forward application of the above procedure leads to the following

form of the generalized Hamilton’s principle (eqn. 2.13)

Z t2
[ (. . .)δβ + (. . .)δθ + (. . .)δp + (. . .)δq] dt = 0
t1

Putting the terms (...) = 0 generates the inertial contributions to the four governing

equations for flap, torsion, aileron and tab.

Note that while gathering the δβ terms, some of the contributing terms from

the aileron and the tab (via kinetic energy) will be identical to the main blade

terms, except for their integration limits. For these particular terms, the integration

limits are merged using eqs. 2.21– 2.23. Thus, the properties of the blade include

the aileron and the tab properties. The properties of the aileron include the tab

properties. The reason behind these identical terms is that the aileron deflection is

defined with respect to the main blade and similarly the tab deflection is defined

with respect to the aileron.

The rigid blade flap, torsion, aileron, and tab equations are as follows.

Flap equation β :

 
2 eSβ kβ
Iβ β̈ + Ω Iβ 1 + + β
Iβ Iβ Ω2
 
eS θ
+ S¯θ θ̈ + Ω S¯θ 1 + ¯ θ
2
Sθ
  (2.25)
eS a
+ S¯a p̈ + Ω S¯a 1 + ¯ p
2
Sa
 
2 eSt
+ S̄t q̈ + Ω S̄t 1 + q = Mβ
S̄t

65
Torsion equation β :

 
¯ 2 ¯ eSθ
Sθ β̈ + Ω Sθ 1 + ¯ β
Sθ
 
2 kθ
+ Iθ θ̈ + Ω Iθ 1 + θ
Iθ Ω2
  (2.26)
2 dSa
+ [Ia − dSa ] p̈ + Ω Ia 1 − p
Ia
 
2 (d + t)St
+ (It − (d + t)St )q̈ + Ω It 1 − q = Mθ
It

Aileron equation β :

 
¯ 2 ¯ eSa
Sa β̈ + Ω Sa 1 + ¯ β
Sa
 
2 dSa
+ [Ia − dSa ] θ̈ + Ω Ia 1 − θ
Ia
  (2.27)
2 dSa ka
+ Ia p̈ + Ω Ia 1 − + p
Ia Ia Ω2
 
2 (d + t)St
+ (It − tSt )q̈ + Ω It 1 − q = Mp
It

Tab equation q :

 
2 eSt
S̄t β̈ + Ω S̄t 1+ β
S̄t
 
2 (d + t)St
+ [It − (d + t)St ] θ̈ + Ω It 1 − θ
It
  (2.28)
2 (d + t)St
+ (It − tSt )p̈ + Ω It 1 − p
It
 
2 (d + t)St kt
+ It q̈ + Ω It 1 − + q = Mq
It It Ω2

The structural properties are defined as follows.

66
 Blade properties:

ρ = area density kg/m2

Z T Eb
ρdη = mb mass per unit span kg/m
LEb
Z T Eb (2.29)
ηρdη = xI mb = sθ first moment of mass per unit span kg − m/m
LEb
Z T Eb
η 2 ρdη = iθ second moment of mass per unit span kg − m2 /m
LEb

For each we have the following radial moments

Z R
mb dr = Mb zero-th radial moment = blade mass kg
e
Z R
(r − e)mb dr = Sβ first radial moment = first flap moment kg − m
e
Z R
(r − e)2 mb dr = Iβ second radial moment = flap moment of inertia kg − m2
e

(2.30)

Then
Z R Z R
sθ dr = xI mb dr = Sθ zero-th radial moment kg − m
e e
Z R Z R
(r − e)sθ dr = (r − e)xI mb dr = S¯θ first radial moment kg − m2
e e
Z R Z R
(r − e)2 sθ dr = (r − e)2 xI mb dr = S¯θ second radial moment kg − m2
e e

(2.31)

And finally
Z R
iθ dr = Iθ zero-th radial moment kg − m
e
Z R
(r − e)iθ dr = I¯θ first radial moment kg − m2 (2.32)
e
Z R
(r − e)2 iθ dr = I¯θ second radial moment kg − m2
e

67
 Aileron properties:

Z T Ea
ρdη = ma mass per unit span kg/m
LEa
Z T Ea
ηρdη = xp ma = sa first moment of mass per unit span kg − m/m (2.33)
LEa
Z T Ea
η 2 ρdη = ia second moment of mass per unit span kg − m2 /m
LEa

For each we have the following radial moments

Z ra2
ma dr = Ma zero-th radial moment = aileron mass kg
ra1
Z ra2
(r − e)ma dr = Sβa first radial moment kg − m (2.34)
ra1
Z ra2
(r − e)2 ma dr = Iβa second radial moment kg − m2
ra1

Then
Z ra2 Z ra2
sa dr = xp ma dr = Sa zero-th radial moment kg − m
ra1 ra1
Z ra2 Z ra2
(r − e)sa dr = (r − e)xp ma dr = S¯a first radial moment kg − m2
ra1 ra1
Z ra2 Z ra2
2
(r − e) sa dr = (r − e)2 xp ma dr = S¯a second radial moment kg − m2
ra1 ra1

(2.35)

And finally
Z ra2
ia dr = Ia zero-th radial moment kg − m
ra1
Z ra2
(r − e)ia dr = I¯a first radial moment kg − m2 (2.36)
ra1
Z ra2
(r − e)2 ia dr = I¯a second radial moment kg − m2
ra1

Tab properties:

68
 Z T Et
ρdη = mt mass per unit span kg/m
LEt
Z T Et
ηρdη = xq mt = st first moment of mass per unit span kg − m/m (2.37)
LEt
Z T Et
η 2 ρdη = it second moment of mass per unit span kg − m2 /m
LEt

For each we have the following radial moments

Z rt2
mt dr = Mt zero-th radial moment = tab mass kg
rt1
Z rt2
(r − e)mt dr = Sβt first radial moment kg − m (2.38)
rt1
Z rt2
(r − e)2 mt dr = Iβt second radial moment kg − m2
rt1

Then
Z rt2 Z rt2
st dr = xq mt dr = St zero-th radial moment kg − m
rt1 rt1
Z rt2 Z rt1
(r − e)st dr = (r − e)xq mt dr = S̄t first radial moment kg − m2
rt1 rt1
Z rt2 Z rt2
(r − e)2 sa dr = (r − e)2 xq mt dr = S̄¯t second radial moment kg − m2
rt1 rt1

(2.39)

And finally
Z rt2
it dr = It zero-th radial moment kg − m
rt1
Z rt2
(r − e)it dr = I¯t first radial moment kg − m2 (2.40)
rt1
Z rt2
(r − e)2 it dr = I¯t second radial moment kg − m2
rt1

where LE stands for leading edge, T E stands for trailing edge. The subscript b

denotes the non aileron tab part of the blade, a denotes the aileron, and t denotes

the tab. e is the flap hinge offset.

69
2.1.5 Elastic Blade Equations

The flap and tab are rigid elements that share the identical motions of the

blade in axial extension, flapwise and chordwise bending and elastic twist. The flap

is connected to the blade by a torsion spring at a hinge located at an arbitrary

location on the flap chord. The tab is connected to the flap in a similar fashion.

In this investigation, the tab motions are prescribed with the assumption of har-

monic motion at rotor speed (1/rev). Flap motion is generated in response to tab

deflections. The strain and kinetic energy expression of the baseline blade include

all terms that are independent of the flap and tab motions, so the structural prop-

erties of each blade element describe the entire section, including the flap and tab.

Although the mass properties of the flap and tab can be defined, these values are

used to calculate the shear forces and moments due to the control surfaces alone,

rather than an additional mass contribution to the blade.

The variation of potential energy is given in three parts, for the blade, aileron

and tab

δU = δUb + δUf + δUt (2.41)

where the blade potential is expressed by

Z R ZZ
δUb = Ex ǫxx δǫxx + Gǫxη δǫxη + Gǫxζ δǫxζ dηdζdx (2.42)
0

and the variation of potential energy for the aileron and tab is

δUf + δUt = kp pδp + kq qδq (2.43)

kp and kq are the springs located at the hinges of the inelastic aileron and

70
tab. The non-conservative forces and moments contributing to the virtual work

correspond to the system degrees of freedom

Z R
δW = (Lu δu + Lv δv + Lw δw + Mφ̂ δ φ̂ + Mp δp + Mq δq)dx (2.44)
0

where Lu , Lv and Lw are the airloads in the x, y and z and Mφ̂ , Mp , and Mq are the

aerodynamic moments about the blade elastic axis, the aileron hinge and the tab

hinge, respectively. These forces and moments are calculated either from unsteady

thin airfoil theory, or by using airfoil tables. The variation of kinetic energy for the

elastic blade is similar to that of the rigid blade, where the integration limits follow

the spanwise and chordwise boundaries of the blade, aileron and tab:

Z Z Z
δT = ρvb · δvb dηb dx + ρvf · δvf dηf dx + ρvt · δvt dηt dx (2.45)
b f t

As for the rigid blade equations, this derivation expresses the position vector

r, and velocity v of an arbitrary point on the blade, aileron or tab in the blade

undeformed frame.

The position vector of the arbitrary point r on the deformed blade is

   
   



 î 






 îξ




 
     
 

rb = xd î + yd ĵ + zd k̂ = (x + u) v w ĵ  + −λφ̂ η ζ  ĵη  (2.46)
′

   

 
 
 

   
 k̂ 
   k̂ζ 
 

which in the blade undeformed frame becomes

rb = [x + u − λφ̂′ − v ′ (yd − v) − w′ (zd − w)]î + [v + (yd − v)]ĵ + [w + (zd − w)]k̂ (2.47)

71
where

(yd − v) = η cos θ1 − ζ sin θ1 and (zd − w) = η sin θ1 + ζ cos θ1

The arbitrary point r on the deflected aileron is expressed in the blade deformed

frame

rf = yf cos p ĵD + yf sin p k̂D − d ĵD (2.48)

where d is the distance from the blade elastic axis to the aileron hinge. The ex-

pression is transformed to the blade undeformed frame and reduced to the second

order:

rf = {(yf cos p − d)(−v ′ cos θ1 − w′ sin θ1 ) + yf sin p(v ′ sin θ1 − w′ cos θ1 ) + u} î

+{(yf cos p − d) cos θ1 − yf sin p sin θ1 + v} ĵ

+{(yf cos p − d) sin θ1 + yf sin p cos θ1 + w} k̂

(2.49)

Similarly, the arbitrary point r on the deflected tab, is expressed in the blade

deformed frame as

rt = [(yt cos q −f ) cos p−yt sin q sin p] ĵD +[(yt cos q −f ) sin p+yt sin q cos p] k̂D −d ĵD

(2.50)

where f is the distance from the aileron hinge to the tab hinge. The expression is

transformed also to the blade undeformed frame and reduced to the second order:

72
 rt = {[(yt cos q − f ) cos p](−v ′ cos θ1 − w′ sin θ1 )

+ [(yt cos q − f ) sin p + yt sin q cos p](v ′ sin θ1 − w′ cos θ1 ) + u} î

+{[(yt cos q−f ) cos p−yt sin q sin p] cos θ1 −[(yt cos q−f ) sin p+yt sin q cos p] sin θ1 +v}ĵ

+{[(yt cos q−f ) cos p−yt sin q sin p] sin θ1 +[(yt cos q−f ) sin p+yt sin q cos p] cos θ1 +w}k̂

(2.51)

The velocity vector in the blade undeformed frame is

∂r
v= +Ω×r = (x˙d −yd Ω cos βp )î+(y˙d +xd Ω cos βp −zd Ω sin βp )ĵ +(z˙d +yd Ω sin βp )k̂
∂t
(2.52)

Following the integration limits as defined by eqs. 2.21 - 2.23 and using inte-

gration by parts, the variational expression yields

Z
v · δv = (−ẍd + 2y˙d + xd − zd βp )δxd + (−ÿd − 2x˙d + 2z˙d βp + yd )δyd
(2.53)
+(−z̈d − 2y˙d βp + zd βp2 − xd βp )δzd

Assuming small deformations and reducing to the second order, the above pro-

cedure leads to the following form of the generalized Hamilton’s principle (eq. 2.13),

where the expressions for strain energy, kinetic energy and virtual work are inte-

grated by parts:

Z t2 h i
(. . .)δu + (. . .)δv + (. . .)δw + (. . .)δ φ̂ + (. . .)δ φ̂′ + (. . .)δp + (. . .)δq dt = 0
t1

73
By collecting the terms for δu, δv, δw, δ φ̂, δp and δq, the governing equations are

generated for extension, chord bending, flap bending, torsion, aileron and tab. The

first 4 of these equations are refinements of the blade equation. The last two are

new hinge moment equations for the flap and tab.

Elastic extension equation ue :

" !
φ̂′2
EAu′e + EAKA2 θ′ φ̂′ + θ′ w′ v ′′ +
2

(2.54)
i′
−EAeA v ′′ (cos θ − φ̂ sin θ) + EAw′′ (sin θ + φ̂ cos θ)

+ m(üe − ue − x − 2v̇) = Lu

Chord bending equation v :

v (EIZ cos2 θ + EIY sin2 θ) + w′′ (EIZ − EIY ) cos θ sin θ

 ′′

−v ′′ φ̂ sin 2θ(EIZ − EIY ) + w′′ φ̂ cos 2θ(EIZ − EIY )

−v ′′ φ̂2 cos 2θ(EIZ − EIY ) − w′′ φ̂2 sin 2θ(EIZ − EIY )

−EB2 θ′ φ̂′ cos θ − EAeA u′e (cos θ − φ̂ sin θ) + EAKA2 u′e w′ θ′

i′′
+(GJ + EB1 θ′2 )φ̂′ w′ − EC2 φ̂′′ sin θ
h
− m −v̈ + eg θ̈ sin θ + eg cos θ + v − φ̂ sin θ + 2ẇβp + 2eg v̇ ′ cos θ
Z x 
′ ¨ ′ ′ ′ ′
+2eg ẇ sin θ + φ̂eg sin θ − 2u̇e + 2 (v v̇ + w ẇ )dx
0
 ′  Z 1 ′
′
− meg x cos θ − φ̂x sin θ + 2v̇ cos θ + mv (−üe + ue + x + 2v̇)
x
 
2
− mp ep p̈ sin θ + pθ̈ cos θ + 2θ̇ṗ cos θ − pθ̇ sin θ − p sin θ − mp ep p (x sin θ)′
 
2
− mq eq q̈ sin θ + q θ̈ cos θ + 2θ̇q̇ cos θ − q θ̇ sin θ − q sin θ = Lv

(2.55)

74
 Flap bending equation w :

w (EIZ sin2 θ + EIY cos2 θ) + v ′′ (EIZ − EIY ) cos θ sin θ

 ′′

+w′′ φ̂ sin 2θ(EIZ − EIY ) + v ′′ φ̂ cos 2θ(EIZ − EIY )

+w′′ φ̂2 cos 2θ(EIZ − EIY ) − v ′′ φ̂2 sin 2θ(EIZ − EIY )

i′′
−EAeA u′e (sin θ + φ̂ cos θ) − EB2 φ̂′ θ′ sin θ + EC2 φ̂′′ cos θ
(2.56)
¨
 
− m −ẅ − eg θ̈ cos θ − eg φ̂ cos θ − 2v̇βp − xβp
 ′  Z 1 ′
′
− meg x sin θ + φ̂x cos θ + 2v̇ sin θ + mw (−üe + ue + x + 2v̇)
x
 
− mp ep −p̈ cos θ + pθ̈ sin θ + 2θ̇ṗ sin θ + pθ̇2 cos θ − mp ep p (x cos θ)′
 
− mq eq −q̈ cos θ + q θ̈ sin θ − 2θ̇q̇ sin θ + q θ̇2 cos θ = Lw

Torsion equation φ̂ :

(w′′2 − v ′′2 ) cos θ sin θ(EIZ − EIY ) + v ′′ w′′ cos 2θ

φ̂(w′′2 − v ′′2 ) cos 2θ(EIZ − EIY ) − 2φ̂v ′′ w′′ sin 2θ

h
+ GJ(φ̂′ + w′ v ′′ ) + EAKA2 (θ′ + φ′ )u′e
i′
+EB1 θ′2 φ̂′ − EB2 θ′ (v ′′ cos θ + w′′ sin θ)
(2.57)
2 ¨
h
2 2 2 2
− −km φ̂ − φ̂(km 2
− km 1
) cos 2θ − (km 2
− km 1
) cos θ sin θ − xβp eg cos θ
i
2
−veg sin θ + xv ′ eg sin θ − xw′ eg cos θ + v̈eg sin θ − ẅeg cos θ − km θ̈

+ mp kp2 p̈ − mp ep (dp̈ + dp cos 2θ)

+ mq kq2 q̈ − mq eq [(t + d)q̈ + (t + d)q cos 2θ] = Lφ̂

75
 Aileron equation p :

¨
h   i
mp kp2 ′ ′ ′ 2
−θ̈ − (φ̂ + p̈) + (φ + p) − 2ẇ − (1 + 2v̇ ) sin θ cos θ + 2ẇ − 2(φ̂ + p) cos θ
h
+mp ep d(φ̈ + θ̈ + pθ̇2 + 2ẇ′ − φ̂) + d(1 + 2v̇ ′ ) sin θ cos θ + d(p + 2φ̂ − 2ẇ′ ) cos2 θ
 
′ ′ ′
+ (v̈ − v + xv ) + (ẅ + xw + xβp )(φ̂ + p) + 2(u̇ + v̇v − ẇβp ) sin θ
  i
′ ′ ′
+ −(ẅ + xw + xβp ) + (v̈ − v + xv )(φ̂ + p) − 2(v̇w + v̇βp ) cos θ
h
+mq kq2 −θ̈ − (¨ˆφ + p̈ + q̈) + (φ̂ + q) − 2ẇ′ − (1 + 2v̇ ′ ) sin θ cos θ
i
+(2ẇ′ − 2(φ̂ + q) cos2 θ)
h
+mq eq (t + d)(θ̈ + φ̈ + q θ̇2 + 2ẇ′ − φ̂) + t(p̈ + q̈ − p) + ((t + d)(1 + 2v̇ ′ )) sin θ cos θ
  
+ (t + d)(p + q + 2φ̂ − 2ẇ′ ) + t (p + q)θ̇2 + pq̇ 2 + p cos2 θ
 
+ (v̈ − v + xv ′ ) + (ẅ + xw′ + xβp )(φ̂ + p) + 2(u̇ + v̇v ′ − ẇβp ) sin θ
  i
+ −(ẅ + xw′ + xβp ) + (v̈ − v + xv ′ )(φ̂ + p) − 2(v̇w′ + v̇βp ) cos θ + kp p = Mp

(2.58)

Tab equation q :
h
mq kq2 −θ̈ − (¨ˆφ + p̈ + q̈) + (φ̂ + p + q) − 2ẇ′ − (1 + 2v̇ ′ ) sin θ cos θ
i
+(2ẇ′ − 2(φ̂ + p + q) cos2 θ)
h
+mq eq (t + d)(θ̈ + φ̈ + 2ẇ′ − φ̂) + t(p̈ − p) + ((t + d)(1 + 2v̇ ′ )) sin θ cos θ
 
+ (t + d)(p + q + 2φ̂ − 2ẇ ) + tp cos2 θ
′

 
′ ′ ′
+ (v̈ − v + xv ) + (ẅ + xw + xβp )(φ̂ + p) + 2(u̇ + v̇v − ẇβp ) sin θ
  i
′ ′ ′
+ −(ẅ + xw + xβp ) + (v̈ − v + xv )(φ̂ + p) − 2(v̇w + v̇βp ) cos θ + kq q = Mq

(2.59)

The sectional properties are defined as follows. The blade properties include

76
the aileron and tab. They are assumed to remain nominally constant in presence

of aileron and tab deflections. The aileron properties include the tab. They are

assumed to remain nominally constant in presence of tab deflections. The blade

properties are as follows.

Z Z
dηdζ = A
A
Z Z
ηdηdζ = AeA Z Z
A
Z Z ρdηdζ = m
A
ζdηdζ = 0 Z Z
A
Z Z ρηdηdζ = meg
A
λT dηdζ = 0 Z Z
A
Z Z ρζ 2 dηdζ = mkm
2
1
A
(η 2 + ζ 2 )dηdζ = AKA2 Z Z
A
Z Z ρη 2 dηdζ = mkm
2
2
A
(η 2 + ζ 2 )2 dηdζ = B1 Z Z (2.60)
A 2 2 2
Z Z ρ(η + ζ )dηdζ = mkm
2 2 2 A
η(η + ζ ) dηdζ = B2 Z Z
A
Z Z ρζdηdζ = 0
A
η 2 dηdζ = IZ Z Z
A
Z Z ρηζdηdζ = 0
2 A
ζ dηdζ = IY Z Z
A
Z Z ρλT dηdζ = 0
A
λ2T dηdζ = EC1
A
Z Z
ζλT dηdζ = EC2
A

where A is the sectional area, eA is the tension axis offset positive in front of the

elastic axis, E is the Young’s modulus of the blade material, m is mass per unit

span, eg is the center of gravity offset positive in front of the elastic axis, and km ,

km1 and km2 are the radii of gyration.

The aileron and tab properties are as follows. They are the same, aileron

77
properties are denoted with the subscript p, the tab properties with q.
Z Z Z Z
ρdηdζ = mq ρdηdζ = mp
Aq Ap
Z Z Z Z
ρηdηdζ = meq ρηdηdζ = mep (2.61)
Aq Ap
Z Z Z Z
2 2
ρ(η + ζ )dηdζ = mq kq2 ρ(η 2 + ζ 2 )dηdζ = mp kp2
Aq Ap

mp and mq are the aileron and tab mass per unit span, kp and kq are the radii of

gyration and ep and eq are the local c.g. offsets with respect to aileron and tab hinge

axes. The c.g. offsets are positive forward.

Effect of Trailing Edge Controls on Strain Energy

The inertial contributions of the trailing edge controls to the equations of

motion are detailed below and in the following section. As noted previously, the

variation of the strain energy for the main blade includes all terms that are inde-

pendent of the flap and tab deflection, and the blade sectional properties describe

the entire blade section, including the flap and the tab. Accordingly, adding the flap

and tab to the system does not change the formulation of the strain energy except

for the presence of torsional springs at the flap and tab hinges. The variation of the

potential energy of the trailing edge control surfaces is:

δUf + δUt = kp pδp + kq qδq (2.62)

where kp and kq are the springs located at the hinges of the flap and tab.

78
Effect of Trailing Edge Controls on Kinetic Energy

Flap and tab motions create incremental changes to the kinetic energy of the

blade. The total incremental change to the kinetic energy from the flap and tab

motion for each of the degrees of freedom for the blade element is expressed as the

following variation:
Z
δTf + δTt = (∆Tv · δv + ∆Tw · δw + ∆Tφ̂ · δ φ̂ + ∆Tv′ · δv ′ + ∆Tw′ · δw′ )dx (2.63)

The individual components of this variational for the flap contribution alone are:

∆Tu = 0 (2.64)

h    i
∆Tv = − mp ep p̈ − θ̇2 p − p sin θ + 2θ̇ṗ + θ̈p cos θ
h  i (2.65)
2
− mp ep p̈(φ̂ + p) + ṗ cos θ

h     i
∆Tw = − mp ep − p̈ − θ̇2 p cos θ + 2θ̇ṗ + θ̈p sin θ
h  i (2.66)
− mp ep p̈(φ̂ + p) + ṗ2 sin θ

∆Tφ =mp kp2 p̈

(2.67)
−mp ep d (p̈ − p) + 2dp cos2 θ + p (ẅ + xβp ) sin θ + p (v̈ − v) cos θ
 

∆Tv′ = mp ep xp sin θ0 (2.68)

∆Tw′ = mp ep xp cos θ0 (2.69)

79
 The incremental inertial changes from the flap and tab combined are:

∆Tu = 0 (2.70)

h    i
∆Tv = − mp ep p̈ − θ̇2 p − p sin θ + 2θ̇ṗ + θ̈p cos θ
h  i
− mp ep p̈(φ̂ + p) + ṗ2 cos θ
h    i (2.71)
2
− mq eq q̈ − θ̇ q − q sin θ + 2θ̇q̇ + θ̈q cos θ
h  i
− mq eq q̈(φ̂ + p + q) + (ṗ + q̇)2 + q p̈ cos θ

h     i
2
∆Tw = − mp ep − p̈ − θ̇ p cos θ + 2θ̇ṗ + θ̈p sin θ
h  i
2
− mp ep p̈(φ̂ + p) + ṗ sin θ
h     i (2.72)
2
− mq eq − q̈ − θ̇ q cos θ + 2θ̇q̇ + θ̈q sin θ
h  i
− mq eq q̈(φ̂ + p + q) + (ṗ + q̇)2 + q p̈ sin θ

∆Tφ =mp kp2 p̈

−mp ep d (p̈ − p) + 2dp cos2 θ + p (ẅ + xβp ) sin θ + p (v̈ − v) cos θ

 

+mq kq2 q̈

−mq eq (t + d)(q̈ − q) + 2(t + d)q cos2 θ + q (ẅ + xβp ) sin θ + q (v̈ − v) cos θ
 

(2.73)

∆Tv′ = mq eq x(q + p) sin θ0 (2.74)

∆Tw′ = mq eq x(q + p) cos θ0 (2.75)

80
Effect of Trailing Edge Controls on External Work

The motion of the flap and the tab creates a change in the aerodynamic en-

vironment of the blade that results in altered blade lift, LA and pitching moment,

Mφ̂A . The resulting change in the variational term for the external work of the blade

is
Z
δ(∆Wb ) = (∆LA · δw + ∆DA · δw + ∆Mφ̂A · δ φ̂)dx (2.76)

In addition, the flap and the tab each have aerodynamic hinge moments which

contribute to the total external work:

Z
δ(∆Wf + ∆Wt ) = (MpA · δp + MqA · δq)dx (2.77)

The flap hinge moment, MpA , the tab hinge moment, MqA , and the changes

to the blade lift, drag and pitch moment are described in the discussion of the

aerodynamic model in 2.2.

Although the change to the blade drag caused by the motion of the flap and

tab is also a factor in the external work, this change is not predicted by thin airfoil

theory. Instead, it can be calculated with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) or

extracted from wind tunnel test data. These methods are discussed in 2.2.3.

2.2 Aerodynamic Model

The aerodynamic model in the comprehensive analysis is in two parts: one for

the airfoil sections of the main blade, and the second for the flapped airfoil sections.

Within the section of the blade that includes trailing edge flaps and/or tabs, total

81
aerodynamic properties for each two dimensional airfoil section are calculated by

adding the incremental change caused by the deflection of the flap to the lift, drag

and pitch moment of the main blade. By dividing the analysis in this way, different

models for the unflapped and flapped airfoils can be combined as desired. However,

a note of caution must be introduced, because differences in the drag divergence

Mach number between the flapped and unflapped airfoils (at a given angle of at-

tack) can introduce a large drag increment that is not physical and will produce

potentially misleading results. Two models have been used for the flapped airfoils

in this investigation. The first is a quasi-steady model developed from thin airfoil

theory by Theodorsen and Garrick [119]. This model includes a trailing edge flap

and a tab. Both control surfaces may include aerodynamic balance (also known as

overhang), which is defined as the offset from the leading edge of the control to the

hinge of the control. Overhang is included in the geometric configuration to reduce

hinge moment, which in turn reduces the power required to actuate the control.

The model is an extension of the general potential flow theory [74] for an oscillating

airfoil. Although compressibility is not included in the theory, the Prandtl-Glauert

correction is used in the comprehensive analysis. An indicial model which does

include compressibility and unsteady effects was developed by Hariharan and Leish-

man [120] and implemented within the comprehensive analysis; this model does not

allow aerodynamic balance and is not used in the current investigation. The second

model uses airfoil table lookup to obtain section aerodynamic coefficients for the

control surfaces. The coefficients are based on blade angle of attack, Mach number,

flap deflection and tab deflection, and are compared to the baseline airfoil (with

82
control surfaces at zero deflection) to calculate an incremental change to the blade

lift, drag and pitch moment.

The aerodynamic model for the main blade, with various refinements, has been

thoroughly described [121], [122]. It is a lifting line model which combines the fol-

lowing elements: sectional angle of attack based on blade deformations and control

angles, a Weissinger-L (W-L) lifting line near wake, a far wake model (in this case,

the Bagai-Leishman pseudo-implicit model) and two dimensional airfoil properties.

In the case of the baseline (swashplate) rotor, control angles used to calculate sec-

tional angle of attack include blade collective and lateral and longitudinal cyclics.

In contrast, the swashplateless rotor uses an index angle and zero cyclics with blade

deformations to calculate the sectional angle of attack. The airfoil properties are

obtained either from airfoil lookup tables or from quasi-steady thin airfoil theory.

The near and far wake models have been refined to include the effects of the trailing

edge flap.

2.2.1 Quasi-steady Flapped Airfoil Model

Theodorsen developed a general aerodynamic theory for an airfoil with a trail-

ing edge flap [74]. The theory uses potential flow and the Kutta condition to estab-

lish the lift, pitching moment and flap hinge moment for a thin airfoil, oscillating in

pitch and plunge. The unsteadiness of the flow is captured with the lift deficiency

ωc
function C(k), which is a function of the reduced frequency, k = 2v
. In reduced

frequency, ω is the frequency of oscillation, c is the chord, and v is the speed of air

83
flow. This function is a measure of the effect of the shed wake on the magnitude

and phase of the circulatory aerodynamic loads generated by the oscillating foil. For

high frequencies, the value of C(k) approaches 0.5, thus reducing the circulatory lift

to one-half of the quasi-steady value. For low frequencies, C(k) approaches 1.0. In

this investigation, the swashplateless rotor is controlled by flap and/or tab deflec-

tions at 1/rev, or low frequency. Thus the effect of shed wake on loads and rotor

performance may be neglected without significantly diminishing the accuracy of the

calculations. The noncirculatory forces and moments are apparent mass terms, and

do not depend on wake vorticity. In the general theory, the flap hinge is located

at the leading edge of the flap, so there is no gap between the body of the airfoil

and the flap and flow leakage between the flap and airfoil is not considered. The

flap deflection is measured with respect to the airfoil. The theory was extended by

Theodorsen and Garrick [119] to include a flap hinge that is not necessarily located

at the flap leading edge, and a tab that is similarly connected to the flap. The tab

deflection is measured with respect to the flap. The distance from the leading edge

to the hinge is the overhang for the flap or tab. Again, there is no flow between

the flap and the blade, or between the tab and the flap, as the gap is assumed

to be sealed. The major deficiency of this model is the absence of a drag model.

This precludes any evaluation of the effect of flap and tab deflections on rotor shaft

power.

The nondimensional incremental lift and pitching moment, and the moments

about the flap and tab hinges, are expressed as functions of the azimuthal derivatives
⋆
∂() ∂
of the blade motions. The notation is ()= ∂ψ
= ∂t
× Ω1 . The expressions are as

84
follows:

γ ⋆ ⋆⋆ ⋆ ⋆⋆
∆L = [Clp pUt2 + Clp⋆ p Ut + Cl⋆⋆p p +Clq qUt2 + Clq⋆ q Ut + Cl⋆⋆
q
q] (2.78)
6a

γ ⋆ ⋆⋆ ⋆ ⋆⋆
∆M = [Cmp pUt2 + Cmp⋆ p Ut + Cm⋆⋆p p +Cmq qUt2 + Cmq⋆ q Ut + Cm⋆⋆
q
q] (2.79)
6a

γ ⋆ ⋆⋆
Hp = [Chpp pUt2 + Chpp⋆ p Ut + Chp⋆⋆p p
6a
⋆ ⋆⋆
+Chpq qUt2 + Chpq⋆ q Ut + Chp⋆⋆
q
q
(2.80)
⋆ ⋆⋆
−Chpw⋆ w Ut − Chp⋆⋆
w
w
⋆ ⋆ ⋆⋆ ⋆⋆
+Chpα (θ0 + φ̂)Ut2 + Chpα⋆ (θ0 + φ)Ut + Chp⋆⋆ ( + φ)]
α θ0

γ ⋆ ⋆⋆
Hq = [Chqp pUt2 + Chqp⋆ p Ut + Chq⋆⋆p p
6a
⋆ ⋆⋆
+Chqq qUt2 + Chqq⋆ q Ut + Chq ⋆⋆
q
q
(2.81)
⋆ ⋆⋆
−Chqw⋆ w Ut − Chq ⋆⋆
w
w
⋆ ⋆ ⋆⋆ ⋆⋆
+Chqα (θ0 + φ̂)Ut2 + Chqα⋆ (θ0 + φ)Ut + Chq⋆⋆ ( + φ)]
α θ0

ρacR4 m0 R3
In these expressions, λ is Lock number, λ = Ib
blade flap inertia Ib = 3
.

The aerodynamic partials in the above equations are calculated using Theodorsen

coefficients:

85
Lift Coefficients:

Clp = 2 (T10 − lT21 )

c  q 
Clp⋆ = (T11 − T4 ) + lc −T10 − 1 − c2p
2
c2
Cl⋆⋆p = (−T1 + lT4 )
4 (2.82)
Clq = 2 (T10q − mT21q )
c  q 
Clq⋆ = (T11q − T4q ) + mc −T10q − 1 − d2q
2
c2
Cl⋆⋆
q
= (−T1q + mT4q )
4
Pitch Moment Coefficients:

1
Cmp = − (T15 + lT22 )
2
c
Cmp⋆ = − (T16 + lT23 )
4
c2
Cm p = − (2T13 + lT24 )
⋆⋆
8 (2.83)
1
Cmq = − (T15q + lT22q )
2
c
Cmq⋆ = − (T16q + lT23q )
4
c2
Cm⋆⋆
q
= − (2T13q + lT24q )
8

86
 Flap Hinge Moment Coefficients:

1
T18 + T12 T10 + l(T26 − T12 T21 − 2T10 T20 ) + l2 (T28 + 2T20 T21 )
 
Chpp = −
2π
 
c 1 2
Chpp⋆ =− T19 + T11 T12 + l(T27 − T10 T12 − T20 T11 ) + l (T29 + 2T10 T20 )
4π 2
2
c
−T3 + 2lT2 − l2 T5


Chp⋆⋆p =−
8π
1
Chpq = − [Y9 + T10 T12 + l(Y11 − 2T10 T20 ) + lm(Y15 + 2T20 T21 ) + m(Y13 − T12 T21 )]
2π
 
c 1
Chpq⋆ =− Y10 + T11 T12 + l(Y12 + T11 T20 ) + lm(Y16 + 2T10 T20 ) + m(Y14 − T10 T12 )
4π 2
c2
Chp⋆⋆
q
=− (−Y6 + lY3 − lmY1 + mY4 )
8π
1
Chpw⋆ = − (T12 − 2lT20 )
2
c
Chp⋆⋆
w
= − (−T1 + lT4 )
4
1
Chpα = − (T12 − 2lT20 )
2
c
Chpα⋆ = − [T17 + T12 + l(T25 − 2T20 )]
4
c2
Chp⋆⋆
α
= − (2T13 + lT24 )
8
(2.84)

87
 Tab Hinge Moment Coefficients:

1
Chqp = − [Y17 + T10q T12q + l(Y21 − T12q T21q ) + lm(Y23 + 2T20q T21q ) + m(Y19 − 2T10q T20q )]
2π
 
c 1
Chqp⋆ =− Y18 + T11q T12q + l(Y22 − T10q T12q ) + lm(Y24 + 2T10q T20q ) + m(Y20 − T11q T20q )
4π 2
c2
Chq⋆⋆p = − (−Y6 + lY3 − lmY1 + mY4 )
8π
1
T18q + T12q T10q + m(T26q − T12q T21q − 2T10q T20q ) + m2 (T28q + 2T20q T21q )
 
Chqq =−
2π
 
c 1 2
Chqq⋆ =− T19q + T11q T12q + m(T27q − T10q T12q − T20q T11q ) + m (T29q + 2T10q T20q )
4π 2
c2
−T3q + 2mT2q − m2 T5q


Chq ⋆⋆
q
=−
8π
1
Chqw⋆ = − (T12q − 2mT20q )
2
c
Chq ⋆⋆
w
= − (−T1q + mT4q )
4
1
Chqα = − (T12q − 2mT20q )
2
c
Chqα⋆ = − [T17q + T12q + m(T25q − 2T20q )]
4
c2
Chq⋆⋆
α
= − (2T13q + mT24q )
8
(2.85)

where in the above equations, T1 , ..., T29 are Theodorsen coefficients entirely

dependent on the geometry of the airfoil and flap, while the set T1q , ..., T29q is de-

pendent on airfoil and tab. The Theodorsen coefficients Y1 , ..., Y2 4 are calculated

using both flap and tab geometry.

2.2.2 Table Lookup

The table lookup model allows nonlinear aerodynamic data to be easily re-

trieved and interpolated for use in comprehensive analysis. Measured airfoil data

88
are arranged in tables for specific angles of attack and Mach number so that sectional

aerodynamic coefficients for lift, drag and pitch moment can be produced for the

blade. The procedure is identical for all blade airfoil sections, flapped or unflapped:

the angle of attack used to retrieve aerodynamic coefficients does not consider the

flap deflection; in other words, the flap is considered to be at the zero deflection, or

neutral position. The blade tables are in C81 format, and a two dimensional, linear

interpolation algorithm is used to calculate the aerodynamic coefficients.

The effect of the flap is included through additional tables for flapped airfoils.

Flap hinge moment and flap lift are retrieved directly from these tables, through

linear interpolation of angle of attack, Mach number, and flap deflection. The effect

of the flap on lift, drag and pitching moment is calculated as an increment which

is added to the baseline value of the unflapped airfoil. C81 tables are created for a

range of flap deflections, including a table for zero flap deflection; coefficients can

be interpolated between the zero flap position and a flap deflection, or between two

different flap deflections. Once the coefficients have been determined, the increment

is calculated by subtraction from the identified flap baseline.

The primary limitation of the table lookup method is the paucity of data

for flapped airfoils. Although wind tunnel tests have been conducted for airfoils

with flaps and/or tabs, most published data are focused on lift and pitch moment,

and do not include drag data, which hinders the evaluation of the flap effect on

rotor performance. In addition, much of the published data for flapped airfoils was

produced for subsonic, fixed wing aircraft, with testing envelopes that do not cover

the normal range of helicopter operations. For this reason, the current investigation

89
confines the scope of lookup tables to airfoils with flaps only, and does not include

tables for a deflected tab. In the following sections, the drag of flapped airfoils

is studied using not only the limited test data that has been published, but also

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis.

2.2.3 Drag of Flapped Airfoils

Published aerodynamic data for airfoils with trailing edge flaps is limited, espe-

cially drag data. For flapped airfoils, there is insufficient published data to construct

a full C81 aerodynamics table. Within the comprehensive analysis, airfoil tables for

the SC1095 and SC1095R8 sections [99] are used to calculate the performance base-

line. CFD analysis is used to provide additional aerodynamic data for the SC1095R8

with flaps; the CFD predictions for zero flap deflection will be compared to test data

for validation of the baseline airfoil. The SC1095R8 as the template for the flapped

airfoil because it is used for the much of the outboard section of the UH-60A blade,

where a flap is most likely to be located. Secondarily, the existing measured TEF

data are used to develop a drag model which can be generalized to other flapped

airfoils. For cases where neither measured test data nor CFD analysis is available

for a flapped airfoil, this empirical model may be used to estimate drag.

2.2.3.1 Experimental Data

Ames and Sears conducted a series of wind tunnel tests on NACA airfoils

that included drag measurement for cambered, flapped airfoils at very low Reynolds

90
numbers. Recent tests of flapped airfoils with overhang (with accompanying CFD

predictions for a limited number of cases), have been performed by Hassan et al.

[2], for the Apache HH-06 and HH-10 airfoils. A sample of data points is shown in

Figure 2.1, where data from and have been compiled. In Figure 2.2, the data for the

HH-06 airfoil at Mach number 0.6 shows the general effect of flap deflections. At

positive angles of attack, positive TEF deflections cause an increase in drag, which

reflects the increase in effective angle of attack. Negative TEF deflections create

a decrease in effective angle of attack, and a corresponding decrease in drag. The

opposite trend occurs for negative angles of attack. Based on this observation, a

simply shifted drag coefficient can be written as:

cd = d0 + d2 (α + δ/n)2 (2.86)

where the shift depends on the direction of the flap deflection. In the above equa-

tion, α is the blade angle of attack and δ is the TEF deflection. While fitting the

expression to the data, it became clear that the drag polar shifts with the TEF

deflection, divided by the term n; n is chosen to best fit the data for the limited

angle of attack range of ±2◦ . Note the expression can be generalized to any other

airfoil by substituting the appropriate d0 and d2 coefficients. For example, in Figure

2.3 the HH-06 data are approximated with:

cd = 0.01 + 2 (α + δ/3)2 (2.87)

while the SC1095 airfoil drag at Mach of 0.3 may be modeled using:

cd = 0.0092 + 0.2403 (α + δ/3)2 (2.88)

91
 The SC1095R8 drag model is shown in Figure 2.4, for TEF deflections of ±10◦ .

These TEF deflections were chosen as the expected bounds of the control flap angles

for the range of flight speeds. However, compared to the measured test data for the

unflapped airfoil, it can be seen that the airfoil drag cannot be described by the

quadratic equation for angles of attack below -2◦ or above 12◦ . At 12◦ , the drag

departs from a generally quadratic trend, and can better be described as linear to

20◦ . The same trend can be seen for negative angles of attack, starting at -2◦ . The

angles of attack at which the transition to separated flow occurs are specific to the

airfoil under examination, and are an important detail when considering flapped

airfoils. Figure 2.2 shows that the transition for the HH-06 airfoil occurs near 4◦

angle of attack, almost 10◦ earlier than the SC1095R8. Accordingly, when drag

is in the separated flow region, beyond the description of d0 and d2 , the model is

extended empirically, to follow the slope of the baseline drag curve at higher angles

of attack. Figure 2.5 shows the results of this extension for the SC1095R8. In the

model, the point at which the transition is made to occur is a function of both angle

of attack and Mach number.

2.2.3.2 CFD Analysis

The SC1095R8 airfoil is examined using a two dimensional Navier-Stokes CFD

code (TURNS) to produce aerodynamic properties over a range of angles of attack,

Mach number, and flap deflection. The CFD computations are performed using

the overset structured mesh solver OVERTURNS. This code solves the compress-

92
ible RANS equations using a diagonal form of the implicit approximate factoriza-

tion method developed by Pulliam and Chaussee. The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence

model is employed for the RANS closure. The code was validated against test data

and other CFD analyses for the SC1095 airfoil. The trailing edge flap is hinged at

the leading edge, and is modeled with no gap. The flap chord length is 0.15c. The

baseline airfoil is the SC1095R8 with zero flap deflection.

The lift, drag and pitch moment coefficients for the baseline prediction are

compared to test data at Mach number of 0.3 (See Fig. 2.7). At positive angles

of attack, the CFD prediction of drag matches the test data within 5%, except for

the region from 12◦ to 16◦ . For the negative angles of attack, accuracy is within

5% from 0◦ to -4◦ . Beyond -4◦ , the slope of the prediction follows the test data

closely, but the magnitude differs significantly. The CFD prediction of lift matches

test data within 5%, for angles of attack between -10◦ and 14◦ . For positive angles

of attack, the trend of the prediction follows the data closely. On the negative side,

the prediction diverges from test data at -10◦ . The pitch moment prediction follows

the trends of the test data closely within the angle of attack bounds defined for lift.

The drag prediction for the flapped airfoil follows the trends established in

the wind tunnel tests of the HH-06 [2]: at positive angles of attack, a negative

(upward) TEF deflection reduces the airfoil drag, while positive (downward) TEF

deflection increases the drag. The reverse occurs for negative angles of attack. Figure

2.8 shows the drag predictions for TEF deflections of ±10◦ . The CFD results are

compared to the empirical model in Figure 2.9. The drag prediction for −10◦ TEF

deflection follows the empirical model very closely, for the range of angles of attack

93
from -20◦ to 20◦ . The maximum difference between the CFD and the empirical

model is 5% at -20◦ (See Figure 2.9a). Drag prediction for +10◦ TEF deflection is

shown in Figure 2.9b; at positive angles of attack, the CFD prediction follows the

empirical model through 16◦ . At negative angles of attack, the prediction matches

the model exactly through -4◦ . Beyond -4◦ , the slopes of the prediction and the

model correlate well, but there is significant difference in magnitude. The major

source of the discrepancy is the angle of attack at which the the drag prediction

enters the separated flow region. Referring to Figure 2.8, it can be observed that

the initial angle of attack for separated flow shifts with the TEF deflection. For

negative angles of attack, as the TEF deflection increases from -10◦ to +10◦ , the

nonlinear initiation shifts left, to more negative angles. Overall, the comparison of

the empirical model to the CFD predictions shows that the model can serve as a

good prediction of flapped airfoil drag in the absence of either test data or CFD

prediction. This is helpful considering the relative scarcity of such data.

2.2.4 Inflow and Wake Model

A refined wake roll-up is proposed which includes the trailing edge flap in

the near and far wake calculations by assuming small interruptions to the flow at

the inboard and outboard bounds of the flap. The baseline wake model uses a

fully rolled-up free tip vortex, developed by Bagai and Leishman [123]. An iterative

procedure is used to calculate bound circulation strengths for the near and far wake.

The near wake model is based on the Weissinger-L lifting line theory. Initially,

94
sectional angles of attack along the blade are calculated using blade deformations

and uniform inflow, and are used to extract lift coefficients from 2D airfoil tables.

The first estimate of the bound circulation strengths is derived from the lift using the

Kutta-Joukowski theorem. The far wake is based on the bound circulation strengths,

and produces a non-uniform inflow distribution which is used to re-calculate the

sectional angles of attack. The new angles of attack enter the near wake model

and result in revised bound circulation strengths for the far wake. A converged

wake solution results in bound circulations strengths that are consistent for the

airfoil tables, the near wake and the far wake. The strength across each element

is assumed constant. The shed vortex at the blade tip is assigned a circulation

strength corresponding to the maximum bound circulation outboard of 0.5R on the

blade. This is based on the assumption that all of the circulation outboard of that

point rolls up into the tip vortex.

Thin airfoil theory is used to calculate equivalent blade angles of attack that

include the effect of the trailing edge flap as follows:

αef f = α + clδ δ (2.89)

where clδ depends on the chord length of the flap:

1 √
c lδ = (acos(c) + 1 − c2 ) (2.90)
π

and c is the location of the leading edge of the flap on the airfoil. The effective

angles of attack are now used to extract lift coefficients from the airfoil tables for

the flapped sections of the blade. Bound circulation strengths are calculated in the

near wake model as before. Instead of using a single tip vortex however, trailers at

95
the radial bounds of the flap are included in the model. With the periodic oscillation

of the flap, gaps appear at the inboard and outboard flap edges. It is suggested that

these gaps cause interruptions in the flow that can produce small trailers at the flap

bounds. The three trailed vortices (at blade tip, outboard flap bound and inboard

flap bound) on each of four blades are shown at low advance ration µ = 0.11 in

figures 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14. These figures show the strong interaction between wake

and blade that is typically found at low speed. The strength of each flap trailer is

calculated as the difference between the strengths of the elements neighboring the

gap. The circulation strength of the tip vortex is the peak circulation outboard of

0.5R, less the contribution of the two flap trailers. Figure 2.11 shows a schematic of

the new wake model. The effect of the trailing edge flap on the bound circulation

strengths is shown in Figure 2.15. In this plot, the radial bounds of the flap are

marked, and discontinuities can be seen at those points in the circulation strengths

where an effective angle of attack has been used to account for the flap deflection.

2.3 Solution Procedure

The comprehensive analysis is based on the University of Maryland Advanced

Rotorcraft Code (UMARC), which uses finite element analysis in space (FEM or

FEA) and in time (FET) to analyze rotors either in isolation or in conjunction with

a fuselage. An important part of this procedure is coupled trim, which simultane-

ously solves the blade response and vehicle trim equations; these equation sets are

interdependent and require iteration to converge to a solution.

96
 Two categories of trim are used in this investigation: free flight and wind

tunnel. Free flight is a six degree of freedom problem, where trim is achieved through

the equilibrium of 3 forces and 3 moments on the rotor system, and the variables

are the lateral and longitudinal rotor shaft positions, the tail rotor collective, and

the control angle collective, longitudinal and lateral cyclic. The wind tunnel trim

is a three degree of freedom problem and is further divided into two types: zero

flapping and zero hub moment. Both of these have targeted thrust and prescribed

rotor shaft angles and tail rotor collective, and use the same variables to achieve

trim: control angle collective, longitudinal and lateral cyclic. For zero flapping trim,

the control angles are varied to produce zero first blade flap harmonics, while for the

zero hub moment trim, the object is to produce zero hub pitch and roll moments.

These trim solutions are referred to as coupled because the blade response depends

on the airloads, and as the blade response is updated, the loads on the rotor system

change also.

The trim procedure and equations are the same for conventional and swash-

plateless rotors. The only difference is the type of control used on the rotor: blade

pitch angles for the conventional system, and either flap or tab angles for the swash-

plateless system.

2.3.1 Free Flight Trim

The rotor trim equations are nonlinear equilibrium equations for the three

forces (vertical, longitudinal and lateral) and three moments (pitch, roll and yaw)

97
on the system. These equations are shown below:

F1 = W − T cos(αs ) cos(φs ) + D sin(θF P ) − H sin(αs )

+Y sin(φs ) + YF sin(φs ) (2.91)

F2 = D cos(θF P ) + H cos(αs ) − T sin(αs ) cos(φs ) (2.92)

F3 = Y cos(φs ) + YF cos(φs ) + T cos(αs ) sin(φs ) (2.93)

F4 = My + MyF + W (h sin(αs ) − Xcg cos(αs ))

−D (xcg sin(αs ) + h cos(αs )) (2.94)

F5 = Mx + MxF + YF h + W (h sin(φs ) − Ycg cos(φs )) (2.95)

F6 = Q − YF lT (2.96)

They form a vector, F , which is a function of the trim parameters so that

F(θ) = 0 (2.97)

and the residuals of the equations describe the vehicle equilibrium. For these six

equations, there are six trim variables, where θ is defined for the conventional rotor

{θ0 θ1c θ1s αs φs θtr } (2.98)

for the flap-controlled swashplateless rotor

{p0 p1c p1s αs φs θtr } (2.99)

and for the tab-controlled swashplateless rotor

{q0 q1c q1s αs φs θtr } (2.100)

98
 θ is varied to minimize the residuals in 2.97 by means of a Newton-Raphson

algorithm.

2.3.2 Wind Tunnel Trim

The goal for the zero flapping wind tunnel trim solution is to achieve a target

thrust and zero first harmonic blade flapping. The equations which describe this

goal are

F(θ) = β − βtarget = 0 (2.101)

 
CT
β= β1c β1s (2.102)
σ

The second type of wind tunnel trim used in this investigation is similar in that the

solution is obtained by varying the control angles until the residuals approach zero,

but instead of using zero flapping as the target, zero hub moments are the goal, as

shown:

F(θ) = M − Mtarget = 0 (2.103)

 
CT
M= Mx My (2.104)
σ

2.3.3 Blade Response Calculations Using Finite Elements in Time

and Space

The blade response is calculated using discretized equations of motion which

are derived using the finite element method. The method uses the energy expressions

99
from eq. 2.13, and is discretized as follows for a blade b :
" N
#
Z ψF X
δΠb = (δUi − δTi − δWi ) dψ = 0 (2.105)
ψI i=1 b

where there are N discrete elements in the blade, considered from an initial azimuth

ψI , to a final azimuth ψF . In this investigation, the blades are considered identical.

The equations of motion used for the finite element analysis assume the general

form:

⋆⋆ ⋆
M q +C(ψ) q +K(ψ)q = F (ψ, q) (2.106)

Finite Element Method in Space

The blade beam elements have fifteen degrees of freedom, regardless of the

presence of flaps and/or tabs. The degrees of freedom ensure displacement and

slope continuity for blade flap and lag, and displacement continuity for blade elastic

twist and extension at the element boundaries. At each boundary node there are

six degrees of freedom (u, v, v ′ , w, w′ , φ̂), describing extension, lag, lag slope, flap,

flap slope and elastic twist. In addition to these twelve, there are two internal nodes

for axial extension, u, and one internal node for elastic twist φ̂. This arrangement

produces linear variations for the bending and torsional moments, and a quadratic

variation for axial force. For each beam element, the deflections are distributed using

interpolating polynomials and elemental nodal displacements, q. For an individual

beam element, i, the blade deflections are

100
    
 



 u(s) 


  Hu 0 0
0 

 
  

 
  
 v(s) 
  
 0 H 0 0  
u(s) = =

 qi
 (2.107)
 



 w(s) 




 0 0 H 0  

  
 

 
  
 φ̂(s) 
  0 0 0 Hφ̂

where q is the vector of elemental nodal displacements

 
u1 u2 u3 u4 v1 v1 ′ v2 v2 ′ w1 w1 ′ w2 w2 ′ φ̂1 φ̂2 φ̂3 (2.108)

The Hermite polynomials which constitute the flap and lag shape functions

allow the abovementioned continuity of displacement and slope. The shape func-

tions for elastic twist and axial extension are Lagrange polynomials,for displacement

continuity. In the shape functions which follow, s = xi /li , and li is the length of

beam element i

   
−4.5s3 + 9s2 − 5.5s + 1
   



 Hu1 












 
 
 

   
 13.5s3 − 22.5s2 + 9s
   
 Hu2
 
  

HT
u = = (2.109)
−13.5s3 + 18s2 − 4.5s
   



 Hu3 












 
 
 

   
4.5s3 − 4.5s2 + s
   
 Hu4
 
 
 

   
3 2
   



 H1 






 2s − 3s + 1 




 
 
 

   
  li (s3 − 2s2 + s) 
   

 H2   
T
H = = (2.110)
 −2s3 + 3s2 
   



 H3 
 

 





 
 
 

   
3 2
   
H4   li (s − s ) 

   

101
    
2s2 − 3s+ 1
   



 Hφ̂1 












 
 
 

HT
φ̂
= Hφ̂2 = −4s2 + 4s (2.111)

 
 
 


 
 
 

 −2s2 − s
   
 Hφ̂
  
 

3

The shape functions are then used to express the elemental energy expressions

in matrix form

⋆⋆ ⋆
∆i = δUi − δTi − δWi = δqiT (Mb q +Cb q +Kb q − Fb )i (2.112)

The mass, damping and stiffness matrices contain only the linear terms from

the equations of motion, while the nonlinear terms are moved to the force matrix,

and are linearized using a Taylor series expansion. Then the force can be described

as the sum of the linear and nonlinear parts as follows:

∂FN L
(Fb )i = (F0 )i + (FN L )i = (F0 )i + (FN L )i |q0i + qi (2.113)
∂qi

The individual beam elements are added together with displacement and slope

conditions enforced at adjoining element nodes. At this point, after assembly, ad-

ditional degrees of freedom are added for the trailing edge flap and the tab. The

inertial properties as derived previously are added to the mass, damping and stiff-

ness matrices, and nonlinear terms are added to the force expressions as described

above. The variational energy equation for the system is then

Z ψF
⋆⋆ ⋆
δΠ = δqT (Mb q +Cb q +Kb q − Fb )dψ = 0 (2.114)
ψI

and the equations of motion for the total system assume the form shown in Eq.

2.106.

102
 Boundary conditions are applied at the root during assembly. The exact con-

ditions applied depend on the type of rotor: articulated, hingeless or bearingless.

There are as many finite element equations as there are global degrees of

freedom; to improve computational efficiency, the system is transformed into normal

modes using the blade natural vibration modes. The natural vibration modes about

the mean deflected position are obtained using the linear terms of the mass and

stiffness matrices; these modes are used to reduce the entire nonlinear system. The

normal mode equations resemble the original set shown in 2.106

⋆⋆ ⋆
M̄ p b +C̄ pb +K̄pb = F̄b (2.115)

where the global displacement vector, qb , is now represented by m modes:

qb = Φpb (2.116)

and Φ is the matrix of m normal modes. The mass, damping, stiffness and

force matrices in normal space are

M̄ = ΦT Mb Φ

C̄ = ΦT Cb Φ
(2.117)
T
K̄ = Φ Kb Φ

F̄ = ΦT Fb

Finite Element Method in Time

The finite element in time (FET) method is appropriate for steady level flight,

which is the assumption for this investigation. The method is based on the Hamil-

ton’s principle in weak form, and uses a temporal discretization of the blades. The

103
normal mode, pb , is approximated around the azimuth using shape functions. The

temporal nodes, ξ, are assumed to have displacement continuity between elements.

Then the normal mode equations, 2.115, can be written as

Z 2π
⋆⋆ ⋆
δpTb (M̄ p b +C̄ pb +K̄pb − F )dψ = 0 (2.118)
0

noting that the integration is over the entire azimuth, 2π, and both the damping

and stiffness matrices contain periodic terms. This equation can be restated so that
Z 2π
δy T Qdψ = 0 (2.119)
0

where the y contains the normal modes

 
 
 pb
 

y= (2.120)
⋆ 
 pb 

 

and

 
⋆
 F̄ − C̄ pb −K̄pb 

 

Q= (2.121)
⋆
M̄ pb

 

 

The discretized form of 2.119 is

Nt Z
X ψi+1
δyiT Qi dψ = 0 (2.122)
i=1 ψi

where Nt is the number of time elements in one revolution. Q is linearized about

the steady state value of the normal modes

⋆T
y0 = [pTb pb ] (2.123)

so that the equation becomes

104
 Nt Z
X ψi+1 Nt
X
δyiT Qi (y0 + ∆y)dψ = δyiT [Qi ()y0 + Kt (y0 )∆y]dψ = 0 (2.124)
i=1 ψi i=1

In this form,  
∂ F̄ ∂ F̄
 ∂pb
− K̄ ∂pb
− C̄ 
Kt = 


 (2.125)
0 M̄

For the ith time element, the time variation of the modal displacement vector

can be expressed in terms of shape function, Ht , and the temporal nodal displace-

ment vector, ξi , as



pbi (ψ) = Ht (s)ξi 

(2.126)

δpbi (ψ) = Ht (s)δξi 


where the local temporal coordinate for the ith time element is

ψ − ψi
s= (2.127)
ψi+1 − ψi

0 ≤ s ≤ 1, and ψi+1 − ψi is the time span of the time element. The temporal shape

function matrix, Ht (s) has the form

Ht = [Ht Im , · · · , Htnt +1 Im ] (2.128)

in which Im is an m × m identity matrix, m being the dimension of the modal

displacement vector. By substituting 2.126 into 2.124, the following appears

Nt Z
X ψi+1
δξiT N T [Qi + Kti N ∆ξi ]dψ = 0 (2.129)
i=1 ψi

105
in which  
 
 Ht (ψ) 
 
N= (2.130)
 ⋆ 
 H t (ψ) 
 

Because the δξi are arbitrary for i = 1, · · · , Nt , Eq. 2.129 becomes for the

global matrices

QG + KtG ∆ξ G = 0 (2.131)

which has the boundary conditions

ξ(0) = ξ(2π)
(2.132)
⋆ ⋆
ξ (0) = ξ (2π)

2.3.4 System Solution

A coupled solution consists of converged solutions for blade response, trim

control angles and rotor wake. The trim control angles may involve blade pitch

settings for a swashplate configuration, flap or tab deflections for a swashplateless

configuration, and shaft position angles depending on wind tunnel or free flight trim.

To accomplish this simultaneous convergence within the comprehensive analysis, the

solution procedure is divided into stages.

First, the initial conditions are established for the control angles. These can

be either user input or the result of a rigid blade analysis. The rigid blade analysis

used to estimate initial conditions uses flap dynamics and uniform inflow with a

linearized set of trim equations. When user input is used, it can be based on the

final trim settings of previously converged cases. Because of the nonlinear nature of

106
the system, the initial conditions must be a good estimate of the final settings.

Next, a Jacobian matrix is calculated, using the initial trim settings as a

baseline. The initial blade air loads, blade response and hub loads are calculated.

The steady part of the hub loads provides the rotor forces and moments in the trim

equations. The trim equations (see eqs. 2.91 - 2.96) are linearized about the baseline

established with the initial conditions using a Taylor’s series expansion

∂F
F (θi + ∆θi ) = F (θi ) + |θ=θ0 ∆θi = 0 (2.133)
∂θ
∂F
The Jacobian, ∂θ
, is assembled by perturbing each of the control settings one

at a time and using the resulting hub loads to calculate the residuals of the trim

equations:
∂F F (θ + ∆θ) − F (θ)
≈ (2.134)
∂θ ∆θ

where the controls θ are given in eqs. 2.98, 2.99, and 2.100, and ∆θ are the set of

control perturbations, on the order of 1%, 5% or 10%. During the calculation of

the Jacobian, the quasi-steady aerodynamic model with uniform inflow is used to

calculate the airloads.

Finally, the Jacobian matrix is used to move the analysis from the initial

control settings to the final trim solution. At each iteration, the residuals of the

trim equations are calculated for the current control settings, and the trim settings

are updated using a forward difference formula

 
∂F
∆θi = F (θi ) (2.135)
∂θ θ=θi

θi+1 = θi + ∆θi (2.136)

107
 Trim convergence is achieved when the trim convergence criteria, ǫ1 , reaches

the user-defined limit. Typically, this is 0.001 or less. The blade response con-

vergence criteria, ǫ2 , is typically closer to 0.01. This value implies that the blade

response at the final iteration is within 1% of its value at the penultimate iteration.

The free wake model is initiated after the blade response has begun to converge.

This usually occurs between the 10th and 20th iterations. Until the free wake is

turned on, a linear or uniform inflow model is used. After free wake initiation, an

additional 10 or 20 iterations may be necessary to achieve a trim solution.

2.3.5 Rotor Models

For any rotor model, the structural properties of the blade are applied to

discrete beam elements. The properties, such as mass, center of gravity, bending

stiffness or torsional stiffness, may differ between elements, but are held constant

within the element.

Kaman Conceptual Rotor

The baseline properties are based on a typical Kaman-type rotor with very

low blade torsional stiffness, and the baseline configuration is presented in Table

1. The root pitch spring is soft to enable maximum blade twist in response to tab

deflections. The resulting torsional frequency is 1.8/rev. The flap-tab configuration

is described in terms of total blade chord. The flap chord does not include the tab.

Therefore in the baseline configuration, where the flap chord is 20% of total blade

108
chord, and the tab chord is 10% of the total, the flap and tab together occupy the

trailing 30% of the total chord. The flap and tab do not necessarily have the same

span; in the case where the flap is longer than the tab, outside of the tab boundaries,

the flap alone occupies the trailing 30% of the total chord. The thrust level for this
cT
rotor is set to σ
= 0.062.

UH-60A Rotor

In order to implement swashplateless control, the pitch link is removed and

replaced with a soft torsion spring. The rotor properties, and fuselage properties

needed for trim, are the same as the UH-60A helicopter, except that the first torsion

frequency is now reduced from 4.4/rev (baseline) to 1.9/rev (swashplateless). The

helicopter used for the analysis is modeled in UMARC with a single main rotor and

a tail rotor. Each blade has coincident flap and lag hinges at 4.66% span, and a

26.83 ft radius with an aerodynamic root cutout of 20%. The nominal chord of the

blades is 1.73 ft. The rotor speed is 258 RPM. The blades are discretized into 20

finite elements with flap, lag, torsion and axial degrees of freedom. The tip sweep

in the outer 6.9% of the blade span (reaching a maximum of 20◦ at 94.5% span)

is modeled as structural (center of gravity) and aerodynamic (lift) offsets from a

straight, undeformed elastic axis. The baseline aerodynamic, trim and structural

models have been validated against flight test data.

109
2.4 Concluding Remarks

An analysis methodology was developed for swashplateless helicopters con-

trolled by trailing edge flaps and tabs. Initially, a linear, rigid blade model was

developed to examine the effects of the flap and the tab on the rotor response in

isolation. The parent-child relationships of the flap to the tab, and the blade to

the flap were identified in the equations of motion. From these, it became clear

that each control at the airfoil trailing edge may be considered a child to the parent

section immediately before it, and additional dependent sections can be added to

the system of equations without extensive derivation. Having established the gov-

erning equations of a system with two nested trailing edge controls, the equations

for additional nested trailing edge controls on the rigid blade can be assumed with

some confidence, and only the aerodynamics require further exploration.

In the next phase, a state of the art comprehensive analysis was refined to in-

clude the contributions of the trailing edge controls in the structural, aerodynamic

and coupled trim models. The analysis is based on finite element methods in space

and time. Each rotor blade is divided into multiple elements, and each blade element

includes 15 degrees of freedom for the blade flap, lag, torsion and axial deformations.

The trailing edge flap and tab are each represented by additional single degrees of

freedom attached to the blade as a whole. The nonlinear inertial contributions of

the flap and the tab were added to the structural model, along with the ability to

include blade index angle, which is important for trailing edge flap effectiveness.

Another key design parameter, blade torsional softness, can be modeled at the root

110
with a soft pitch spring, or along the blade with low torsional rigidity, GJ. There

are two primary aerodynamic models for the flapped airfoils in this investigation:

quasi-steady thin airfoil theory, and airfoil table lookup. Both of these models can

accommodate aerodynamic balance in the flap and the tab. Each was implemented

to calculate the incremental change to airfoil section lift and pitching moment pro-

duced by deflection of the trailing edge flap and/or tab. The increment can then

be added to the properties of the baseline airfoil section. It is possible to use flap

airfoil section data that does not match the baseline airfoil section. The likelihood

of this is increased by the limited availability of flapped airfoil data. In such cases,

the airfoil angles of attack and flap deflections at which separated flow and shock

formation occur may vary significantly, and the incremental changes calculated for

lift, drag and pitching moment may lead to inaccurate or misleading predictions.

Recent advances in analysis methodology and computing speed have made CFD a

more practical method for the generation of airfoil lookup tables. For this inves-

tigation, CFD was used to generate tables for an SC1094R8 airfoil with a trailing

edge flap. The flap was 0.15c in size and was hinged at its leading edge (having no

aerodynamic balance). The gap between the flap and the airfoil was sealed. The tab

was not included in this simulation. For the tables generated, the range of angle of

attack was ±20◦ , Mach numbers from 0.3 to 0.8, and flap deflections of ±15◦ . The

predicted aerodynamic properties showed good agreement to wind tunnel test data

for the unflapped airfoil. The drag of the flapped airfoil section can also be estimated

with an empirical model that is a function of section angle of attack and flap deflec-

tion. This type of model provides a fast approximation of drag when more precise

111
information is not available. Drag predicted from the empirical model showed fair

agreement to wind tunnel tests and to CFD results. The coupled trim procedure of

the comprehensive analysis was modified to allow swashplateless rotors. Collective,

longitudinal cyclic and lateral cyclic remain trim variables, but the primary control

may be either blade pitch, flap deflection or tab deflection. The two primary types

of trim solution have either three or six degrees of freedom, resulting in conditions

that are termed isolated rotor trim or vehicle trim in this investigation. For isolated

rotor trim, the shaft angles and tail rotor collective are fixed, and three constraints

are given. The constraints are typically in the form of thrust, longitudinal and later

cyclic blade flapping or thrust, hub pitch and roll moments. Converged solutions

for blade response and trim are found quickly, typically with less than 60 iterations.

Finally, calculation of the inflow distribution was examined to understand its influ-

ence on rotor trim conditions and rotor power. Uniform inflow is compared to the

nonlinear distribution created by a free wake model with a single tip vortex. The

effect of the trailing edge flap was included in the free wake model by the addition

of vortex trailers at the radial bounds of the flap.

112
Figure 2.1: Measured Drag for the Figure 2.2: Measured Drag for Flapped

NACA 23012 (Ames and Sears [1]) and HH-06 Airfoil, M = 0.6

Apache HH-06 and HH-10 (Hassan et al.

[2]) Flapped Airfoils. Positive (4◦ ) and

Negative (−4◦ ) Flap Deflections Shown.

Figure 2.3: Empirical Model of Drag for Flapped HH-06 Airfoil, Showing ±4◦ TEF

Deflections

113
Figure 2.4: Empirical Model of Drag Figure 2.5: Extended Empirical Model

for Flapped SC1095R8 Airfoil, M = 0.3, of Drag for Flapped SC1095R8 Airfoil,

Showing ±10◦ TEF Deflections Showing ±10◦ TEF Deflections

Figure 2.6: Grid for 2-D CFD Analysis of Flapped SC1095R8 Airfoil. Shown with

Flap Chord cf = 0.15c, Positive Flap Deflection.

114
 (a) Drag Coefficient (b) Lift Coefficient

(c) Pitch Moment Coefficient

Figure 2.7: Comparison of CFD Predicted and Measured Baseline SC1095R8 Airfoil

Properties at M = 0.3, No Flap.

115
Figure 2.8: CFD Drag Prediction for ±10◦ TEF Deflection for Flapped SC1095R8,

cf = 0.15c, No Overhang, M = 0.3

(a) -10◦ TEF Deflection (b) 10◦ TEF Deflection

Figure 2.9: Comparison of CFD Drag Prediction and Empirical Model for Flapped

SC1095R8, cf = 0.15c, No Overhang, M = 0.3

116
Figure 2.10: Plan View of Rotor Blade Schematic with Trailed Near Wake and Tip

Vortex Free Wake

Figure 2.11: Schematic of Trailed Near Wake and TEF Trailers Free Wake

117
Figure 2.12: Side View of Swashplateless Rotor Wake with Flap Trailers at µ =

0.11, 6 Turns. Illustration of Wake Formed By Three Trailers on Each Blade.

118
Figure 2.13: Top View of Swashplateless Rotor Wake with Flap Trailers at µ = 0.11,

6 Turns. Illustration of Wake Formed By Three Trailers on Each Blade.

119
Figure 2.14: Rear View of Swashplateless Rotor Wake with Flap Trailers at µ =

0.11, 6 Turns. Illustration of Wake Formed By Three Trailers on Each Blade.

120
Figure 2.15: Radial Distribution of Bound Circulation at 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ and 270◦

Azimuth Angles, µ = 0.11.

121
Chapter 3

Design Studies of Swashplateless Rotor

The swashplateless rotor concept under investigation is controlled indirectly

by trailing edge flaps and tabs. The two key obstacles to this concept are:

1. the flap and/or tab deflections and hinge moments required to achieve rotor

trim, and

2. the effect of the flap and/or tab deflections on the main rotor performance.

This chapter addresses the first issue by studying two different types of rotor and

attempting to minimize the control angles and hinge moments required to trim

the rotors in forward flight. The general approach is to conduct a study for each

rotor which determines the sensitivity of the rotor to a design parameter. The

parameters chosen represent aspects of the design geometry which can be modified

in isolation. The chapter is divided into two sections. First, a conceptual rotor for a

light utility helicopter with very low torsional rigidity (Kaman-type) is examined in

a swashplateless configuration with trailing edge flaps and tabs, using a rigid blade,

linear analysis model. The flap is a degree of freedom in the system while the tab is

a prescribed deflection. The parametric study determines the effect of each design

variable on the tab authority through required control angles and on actuation

power through required hinge moment. The analysis model permits the initial rotor

design and configuration of the swashplateless flap and tab control system. The

122
control angles and hinge moments of the conceptual rotor are minimized to show

the feasibility of on-blade actuation with existing actuators of limited force and

stroke.

Second, the rotor of an existing heavy utility helicopter (UH-60A) is examined

in two swashplateless configurations: one with trailing edge flaps only, and the

other with both trailing edge flaps and tabs. This study is further subdivided into

sections for uncoupled blade response and coupled trim. The purpose of this part of

the investigation is to examine the feasibility of retro-fitting an existing rotor with

a swashplateless, flap and/or tab driven primary control system, without significant

alteration to the blades or the general rotor description. This capability is desirable

because retaining an existing rotor and blade configuration significantly reduces

the time and expense involved in a new vehicle design. The integrated flap and tab

maintain the profiles of the existing airfoil sections in use on the blade, which means

that molds and machining arrangements can be re-used. New sections containing

a flap, tab and actuator can be mass-balanced so that the center of gravity is not

changed and undesirable pitch-flap couplings and instabilities do not arise. Although

the torsion frequency must be reduced to facilitate blade twist, this can be done at

the root with some combination of springs and linkages, allowing the flap and lag

modes of the blade to remain largely unchanged. The UH-60A blade also has a

swept tip, which is designed to mitigate compressibility effects at high speed. The

flap and tab are located on the blade to avoid overlap with this tip. This rotor is

made swashplateless for analysis by replacing the pitch links with soft root springs,

and locating the flap and tab on the blade so as to avoid overlap with the swept tip.

123
The purpose of the uncoupled study is to develop understanding of the fundamental

physics of the blade response to flap or tab deflections. This understanding can

aid design by revealing the lift and moment mechanisms which contribute to the

authority of the control. The coupled trim parameter studies gauge the minimum

deflections and hinge moments which can be used to trim the rotor. These results

define the mechanical characteristics required from the actuation system which will

drive the flap or tab. One benefit of using the UH-60A rotor is the extensive flight

test data that allows validation of the baseline rotor analysis. This validation permits

some confidence in the following results for the swashplateless variant of the rotor.

3.1 Rigid Blade Linear Model

This section describes the development of a rigid blade aeroelastic trim model

to predict the required tab control angles in forward flight. In this model, the trailing

edge flap deflections are produced in response to the aerodynamic hinge moments

created by the deflections of the tab. The system is described by four degrees of

freedom, where blade flap (β), torsion (θ), trailing edge flap (p), and tab deflection

(q) are the independent degrees. The equations of motion for a fixed wing are given

by Theodorsen in Ref. [119]. Here, the equations have been derived for a rotary

wing. Only the linear terms have been retained because the blades are assumed to

be rigid, and the lag degree of freedom is neglected. A forward differencing method

is used to calculate the trim solution in steady, level flight.

The geometric parameters of the flap and tab are shown in Fig 3.1. The total

124
chord of the section is the sum of cb , cf and ct , but although the size (as a percentage

of the total) of each section may vary during the course of analysis, the total chord

remains constant. The aerodynamic formulation [119] is a thin airfoil model which

includes arbitrary hinge axes for the flap and tab, but the gaps are assumed to be

sealed. The rotor trim targets are thrust and zero hub roll and pitch moments. For

the trim solution, the tab motion is a trim variable, and is no longer considered a

dynamic degree of freedom. The trim solution is taken after sufficient revolutions

to ensure that the steady state has been achieved.

3.2 Swashplateless Conceptual Rotor in Wind Tunnel Trim

This section contains the results of a parametric sensitivity study which pro-

duced an optimal trailing flap and tab design for a conceptual rotor. The design

process has the objective of simultaneously minimizing control angles and hinge mo-

ments. Since the rotor is conceptual, many properties can be varied, but some of

the general parameters of the rotor are kept constant. These properties are listed

in Table 3.1. The thrust level for this rotor is set to CT /σ = 0.062 for all advance

ratios. The longitudinal and lateral shaft angles are zero. The inflow model is linear,

and no fuselage characteristics (such as parasite drag) are considered.

3.2.1 Rotor Properties

The baseline properties are based on a typical rotor (Kaman-type) with very

low blade torsional stiffness, and the baseline flap and tab configuration is presented

125
 Parameter Value

Radius, R 16 ft

Blade Chord, c 1.25 ft

Lock Number, γ 10.0

Rotor Speed 460 RPM

Table 3.1: Principal Characteristics of Kaman-type Conceptual Rotor

in Table 3.2. The root pitch spring is soft to enable maximum blade twist in re-

sponse to tab deflections. The resulting torsional frequency is 1.8/rev. The flap-tab

configuration is described in terms of total blade chord. The flap chord does not

include the tab. Therefore in the baseline configuration, where the flap chord is 20%

of total blade chord, and the tab chord is 10% of the total, the flap and tab together

occupy the trailing 30% of the total chord. The flap and tab do not necessarily have

the same span; in the case where the flap is longer than the tab, outside of the tab

boundaries, the flap alone occupies the trailing 30% of the total chord.

3.2.2 Parametric Study of Trailing Edge Flap and Tab

The study examines the tab control angles and hinge moments over a range

of design parameters. They are: (i) the index angle, (ii) blade chord ratio, (iii)

flap radial location, and (iv) flap and tab overhang (hinge position). The effect of

advance ratio on the required tab deflections is studied in Fig. 3.4. As the advance

ratio increases from 0.15 to 0.35, the collective tab angle decreases slightly, while

126
 Parameter Value

Flap Chord, cf 0.20c

Tab Chord, ct 0.10c

Flap Span 0.24R

Tab Span 0.18R

Index Angle 5◦

Flap Overhang 0.25cf

Tab Overhang 0.25ct

Flap Midspan Position 0.75R

Blade Pre-twist −10◦

Table 3.2: Baseline Configuration of Kaman-type Rotor for Parametric Study

the half peak-to-peak value increases. The half peak-to-peak (hpp) angle represents

the magnitude of the lateral and longitudinal cyclic flap deflections, and is defined
p
2 2
as δ1c + δ1s . Figure 3.5 shows the hinge moment values increase as advance ratio

increases.

Index Angle

The index angle is the pre-collective applied to the blade to minimize the total

torsional deflection required to achieve the equilibrium trim position for a given

flight condition ([79]). The effect of index angle on the required tab deflections and

hinge moments are shown in Fig. 3.2. As index angle increases from 5◦ to 13.5◦ ,

127
the tab collective decreases from 32◦ to 0◦ . The hpp value of the control angle

decreases steadily as the index angle increases. The plot shows that the mean and

half peak-to-peak values of tab hinge moment reach a minimum at 15◦ index angle

(Fig. 3.3). At this index angle, the tab control angles are −5◦ mean, and 8◦ hpp,

while the mean and hpp tab hinge moments are 0.5 ft-lbs.

Combined Chord

The effect of combined flap and tab chord (cf +ct ) is shown in Fig. 3.6. The

proportion of tab chord to combined chord is held constant at 33% (identical to the

baseline configuration), as the combined chord length of the flap and tab together

is changed relative to the total chord. The tab collective is approximately constant

as the combined chord increases from 30% to 50% of total chord. Required tab

collective increases sharply when the combined chord is less than 30% of the total.

The very high magnitude of the control angles below 30% indicates an infeasible

design region, perhaps requiring more detailed investigation. It can be seen that

tab hinge moment decreases as the combined chord increases from 20% to 30% (Fig.

3.7), before beginning to increase in magnitude as the combined chord becomes

larger than 30% of the total chord. These results are a direct reflection of the

tradeoff between hinge moment and moment arm.

128
Midspan Location

The flap radial location refers to the midspan of the flap, and in this study is

the same for both the flap and the tab. Both the tab collective and half peak-to-peak

value decrease as the midspan position moves from 0.65R to 0.85R (Fig. 3.8). The

region between 0.65R and 0.75R (the baseline position) appears to be an infeasible

design region where the required control angles are extremely high; outboard of

0.75R, the decrease in collective is gradual. The tab hinge moment follows a similar

trend to the control angles (Fig. 3.9).

Flap Overhang

The effect of variation in flap overhang is shown in Fig. 3.10. The overhang

describes the position of the flap hinge relative to the leading edge of the flap, so

that the baseline 0.25cf overhang places the hinge at the flap quarter-chord. The

parameter is also known as the aerodynamic balance. It can be seen that varying

flap overhang from 1% to 25% decreases the tab deflections required in both collec-

tive and half peak-to-peak value. The tab hinge moment decreases steadily as the

overhang is increased (Fig. 3.10). These results must be balanced by the consid-

eration of drag increase caused by protrusion into the flow. Overhang is beneficial

in terms of hinge moment, but the gains provided by larger values may be negated

by increases in drag [2], especially at higher Mach numbers. Current research with

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) [103] has shown that flap overhang has little

effect on blade lift and pitch moment, but increases drag. In addition, the gap

129
produced by overhang between the flap and the blade section tends to reduce the

effectiveness of the flap by reducing lift and pitch moment and increasing flap drag

and hinge moment. These effects can be included in future investigations by means

of airfoil tables generated by wind tunnel testing or by computational methods.

Tab Overhang

The effect of tab overhang is similarly investigated in Fig. 3.12. As the tab

overhang increases from 1% to 25%, the required tab collective decreases steadily.

The tab cyclic angles are not significantly affected by the tab overhang. Again, the

tab hinge moment decreases steadily as the tab overhang increases in Fig. 3.13.

Improved Flap and Tab Configuration

This parametric study enables the determination of an improved configuration

for the case of the typical rotor. The parameters are chosen to minimize both

required control angles and tab hinge moments and are listed in Table 3.3. The

major differences from the baseline configuration are in the sizes of the tab and flap

chords, relative to both the blade and to each other, the 10 degree increase in index

angle, and the decrease in flap and tab overhang from 25% to 10% of their respective

chords.

Figure 3.14 compares the effect of advance ratio on both the optimized and

the baseline configurations. The results for the optimized configuration are shown

as a solid line; the baseline results are connected by a dashed line. The magnitude

130
 Parameter Value

Flap Chord, cf 0.29c

Tab Chord, ct 0.06c

Flap Span 0.30R

Tab Span 0.30R

Index Angle 15◦

Flap Overhang 0.10cf

Tab Overhang 0.10ct

Flap Midspan Position 0.75R

Blade Pre-twist −10◦

Table 3.3: Improved Configuration of Flap and Servotab for Kaman-type Rotor

of the mean tab angle decreases from 32◦ for the baseline to 6◦ for the optimized

configuration at advance ratio 0.35. The half peak-to-peak angle decreases from 29◦

for the baseline to 8.6◦ for the optimum. Fig. 3.15 also shows a significant reduction

in the tab hinge moment for the improved configuration. At advance ratio 0.35, the

mean tab hinge moment decreases from 12 ft-lb to 0.7 ft-lb. The half peak-to-peak

value of hinge moment decreases from 12 ft-lb for the baseline to 1.5 ft-lb for the new

configuration. These improvements in required control angles and hinge moments

imply reduced stroke and force requirements for an actuator for the system.

131
3.3 Comprehensive Analysis

The next section describes the development of a refined comprehensive analysis

to predict the tab control angles and hinge moments. The analysis is performed on

a representative rotor with all characteristics similar to the UH-60A rotor, except

those that must be changed for the swashplateless rotor. First, the rotor model is

described, including the details of the structural model, and the modifications made

to accommodate the swashplateless control. Then, the results of the analysis are

described, with a discussion on minimization of the tab angles and hinge moments.

As before, a new trailing edge flap and tab configuration is developed from a baseline

by means of a simple parametric sensitivity study.

3.3.1 Description of Model

In order to implement swashplateless control, the pitch link is removed and

replaced with a soft torsion spring. The rotor properties, and fuselage properties

needed for trim, are the same as the UH-60A helicopter, except that the first torsion

frequency is now reduced from 4.4/rev (baseline) to 1.9/rev (swashplateless). The

helicopter used for the analysis is modeled in UMARC with a single main rotor and

a tail rotor. Each blade has coincident flap and lag hinges at 4.66% span, and a

26.83 ft radius with an aerodynamic root cutout of 20%. The nominal chord of the

blades is 1.73 ft. The rotor speed is 258 RPM. The blades are discretized into 20

finite elements with flap, lag, torsion and axial degrees of freedom. The tip sweep

in the outer 6.9% of the blade span (reaching a maximum of 20◦ at 94.5% span)

132
is modeled as structural (center of gravity) and aerodynamic (lift) offsets from a

straight, undeformed elastic axis. The baseline aerodynamic, trim and structural

models have been validated against flight test data in Refs. [122] and [124]. The

natural frequencies of the baseline blade are shown in fan plot form in Fig. 3.16.

Reducing the torsional frequency of the rotor for the swashplateless configuration

produces the alteration to the modes seen in Fig. 3.17. The primary change is to

the first torsional mode, while the first lag and flap modes are essentially unchanged.

The second flap mode is very similar for both the swashplateless and conventional

rotors, from 0.6 to 1.3 of the normalized rotor speed, but the third flap mode is only

unchanged from 0.90 to 1.3 of the rotor speed. As the rotor speed is reduced to low

RPM, the modification of the torsional stiffness causes more change to the natural

frequencies. Natural frequencies for the baseline and swashplateless rotors rotating

at the operating speed are listed in Table 3.4.

The second order nonlinear beam formulation, based on Refs. [125] and [126],

is modified to integrate the structural, inertial and aerodynamic contributions of

the trailing edge flap and tab. The flap and tab are modeled as additional, but

single, degrees of freedom. Note that for the trim problem, either the tab or flap

motions are trim variables. Although the flap and tab can be defined across mul-

tiple elements with varying properties, the motion of each is described by a single

deflection. The unsteady aerodynamic formulation for the trailing edge flap and tab

is that used earlier, the thin airfoil model developed by Theodorsen and Garrick.

For consistency, thin airfoil theory is used for both the main blade and the flap-tab

sections. The inflow is calculated using a refined Bagai-Leishman pseudo-implicit

133
 Mode Baseline Freq. Swashplateless Freq.

1st Lag 0.276 0.276

1st Flap 1.037 1.037

2nd Flap 2.833 2.844

1st Torsion 4.302 1.990

3rd Flap 4.692 4.682

4th Flap 5.200 5.188

5th Flap 7.914 7.874

6th Flap 11.412 11.704

2nd Lag 12.431 12.434

2nd Torsion 13.536 9.881

Table 3.4: Calculated Natural Frequencies (per rev) for UH-60A Baseline and Swash-

plateless Rotors at Normal Operating Speed, 258 RPM

free wake model, modified for flexible blades [122]. This is a single tip vortex model

with no corrections for the flap edge gaps. The trim solution is for a thrust level of

CT /σ= 0.084, and targeted hub pitch and roll moments. The shaft angles are fixed

at longitudinal tilt of 7.31◦ nose down pitch and lateral tilt of 1.5◦ right wing down.

These values are based on the high speed flight C8534 of the UH-60A Airloads Pro-

gram. This corresponds to a vehicle gross weight of 17500 lbs (CW /σ = 0.0783)

and forward speed of 155 knots (µ=0.368). The same thrust level and shaft angles

are maintained for all flight speeds. The hub moments for flight C8534 are 6040

134
ft-lbs roll left and 4169 ft-lbs nose down. Here, the rotor is trimmed to zero hub

moments at all flight conditions, in the absence of available data at lower speeds.

In real flight, these conditions vary with speed, and are in general less stringent at

lower speeds.

3.4 Swashplateless UH-60A Rotor with Trailing Edge Flap

The parameter study of design variables is conducted twice for the swashplate-

less rotor, first for the swashplateless rotor controlled by a trailing edge flap, and

again with trailing edge flaps and tabs. This investigation allows the designs of

the flap only and the flap/tab configurations to be configured for minimum control

angles and hinge moments, and then those designs can be compared to each other.

Such a comparison will show the advantages and disadvantages of each configuration

for the UH-60A rotor, and provide general insight for any rotor of similar size and

characteristics.

3.4.1 Uncoupled Blade Response to Flap in Hover

The uncoupled blade response to trailing edge flap deflection shows how blade

pitch and thrust generation depend on the key design parameter of torsional stiffness.

There are two primary changes that flap deflection can make to the aerodynamic

environment of the rotor blade: (i)the blade twist is induced by a pitching moment

which is an equilibrium response to the flap hinge moment and (ii)the blade lift is

directly altered along the span which contains the flap. The torsional stiffness of

135
the blade (either at the root or along the span) determines the contribution of each

of these two modes to the total blade response.

Parameter Value

Flap Chord, cf 0.15c

Flap Span 0.39R

Index Angle 15◦

Flap Overhang 0.0cf

Flap Midspan Position 0.75R

Torsional Frequency 2.0/rev

Table 3.5: Baseline Configuration of UH-60A type Swashplateless Rotor with Trail-

ing Edge Flaps

The torsional frequency is varied from 1.5/rev to 4.3/rev by adjusting the

stiffness of the blade root spring. The uncoupled blade pitch response to steady flap

deflection in hover is shown in Fig. 3.18a. The index angle is 15◦ . Downward flap

deflection is considered positive, and produces blade nose down twist. As the flap

deflection increases from -10◦ to 10◦ , the blade twists nose down. The response is

strictly linear for the higher torsional frequencies, and becomes slightly nonlinear

as the root spring softens. At torsional frequencies below 2/rev, the maximum flap

deflection for which a converged blade response could be calculated decreases. As

expected, softening the spring allows the blade pitch response to increase for the

same trailing edge flap input. This can also be seen in the rate at which the blade

136
pitches in response to the flap deflection, in Fig. 3.18b.

The blade loading (a non-dimensional thrust measurement) is also calculated

as a function of flap deflection and torsional frequency. In Fig. 3.19a as the root

spring is softened, for the same flap deflection, the blade loading decreases. This is

a result of the nose down blade twist which increases with the decreasing torsional

frequency. The blade loading has a linear response to flap deflection, which is seen

in the pointwise derivative of the blade loading with respect to flap deflection in

Fig. 3.19b. Only when the torsional frequency is reduced below 2/rev does the

blade loading become slightly nonlinear as the flap deflection increases.

3.4.2 Coupled Wind Tunnel Trim Solution with Flap in Forward

Flight

A range of geometric parameters was studied to minimize the flap control

angles and hinge moments at high speed (µ = 0.368). The baseline rotor has a

0.15c flap hinged at its leading edge, with 15◦ index angle applied to the blade. The

baseline configuration for this study is identical to that described in Table 3.5. The

parameters are (i) index angle, (ii) flap span, (iii) flap chord and (iv) flap overhang.

Flap deflection and hinge moment are examined for each parameter. The deflections

are reported as the flap collective, which is the steady deflection, and the flap half

peak-to-peak (hpp). The half peak-to-peak (hpp) angle represents the magnitude
p
2 2
of the lateral and longitudinal cyclic flap deflections, and is defined as δ1c + δ1s .

The baseline flap configuration is examined across the range of forward flight

137
speed. From µ = 0.10 to µ = 0.15, the collective and hpp angles decrease to their

respective minimums so that the flap collective is -7.5◦ and the hpp is 8.5◦ . From

µ = 0.15 to µ = 0.368, the flap deflections required to trim increase in Fig. 3.20a

until the flap collective has reached -13◦ and the hpp is 17◦ . In Fig. 3.20b, the hpp

of the flap hinge moment similarly increases with advance ratio to a maximum of

33.16 ft-lb at µ = 0.368. The mean of the flap hinge moment does not change much

with forward flight speed, and remains between 14 to 16 ft-lbs across the range.

The hpp flap angle is considerably larger than the stroke capabilities of current

smart actuator technology. This capability is considered a boundary because smart

actuators have the high bandwidth, low weight and compactness to fit within the

blade profile and drive the flap without also adding excessive mass. However, other

actuator types are also being considered which might expand these flap deflection

and hinge moment boundaries in the future.

Index Angle

The purpose of the index angle is to give a pre-collective that moves the blade

close to its final trim position in pitch. This positioning means that the blade pitch

does not have to be changed very much to achieve trim, and thus the required

flap deflection is reduced. Unfortunately, just as the pitch collective required to

trim changes with the flight condition, the bes index angle also changes with flight

condition. Since index angle is not a degree of freedom in this investigation, the

index is selected to suit the most challenging flight condition within the scope of

138
the investigation, and remains constant for all other conditions. This parameter

study is designed to select the index angle that best minimizes flap angle and hinge

moment at µ = 0.368 in steady level flight.

The magnitude of both the flap collective and the hpp angle are above 15◦

at 13◦ of index angle in Fig. 3.21a. These decrease gradually and nonlinearly as

index angle increases, until flap deflections reaches a minimum of -9◦ collective and

12◦ hpp at 20◦ index. The mean flap hinge moment decreases steadily as index

angle increases from 13◦ to 20◦ in Fig. 3.21b, following the steady decrease in flap

collective angle. The hpp variation in the hinge moment decreases as the index

increases from 13◦ to 15◦ , but then shows only small change as the index increases

from 15◦ to 20◦ , with a slight increase showing at the highest index angle. The

decrease in flap deflections and in mean hinge moment indicate that high index

angle is beneficial, and 20◦ index is selected.

Flap Chord

The effectiveness of the flap is not sensitive to the size of the flap chord, so

as the flap chord size is increased from 0.10c to 0.25c in Fig 3.22a, neither the

collective nor the hpp flap deflections change very much. There is a slight decrease

in the magnitude of the flap deflections at 0.15c. In Fig. 3.22b, the mean and the

hpp of the hinge moment increase significantly with flap chord length. Selecting the

best flap chord is thus a compromise between minimizing the deflections and the

hinge moment. For this investigation, a chord of 0.15c was selected.

139
Flap Overhang

Overhang describes the distance of the flap hinge as a percentage of the flap

chord, aft of the flap leading edge. Increasing the overhang from 0.0cf to 0.50cf

(moving the hinge to 50% of the flap chord) causes first a small increase in flap

deflections at 0.17cf , then a decrease as the hinge continues to move aft in Fig.

3.23a. The hinge moments show a similar trend in Fig. 3.23b, but the changes in

both the mean and hpp hinge moments are more significant than those seen for the

flap angles. Although both flap deflections and hinge moment reach a minimum at

the largest overhang, or aftmost position of the hinge, the overhang selected for this

study is 0.33cf . This choice is a compromise between the results of this parameter

study and other work [103] that has shown an increase in profile drag due to flap

overhang.

Flap Span

As the length of the flap increases along the blade radius, it gains authority

as seen in Fig. 3.24a and the flap deflections required to achieve trim at high speed

decrease. As the flap span increases from 0.20R to 0.40R, the flap collective decreases

from -18◦ to -13◦ . The hpp decreases similarly as the span increases, from 20◦ at

0.20R to 15◦ at 0.40R. Figure 3.24b shows that the flap hinge moment increases

with the flap length. The change in both the mean and hpp hinge moment is more

significant from 0.30R to 0.40R, although the increase in the mean hinge moment

in that range is small, while the increase in the hpp is larger. This study indicates

140
that the best length for the flap is 0.30R, so that flap angles are reduced without

incurring too large a penalty in flap hinge moment.

Before making a final selection of the flap geometry, the parameter study was

repeated for an index angle of 20◦ . This produced no change in the optimal value

for any parameter except for flap length. After the index angle is increased from

15◦ to 20◦ , the optimal flap span changes from 0.30R to 0.40R. The flap angles in

Fig. 3.25a show a similar trend to that seen in Fig. 3.24a, where the collective

and hpp angles decrease as the flap length increases. At the higher index angle, the

decrease in flap deflection is larger, so that at 0.40R, the collective is -10◦ and the

hpp is 14◦ ; this compares to -13◦ collective and 15◦ hpp for the same flap span at 15◦

index angle. Figure 3.25b shows that the trend of the hinge moments changes for

the higher index angle: as the span increases from 0.20R to 0.40R, both the mean

and hpp of the hinge moment decreases steadily. The new minimum of the hinge

moment hpp is 26 ft-lb at 0.40R, whereas at 15◦ index angle, the minimum was 25

ft-lb at 0.20R. Based on this re-examination of the flap span, the final value for the

flap length is 0.40R.

Improved Flap Configuration

The geometry of the trailing edge flap for the swashplateless rotor was con-

figured for minimum flap angles and hinge moments at high speed (µ = 0.368) in

steady level flight. The primary changes to the configuration are index angle and

flap overhang. The properties of this configuration are listed in Table 3.6.

141
 Parameter Value

Flap Chord, cf 0.15c

Flap Span 0.39R

Index Angle 20◦

Flap Overhang 0.33cf

Table 3.6: Improved Configuration of UH-60A type Swashplateless Rotor with Trail-

ing Edge Flaps

Altering the baseline flap parameters to the new values results in a reduction in

the flap deflections required to trim across the range of forward flight speed. In Fig.

3.26a the flap collective has decreased by at least 2◦ at every speed across the range,

while the hpp angle decreases 23%, from 17◦ to 13◦ , at µ = 0.368. Figure 3.26b

shows the significant decreases in flap hinge moment as a result of the configuration

change. At high speed, µ = 0.368, the mean hinge moment is reduced by 96%, and

the hpp by 90%.

3.5 Swashplateless UH-60A Rotor with Trailing Edge Flap and Tab

The motivation for the investigation of tab-actuated trailing edge flaps for

swashplateless rotors is to produce a primary control system which requires minimal

actuation power.

142
3.5.1 Uncoupled Blade Response to Flap and Tab in Hover

The uncoupled blade response to tab input offers insight to the fundamental

physics of the trailing edge flap-tab system. The torsional frequency and the TEF

(also called aileron) frequency are the two major design properties used to examine

the nature of the blade response to the tab. The blade pitch and trailing edge

flap deflections are examined for the direction and rate of response; from these

conclusions are drawn about the influence of these properties on the rotor response

in hover. The baseline case for the uncoupled study is described in Table 3.7: an

index angle of 15◦ is applied to the blade; the combined flap and tab chord is 0.40c

(flap = 0.25c, tab = 0.15c). Blade pitch is positive nose up. Downward flap or tab

deflection is considered positive (i.e., nose up is positive for the control surfaces).

The blade deflections are calculated in response to tab input for torsional

frequencies from 1.6/rev to 3.5/rev (Fig. 3.27), while the aileron hinge stiffness is

adjusted to keep the aileron frequency constant at 2.15/rev. Blade pitch is defined

at 75%R, and includes elastic twist deflection and the index angle. The built-in

pre-twist is zero at this location. At the lowest torsional frequency, 1.6/rev, the

blade moves nose up in response to positive tab input (tab down). For positive tab

deflection, the flap is negative, and vice versa. At zero tab input, q=0, there is a twist

deflection due to the offset elastic axis resulting from tip sweep. As the torsional

frequency increases, indicating a stiffer torsional spring at the root, the blade pitch

continues to increase with increasing tab input, but at a slower rate. This is reflected

∂θ
in the blade pitch derivative, ∂q
, which decreases as torsional frequency increases

143
 Parameter Value

Flap Chord, cf 0.25c

Tab Chord, ct 0.15c

Flap Span 0.39R

Tab Span 0.39R

Index Angle 15◦

Flap Overhang 0.0cf

Tab Overhang 0.0ct

Flap Midspan Position 0.75R

Torsional Frequency 2.0/rev

Aileron Frequency 2.15/rev

Table 3.7: Baseline Configuration of UH-60 type Rotor

(Fig. 3.27b).

The flap, shown in Fig. 3.28, always deflects in the opposite direction to

tab input, with little variation due to torsional frequency. The derivative of the flap
∂p
response, ∂q
, shows that the flap response rate is only slightly changed by increasing

torsional frequency (Fig. 3.28b). There are two competing mechanisms at work: (1)

the positive tab results in a lift increase due to the blade twisting nose up, but (2)

the negative flap causes a decrease in lift over the span of the flap. If the net effect

is an increased blade lift due to positive tab deflection, then moment (blade twisting

nose up) is dominant. If the net effect of positive tab deflection is a decrease in lift

144
(flap lift decrement), then lift is dominant.

This is clarified in Fig. 3.29a. At a torsion frequency of 1.6/rev, the blade

loading, CT /σ, follows the blade pitch (as shown in Fig. 3.27a), and increases

with positive tab input (Fig. 3.29a); the dominant effect is therefore moment. At

an increased torsional frequency of 3.5/rev, blade loading decreases as tab input

increases, as a consequence of the negative lift increment provided by the trailing

edge flap. This effect overrides the twist effect because the stiffer torsional spring

reduces blade twist response; the dominant effect is therefore lift. In between these

extremes the mechanisms are mixed, and at 1.9/rev the tab acts with both lift and

moment effect, depending on the magnitude of tab input. The derivative of blade

loading (Fig. 3.29b) quantifies the lift and moment mechanisms by showing the

moment mode has a positive rate of change with tab input, while the lift mode has

a negative rate of change with tab input. Thus, such a plot can be used to determine

the primary mechanism of control for the swashplateless control system.

Although torsion frequency has the dominant effect only on pitch response, the

aileron frequency affects both aileron and pitch response. As aileron hinge stiffness

increases, the blade pitch response is reduced until at 4.8/rev, blade pitch is constant

for the range of tab input (Fig. 3.30a). Here, the moments from the flap and tab are

equal and opposite. Above 4.8/rev, the aileron ceases to deflect substantially, and

the tab behaves as a flap. The derivative shows the rate of pitch response decreases

with increasing aileron frequency (Fig. 3.30b).

As expected, the flap response increases in magnitude as tab input becomes

larger, while the flap moves in opposition to the tab. The effect of aileron hinge

145
stiffness is that flap response decreases as the hinge spring is stiffened (Fig. 3.31a).

The flap derivative begins to increase sharply as the aileron frequency approaches

1.5/rev (Fig. 3.31b).

The rotor thrust shows the transition from dominant moment effect at low

aileron frequency to dominant lift effect at high aileron frequency (Fig. 3.32a). As

the aileron stiffness increases, the flap deflection steadily decreases until the tab

is effectively acting as a flap. In this case, the thrust decreases with increasingly

positive tab input, as the blade twists nose down (as it would for a positive flap

deflection). The derivative in Fig. 3.32b demonstrates again the dominance of

moment or lift effect in response to tab input.

3.5.2 Coupled Wind Tunnel Trim Solution with Flap and Tab in

Forward Flight

A range of geometric parameters was studied to minimize the tab control

angles and hinge moments at high speed (µ = 0.368). The baseline rotor has a

0.25c flap and 0.15c tab (0.40c combined) both hinged at their leading edges, with

15◦ index angle applied to the blade. The baseline configuration for this study is

identical to that described in Table 3.7, except for the aileron frequency, which was

increased to 3.7/rev to facilitate trim convergence. The parameters are (i) index

angle, (ii) tab chord as percentage of combined flap-tab, (iii) combined flap-tab

chord as percentage of blade chord and (iv) flap overhang and tab overhang. Tab

deflection and hinge moment are examined for each parameter.

146
Index Angle

The range of index angle is from 12◦ to 20◦ . As the index angle increases, the

required tab collective decreases from -5◦ at 12◦ index to -3◦ at 18◦ index; the tab

cyclic angle (hpp) is relatively insensitive to index angle (Fig. 3.33a). The mean

hinge moment decreases from 9 ft-lb to 4 ft-lb as the index angle increases, while

the hpp decreases until the index angle is 18◦ , then increases slightly; both the mean

and hpp portions of the moment reach a minimum at 18◦ index angle (Fig. 3.33b).

Tab Chord Ratio

Tab chord ratio is the ratio of the tab chord to the combined flap and tab

chords (ct /(ct + cf )). The combined flap and tab chord (cf + ct ) is kept constant at

0.40c. As the the tab chord is increased from 30% to 65%, the tab control angles

are reduced by one-third (Fig. 3.34a), but the tab hinge moment hpp is doubled

(from 22 ft-lb to 42 ft-lb in Fig. 3.34b), indicating that increasing tab chord carries

the disadvantage of simultaneously increasing tab hinge moment.

Combined Chord Ratio

Next, the combined chords are examined as a parameter, where the tab is kept

at a constant 38% of the total. In this case, increasing the combined chord from 25%

to 50% of the airfoil can reduce the required tab control angle, both in collective

and cyclics (Fig. 3.35a); however, the major effect is on tab hinge moment, as seen

in Fig. 3.35b, where the hpp value of the moment increases from 3 ft-lb to 25 ft-

147
lb. Similar to the tab chord, these trends indicate that increasing combined chord

size reduces tab angles but the benefit is more than offset by the increase in hinge

moment.

Flap Overhang

The hinge moment can be significantly reduced by using overhang on either

the flap, or tab, or both. First, increasing the flap overhang causes the tab hpp

angles to double (from 2.5◦ to 5◦ ) as the flap hinge moves from 0.0cf to 0.50cf (Fig.

3.36a), although the absolute magnitude of the control angles remains moderate.

However, the hpp value of the tab hinge moment is reduced by 60%, from 22 ft-lb

to 9 ft-lb as the hinge moves aft from the leading edge, thus offsetting the small

increase in control angle (Fig. 3.36b).

Tab Overhang

The tab overhang acts similarly: in Fig. 3.37a, the tab control angles increase

only slightly as the tab hinge varies from 0.0ct to 0.50ct , but in Fig. 3.37b the tab

hinge moment is strongly affected by the location of the tab hinge.

Improved Flap and Tab Configuration

The preceding results are used to select a flap-tab configuration that minimizes

both tab control angles and hinge moment for coupled trim at µ=0.368. The flap

chord is reduced to 0.22c from 0.25c, and the tab chord is reduced from 0.15c to

148
0.13c. The index angle is increased by 3◦ to 18◦ , the flap overhang is set to 0.30cf ,

and the tab overhang to 0.33ct . Across a range of forward flight speeds, the tab

hpp angle now remains between 5◦ to 6◦ (Fig. 3.38a). The hpp tab hinge moment

decreases from 5 ft-lb at µ=0.368 to 3ft-lb at µ=0.1 (Fig. 3.38b). The improved

configuration is summarized in Table 3.8.

Parameter Value

Flap Chord, cf 0.22c

Tab Chord, ct 0.13c

Flap Span 0.39R

Tab Span 0.39R

Index Angle 18◦

Flap Overhang 0.3cf

Tab Overhang 0.33ct

Flap Midspan Position 0.75R

Torsional Frequency 2.0/rev

Aileron Frequency 3.7/rev

Table 3.8: Final Trailing Edge Flap and Tab Configuration of UH-60 type Rotor

3.6 Concluding Remarks

Swashplateless rotors controlled with trailing edge flaps or tab actuated trailing

edge flaps were designed using parameter studies to identify key design variables.

149
Then the rotors were trimmed across the range of forward flight speed and designs

were configured to simultaneously minimize both control angles and hinge moments.

Both a new, conceptual rotor and an existing, production rotor were fitted with tab

actuated trailing edge flaps. For comparison, the existing, production rotor also was

fitted with trailing flaps only. The uncoupled blade response of the UH-60A type

rotor to tab or flap deflection was examined with varying torsional stiffness at the

blade root and with varying stiffness at the flap hinge. Finally, the two different

control schemes are compared.

3.6.1 Swashplateless Rotors with Tab Actuated Trailing Edge Flap

The isolated rotors are trimmed to a prescribed thrust and zero hub moments,

with shaft angles fixed. The quasi-steady thin airfoil aerodynamic model is used for

both blade and flap sections. Inflow is distributed uniformly for the Kaman-type

conceptual rotor analyzed with the linear, rigid blade model. A free wake model

with a single tip vortex calculates the inflow distribution for the swashplateless rotor

derived from the UH-60A, when a trim solution is calculated.

The Kaman-type conceptual rotor has blades with rectangular planform and

moderate linear twist. It has a nominal thrust level of cT /σ = 0.062, and has

not been designed in detail for any specific mission. The result of a parametric

design study was that the swashplateless rotor could be trimmed across the range

of forward flight speed from µ = 0.15 to 0.35 with tab collective angles between 7◦

to 9◦ and tab half peak-to-peak angles below 9◦ . The corresponding hinge moments

150
in forward flight remain below 2.0 ft-lb mean, and 1.5 ft-lb half peak-to-peak. The

index angle is 15◦ , and the flap and tab are located at the blade 0.75 radius. The

flap chord is 0.29c and the tab chord is 0.06c, for a total combined chord of 0.35c.

The flap hinge is located at 0.10cf and the tab hinge is at 0.10ct . The very low

hinge moments can be attributed in part to the aerodynamic balance given to both

the flap and the tab.

The UH-60A rotor has significant nonlinear twist and a swept tip; at µ = 0.368,

the thrust level is cT /σ = 0.083. The complex rotor was designed to achieve demand-

ing military missions. The swashplateless variant differs from the conventional rotor

by the addition of trailing edge flap and tabs and the reduction of the torsional fre-

quency from 4.3/rev to 2.0/rev by softening the pitch spring at the blade root. The

swashplateless rotor resulting from the parametric study could be trimmed across

the range of forward flight speed from hover to µ = 0.368. From high speed down to

transition speed at µ = 0.10, the tab collective angle is between −4.5◦ to −6.0◦ , and

the tab half peak-to-peak angles remain below 6.2◦ . In the same speed range, the

mean tab hinge moment is between 2.5 ft-lb to 6.5 ft-lb, while the half peak-to-peak

hinge moment is between 3.5 ft-lb to 5.0 ft-lb. The flap chord is 0.22c and the tab

chord is 0.13c, for a total combined chord of 0.35c. The blade pitch index angle of

18◦ , the flap overhang of 0.3cf and the tab overhang of 0.33ct were all significant

design features that minimized both tab control angles and hinge moment.

Examination of the uncoupled blade response of the UH-60A swashplateless

rotor showed that the deflection of the trailing edge tab causes change in both blade

lift and blade twist response. Positive tab deflection leads to positive lift increment

151
along the tab span, negative lift increment along the flap span, and blade nose-up

pitch. The torsional stiffness of the blade determines the contribution of the lift and

moment modes to the total blade response. Both blade pitch and thrust responses

are governed by blade torsional stiffness. The stiffness of the flap hinge spring also

affects blade pitch, trailing edge flap and thrust responses. Depending on the spring

stiffness at the blade root and at the flap hinge, positive tab deflection may result

in either an increase or decrease of the thrust.

3.6.2 Swashplateless Rotor with Trailing Edge Flap Only

The comprehensive analysis used to examine the swashplateless rotor with

trailing edge flap is identical to that used in the previous design studies. In this

case, the UH-60A rotor is fitted with a trailing edge flap, and the torsional stiffness is

reduced to 2.0/rev by softening the root pitch spring. When controlled by a trailing

edge flap, the swashplateless rotor can be trimmed across the range of forward flight

speed with a flap collective between 6.5◦ to 10.5◦ , and flap half peak-to-peak angles

ranging from 7.5◦ to 13.5◦ . The corresponding hinge moment from µ = 0.10 to

0.368 has a mean less than 1 ft-lb, and half peak-to-peak value less than 3.0 ft-lb.

Compared to the same rotor with both flaps and tabs, the flap only swashplateless

design has a higher index angle at 20◦ , and similar flap overhang of 0.33cf . The flap

chord at 0.15c is much smaller than the flap-tab combination at 0.35c.

In this case, the uncoupled blade response showed that positive flap deflection

leads to a positive lift increment along the flap span and blade nose-down pitch.

152
The stiffness of the blade root pitch spring controls the blade twist response to flap

deflection. Positive flap deflection always results in a decrease of thrust, across the

range of torsional frequency from 1.5/rev to 4.3/rev.

The key conclusions of the design study are summarized here:

1. A swashplateless derivative of a modern heavy utility (UH-60A) rotor can be

trimmed across the range of forward flight speed with tab-actuated trailing

edge flaps. Compared to controlling the rotor with trailing edge flaps only,

at high speed (µ = 0.368) with fixed shaft angles and zero hub moments, the

required tab control angles are less than half the deflections required by a flap

only system. The tab hinge moment is larger than the flap hinge moment of

an equivalent system, but it still small in absolute magnitude. The low stroke

and force required for the tab-actuated trailing edge flap concept make it a

good candidate for on-blade smart actuators.

2. The effectiveness of the trailing edge flap in inducing blade twist response is

enhanced by a low torsional frequency near 2.0/rev. The tab actuated flap

requires a combination of low torsional frequency near 2.0/rev and low aileron

frequency near 2.0/rev to effectively induce blade twist. As spring stiffness at

the blade root and flap hinge is reduced, the moment contribution outweighs

the lift contribution of the trailing edge deflection.

3. Index angle improves the feasibility of swashplateless rotors with trailing edge

controls. The pre-collective acts to reduce the blade travel required to achieve

trim, and thus reduces the deflections required from the trailing edge control.

153
4. Aerodynamic balance reduces required hinge moment for trailing edge controls.

The parameter studies suggest flap overhang of 0.30cf and similar tab overhang

of 0.30ct are beneficial. However, the hinge moment reduction resulting from

aerodynamic balance is offset by a slight increase in required control angles,

an increase in airfoil profile drag, and a decrease in airfoil lift and pitching

moment. These competing effects must be carefully considered in final design.

5. The combined chord of the flap and the tab has a significant effect on the

tab hinge moment required to trim. The increase in tab hinge moment that

results with an increase in the combined chord is much larger than the cor-

responding decrease in tab deflection. Similarly, when the combined chord is

held constant, increasing the tab chord results in a slight decrease of control

angle, but a large increase in tab hinge moment.

6. Increasing the length of the trailing edge control increases its effectiveness,

so the required control angles are reduced. The effect on hinge moment can

vary with other parameters however, and must be examined before length is

chosen.

154
Figure 3.1: Schematic of Airfoil with Flap and Tab, Showing Hinges, Deflections

and Geometry

Figure 3.2: Effect of Index Angle on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

155
Figure 3.3: Effect of Index Angle on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

Figure 3.4: Effect of Advance Ratio on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,

θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

156
Figure 3.5: Effect of Advance Ratio on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Rotor,

θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

Figure 3.6: Effect of Combined Chord on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

157
Figure 3.7: Effect of Combined Chord on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type

Rotor, µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

Figure 3.8: Effect of Radial Position on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

158
Figure 3.9: Effect of Radial Position on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

Figure 3.10: Effect of Flap Overhang on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

159
Figure 3.11: Effect of Flap Overhang on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

Figure 3.12: Effect of Tab Overhang on Tab Control Angles for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

160
Figure 3.13: Effect of Tab Overhang on Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-type Rotor,

µ = 0.35, θidx = 5◦ , CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

Figure 3.14: Comparison of Baseline and Improved Tab Control Angles for Kaman-

type Rotor, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

161
Figure 3.15: Comparison of Baseline and Improved Tab Hinge Moments for Kaman-

type Rotor, CT /σ = 0.062, Rigid Blades

162
Figure 3.16: Fan Plot of UH-60A Baseline Rotor Model

163
Figure 3.17: Fan Plot of Swashplateless Rotor Model

164
 (a) Pitch Response

(b) Pitch Derivative

Figure 3.18: Uncoupled Blade Pitch Response to TEF Input for Varying Torsional

Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦

165
 (a) Thrust Response

(b) Thrust Derivative

Figure 3.19: Uncoupled Blade Loading Response to TEF Input for Varying Torsional

Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦

166
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.20: Effect of Advance Ratio on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084

167
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.21: Effect of Index Angle on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084

168
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.22: Effect of Flap Chord on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084

169
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.23: Effect of Flap Overhang on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084

170
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.24: Effect of Flap Span on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment, UH-

60A Type Rotor, θidx = 15◦ , overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084

171
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.25: Effect of Flap Span on Flap Control Angles and Hinge Moment, UH-

60A Type Rotor, θidx = 20◦ , overhang = 0.0cf , µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084

172
 (a) Flap Control Angles

(b) Flap Hinge Moment

Figure 3.26: Effect of Advance Ratio on Improved Flap Configuration, UH-60A

Type Rotor, θidx = 20◦ , ovh = 0.33cf , CT /σ = 0.084

173
 (a) Pitch Response

(b) Pitch Derivative

Figure 3.27: Uncoupled Blade Pitch Response to Tab Input for Varying Torsional

Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Aileron Frequency = 2.15/rev

174
 (a) TEF Response

(b) TEF Derivative

Figure 3.28: Uncoupled TEF Response to Tab Input for Varying Torsional Fre-

quency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Aileron Frequency = 2.15/rev

175
 (a) Thrust Response

(b) Thrust Derivative

Figure 3.29: Uncoupled Blade Loading Response to Tab Input for Varying Torsional

Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Aileron Frequency = 2.15/rev

176
 (a) Pitch Response

(b) Pitch Derivative

Figure 3.30: Uncoupled Blade Pitch Response to Tab Input for Varying Aileron

Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Torsional Frequency = 1.9/rev

177
 (a) TEF Response

(b) TEF Derivative

Figure 3.31: Uncoupled TEF Response to Tab Input for Varying Aileron Frequency,

UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Torsional Frequency = 1.9/rev

178
 (a) Thrust Response

(b) Thrust Derivative

Figure 3.32: Uncoupled Blade Loading Response to Tab Input for Varying Aileron

Frequency, UH-60A type Rotor µ = 0.0, θidx = 15◦ , Torsional Frequency = 1.9/rev

179
 (a) Tab Control Angles

(b) Tab Hinge Moment

Figure 3.33: Effect of Index Angle on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, CT /σ = 0.084

180
 (a) Tab Control Angles

(b) Tab Hinge Moment

Figure 3.34: Effect of Tab Chord Ratio on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084

181
 (a) Tab Control Angles

(b) Tab Hinge Moment

Figure 3.35: Effect of Combined Chord Ratio on Tab Control Angles and Hinge

Moment, UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084

182
 (a) Tab Control Angles

(b) Tab Hinge Moment

Figure 3.36: Effect of Flap Overhang on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084

183
 (a) Tab Control Angles

(b) Tab Hinge Moment

Figure 3.37: Effect of Tab Overhang on Tab Control Angles and Hinge Moment,

UH-60A Type Rotor, µ = 0.368, θidx = 15◦ , CT /σ = 0.084

184
 (a) Tab Control Angles

(b) Tab Hinge Moment

Figure 3.38: Effect of Advance Ratio on Improved Trailing Edge Flap and Tab

Configuration, UH-60A Type Rotor, θidx = 18◦ , CT /σ = 0.084

185
Chapter 4

Performance Studies of Swashplateless Rotor

This chapter addresses the second central issue for the swashplateless rotor

concept, which is the effect of the trailing edge controls on the main rotor perfor-

mance. In this investigation, rotor performance is defined by rotor power and rotor

lift-to-drag ratio, and only the UH-60A rotor is examined. The rotor is examined

in hover and in forward flight, for both the baseline model and the swashplateless

variant. Detailed structural and aerodynamic information is required to accurately

assess rotor power. The structural model in the comprehensive analysis includes the

inertial contributions of the flap and the tab to the blade. However, there are several

aerodynamic models of differing fidelity. The parametric design study presented in

the previous chapter used a quasi-steady thin airfoil model that allows aerodynamic

overhang for airfoil sectional properties. The inflow distribution was calculated with

a free wake model. The model was used to examine flap and tab design parameters,

and to compare the flap and flap/tab configurations to each other. Since the model

does not include airfoil drag, power can not be predicted accurately. The perfor-

mance studies presented in this chapter use an aerodynamic model based on airfoil

lookup tables, and three different inflow calculations. As described in Chapter 2,

limited wind tunnel test data exists for flapped airfoils and even less has been pub-

lished for airfoils with flap and tab. The tables for the flapped SC1094R8 airfoil

186
sections used on the swashplateless rotor were produced with computational fluid

dynamics (CFD), and cover a range of angle of attack, Mach number and flap de-

flection. However, tables have not been produced for airfoils with flap and tab and

the performance study therefore is confined to the swashplateless rotor with trailing

edge flap, but no tab.

The performance of the swashplateless rotor is examined in hover and in for-

ward flight. In hover, the inflow is assumed to be uniform for both the baseline and

swashplateless rotors. The section on forward flight is divided into two major parts.

In the first part, the swashplateless rotor is examined in wind tunnel trim, with the

shaft angles and thrust prescribed to match the baseline rotor at each speed, and

the hub moments set to zero. The inflow distribution is calculated with both uni-

form inflow and a relaxation method [123], single tip vortex, free wake model. This

free wake model does not account for the trailing edge flap in any way. The effect

of the inflow model is examined on the power prediction and the angle of attack

distribution around the azimuth. Next, a modified free wake model is introduced

to the analysis, which includes the influence of the trailing edge flap. The results

using this model are compared to the results from the previous two inflow models.

In the second part, the swashplateless rotor is examined in vehicle trim, using the

newly refined free wake model. The effects of increasing vehicle weight and reducing

parasite drag are studied for the swashplateless rotor.

The overall purpose of this study is to compare the performance of the swash-

plateless modification to the conventional rotor in hover and across the range of

forward flight speed.

187
4.1 Baseline UH-60A Model

The UH-60A has been flight tested extensively, and data obtained from the

NASA/Army UH-60A Airloads Program are stored in the NASA Ames Research

Center database. Datta [124] separated the analysis of the helicopter into time-

varying structural and aerodynamic parts. For the structural problem, the measured

aerodynamic loads were used as input in blade dynamic analysis. Having established

the accuracy of the structural model using measured airloads, the calculated blade

deformations were then used to predict the airloads. It was shown that inaccuracies

in the airloads predictions are due to errors in the aerodynamic model, rather than

the structural model.

Yeo [127] compared flight test data to calculations of main rotor power, pitch

control angles and shaft attitude produced with CAMRAD II. The study was per-

formed for a range of gross weights, and showed good agreement with the flight test

data for the power predictions and for the longitudinal control angles (collective and

cyclic) and shaft angle (pitch attitude). In this section, the UH-60A flight test data

are compared to power calculations from UMARC. This is to establish the baseline

for comparison to the swashplateless rotor. The trim solution is for a nominal vehi-

cle weight coefficient, CW /σ, of 0.0783, which corresponds to a vehicle gross weight

of 16500 lbs. The shaft angles are free to trim for the baseline (swashplate) rotor

(see Figure 4.1). These predicted shaft angles compare well to flight test data at

speeds above µ = 0.32. Below that speed, the predicted angles follow the trend of

the test data.

188
 The prediction of required power, CQ /σ is compared to flight test data across a

range of flight speeds in Figure 4.2. The predicted results are accurate to within 2%

of measured data. Removing the free wake from the model, and using uniform inflow

only causes the power prediction to shift downward; however, the predictions with

uniform inflow follow the trend of the test data for a conventional rotor, an indication

that comparisons of predictions made with uniform inflow may yield correct trends

for the swashplateless rotor too.

The prediction of required power in hover is compared to flight test data in

Figure 4.9, for a range of thrust. Since the goal is to identify performance trends

and focus on the effect of the airfoil tables, uniform inflow is used to study the

hover performance. This ensures that differences between the swashplateless and the

baseline rotors derive entirely from the trailing edge flaps and the index angle. The

test data [128] is for a Mach scaled model of a UH-60A rotor in pure hover conditions,

with nominal tip Mach number 0.628. Figure 4.10 shows the corresponding hover

figure of merit for the UH-60A rotor. Below CT /σ = 0.06, the rotor power is slightly

over-predicted, resulting in a deviation in figure of merit of 5%. Above this thrust

level, the power prediction corresponds well to the test data.

4.1.1 Pitch Control Angles and Elastic Twist

For the swashplateless rotor, flap authority is improved by maximizing the

blade twist response to flap deflection. One of the key design requirements of this

type of rotor is low torsional frequency, which facilitates blade twist. The response

189
of the baseline rotor to reduced torsional frequency can serve as a guide to the

expected response from the swashplateless rotor. Figure 4.3 presents collective pitch

across the range of forward flight speed for the rotor at two torsional frequencies:

the baseline rotor at 4.3/rev and a variation at 2.7/rev. The torsional frequency

is varied by adjusting the pitch link stiffness; in all other respects the rotors are

identical. Reducing the torsional frequency by 40% increases the pitch collective by

a similar amount across the range of advance ratios. The pitch cyclic in Fig. 4.4

increases moderately across the range of speed, but the softer root spring results in

a maximum of 15% increase in the half peak-to-peak deflection. Although the pitch

control angles are very sensitive to the torsional frequency, Figs. 4.5 and 4.6 show

that the main rotor power and longitudinal shaft angle are less so. In response to

the 40% reduction in torsion frequency, the rotor power decreases by a maximum

of 10% at µ = 0.368, while the shaft angle is unaffected by the variation. The

elastic twist at the blade tip is presented in Fig. 4.7. The tip of the baseline rotor

varies from −1◦ twist at 30◦ azimuth to −6◦ twist at 135◦ azimuth. By reducing

the torsional frequency from 4.3/rev to 2.7/rev, the twist response increases 100%

so that the half peak-to-peak measurement of the response increases from 2.5◦ to

5◦ , and the entire twist distribution is offset to larger twist magnitudes.

The results of this study in hover are similar to those in forward flight. Figure

4.8 presents the variation in pitch collective with torsion frequency, for a range of

thrust levels. As the torsional frequency decreases, the pitch collective required

to hover increases linearly from 4.3/rev to 2.7/rev, then increases sharply as the

root spring is softened further to 2/rev. This is the operating frequency for the

190
swashplateless rotor, and the collective ranges from 20◦ at CW /σ = 0.061 to 25◦ at

CW /σ = 0.101. The collective pitch angles for the conventional rotor indicate the

index angle that will allow the swashplateless rotor to operate with minimal flap

deflections.

4.2 Swashplateless Rotor in Hover

The swashplateless rotor is trimmed to zero hub moments and the thrust level,

CT /σ, the same as the baseline rotor. The shaft angles for both the baseline and

swashplateless rotor are set to zero, with the tail rotor collective at 6◦ . The control

pitch angles are replaced with control flap angles for the swashplateless rotor. The

configuration used in this investigation is a TEF with chord of 0.15c and 0.40R span,

with the midpoint located at the 75% radial station. The flap hinge is located at

its leading edge, so that it has no aerodynamic overhang.

The hover analysis is conducted with uniform inflow, using lookup tables for

both the main blade and the trailing edge flap aerodynamics. The TEF tables were

produced with the CFD predictions for the flapped SC1095R8 airfoil for Mach num-

bers ranging from 0.3 to 0.8. The primary focus of the hover analysis is determining

the effect of index angle on the predicted power. The baseline power and Figure

of Merit (FM) for the UH-60A were shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.10. The range of

index angle for the swashplateless rotor was varied from 5◦ to 19◦ and the thrust

sweep, CT /σ, was from 0.01 to 0.09. For each index angle, the swashplateless rotor

was examined at increasing values of thrust, until blade deflection diverged and trim

191
solutions were no longer found. The maximum thrust level achieved at each index

angle decreases as the index angle decreases.

For all results in this investigation, the index angle of the swashplateless rotor

is not a degree of freedom, but is a prescribed value held constant for a range of

thrust (in hover) or speed (in forward flight). By examining the effect of torsional

frequency on the collective of the conventional rotor (see Fig. 4.8), it was shown that

required pitch collective increased with thrust, for all torsional frequencies. From

this it can be deduced that the swashplateless rotor requires lower index angles at

low thrust, and higher index at high thrust. Since the index angle is held constant for

all of the results presented in this investigation, an angle was selected to minimize

the required control angles and hinge moments at high speed, and at the weight

condition corresponding to CW /σ = 0.0783. In less demanding conditions, the ideal

index angle would decrease as the pitch collective does for the conventional rotor.

Figure 4.11 shows that the required power decreases as the index angle in-

creases from 5◦ to 15◦ . From CT /σ = 0.01 to 0.05, the power predictions for the

baseline and swashplateless rotors are very similar, for all index angles. As the

thrust increases above 0.05, differences can be seen. For 5◦ index, the predicted

power increases rapidly from CT /σ = 0.05 to 0.07, reaching a maximum at CT /σ =

0.07. Above that level of thrust, a trim solution could not be found. At 10◦ index,

the rapid increase in predicted power previously seen for the lower index angle does

not occur until the thrust reaches 0.07. At 15◦ index angle, the power prediction is

slightly lower than the baseline rotor for CT /σ = 0.05 to 0.08. Finally, the highest

index angle analyzed is 20◦ , where the power prediction dips below the conventional

192
rotor from CT /σ = 0.05 to 0.10. As the thrust continues to increase, the power for

20◦ index begins to cross the baseline prediction, following a trend similar to that

shown by the lower index angles. The curve is not fully expressed, however, as blade

deflections diverged for this configuration above CT /σ = 0.10.

Figure of merit (FM) offers another perspective on the trends of predicted

power in Figure 4.12. The curve for 5◦ index follows the baseline prediction until

CT /σ = 0.05. Above that level of thrust, the FM decreases abruptly. At higher

index angles, the FM of the swashplateless rotor exceeds that of the baseline, and

the peak value of FM and the thrust at which it occurs increase with increasing

index angle. For the 20◦ index, the most improvement in FM occurs at CT /σ =

0.08, where the swashplateless rotor shows a 14% increase in efficiency.

It had been expected that as the thrust decreases, the optimal index angle

would also decrease. This trend is discernible to a small degree, but significant

differences are not shown in Figure 4.13 as a result of the index angle at low thrust.

This result is supported by the predicted pitch collective angles for the conventional

rotor at low torsional frequency in Figure 4.8. At 2/rev, the low torsional frequency

which characterizes the swashplateless rotor, the predicted pitch collective for the

conventional rotor is above 15◦ even at low thrust.

The blade angle of attack at 0.75R increases as the index angle decreases in

Figure 4.14. As the thrust increases, the angle of attack increases more rapidly for

the swashplateless rotor than for the conventional. The flap deflections correspond-

ing to these predictions are shown in Figure 4.15. It can be seen that for every index

angle, at all thrust levels above CT /σ = 0.03, the flap angle needed to trim is neg-

193
ative (upward), and becomes more negative nearly linearly as the thrust increases.

This flap deflection produces negative lift which is counteracted by the increased

blade angle of attack.

4.3 Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, in Wind Tunnel Trim

The forward flight analysis includes equivalent flat plate area as an estimate

of the parasitic drag of the fuselage; in combination with the airfoil aerodynamics,

this results in a required thrust for a given CW /σ and flight speed. For each speed

examined in this investigation, the swashplateless and baseline rotors are trimmed

to matching thrust levels. By keeping the equivalent flat plate area the same for the

baseline and swashplateless helicopter models, a disadvantage is conferred upon the

swashplateless model, when in reality the absence of the swashplate would reduce

the parasitic drag. An attempt has not yet been made to estimate the parasitic drag

of the swashplate for this investigation.

4.3.1 Effect of Wake Model on Swashplateless Rotor Power Predic-

tion

The free wake cases for the baseline rotor are solved with a six degree of

freedom vehicle trim. All forward flight cases for the swashplateless rotor and the

conventional rotor with uniform inflow use a moment trim targeted to zero hub mo-

ments. The shaft angles are prescribed, and match those of the baseline rotor at the

same speed. The index angle of the swashplateless rotor is set to 15◦ . The aerody-

194
namic lookup tables for the trailing edge flaps contain properties for flap deflections

of 0◦ , ±10◦ and ±15◦ , generated by the CFD analysis described previously. The

lookup is based on linearly interpolated values of Mach number, angle of attack,

and TEF deflection. Extrapolation up to 4◦ beyond the available TEF data is used

in the prediction. The interpolation and extrapolation relies upon the assumption

that the values of cl , cd , cm , and ch are close to linear between the existing data

points. This appears to be an acceptable assumption for Mach number and angle

of attack where many data points spanning a broad range are available; it may not

be appropriate for the trailing edge flap at large flap deflections, where some effects

of flow separation might be expected, but not captured. Solutions are found using

both uniform inflow and the free wake. The free wake model has one vortex shed

at the tip of the blade, with peak circulation strength at each azimuth angle.

Using uniform inflow, the predicted power for the swashplateless rotor with 15◦

index follows the baseline prediction from µ = 0.11 to µ = 0.25 (see Figure 4.16).

As the advance ratio increases beyond 0.25, the swashplateless power prediction

begins to diverge from the baseline, increasing rapidly until µ = 0.30, where the

swashplateless power is 33% higher than the baseline rotor. Beyond that speed, the

trim solution diverges for the swashplateless rotor.

A similar divergence phenomenon is observed at low speed when the analysis

incorporates the free wake. Figure 4.17 shows the swashplateless power prediction

following the baseline within the range µ = 0.2 to µ = 0.30. The swashplateless

power diverges from the baseline prediction at low speed (µ = 0.15), where the 15◦

index angle requires 21% more in power. The prediction continues to increase as

195
the flight speed decreases; blade divergence occurred between µ = 0.11 and hover.

Above µ = 0.30, blade deflection diverges again. The mean flap control angles

corresponding to the predicted power are shown in Figures 4.18 and 4.19. The flap

deflections required for trim are negative for the range of flight speed.

The swashplateless power predictions are very sensitive to the inflow model;

omitting the free wake changes the required flap deflection for trim by up to 100%.

For example, at low speed, µ = 0.11, the flap deflection required for trim is -4◦ for

uniform inflow, and -8.5◦ for free wake. Looking in the middle of the range, at µ =

0.25, the TEF deflection is -6◦ for uniform inflow, and -7.5◦ for free wake. From this

it can be concluded that neglecting the free wake in analysis produces an optimistic

estimate of power and required flap deflection for a given thrust, in steady level

flight.

4.3.1.1 Blade Angle of Attack Details

To understand the differences between the baseline and swashplateless rotors,

the details of angle of attack are shown for azimuth, Mach number, and radial

station at moderate and at low speeds. The speeds selected for investigation are

µ = 0.30 and µ = 0.11, the high and low speeds at which the swashplateless and

baseline power predictions diverge.

Significant differences appear at µ = 0.30, where both inflow models are used,

and comparisons can be made between the baseline and swashplateless rotors. In

Figure 4.20, the angle of attack distribution is presented for the conventional rotor

196
at the 75% span position for two wake models. The angle of attack variation for

the swashplateless rotor shows in Figure 4.21 similar phenomena in the second and

fourth quadrants, but not the third. Wake induced effects begin to influence the

predictions at this speed, as the shaft angle moves toward the vertical ( from 7.68◦

at µ = 0.368 to 5.07◦ at µ = 0.30).

Viewing the angle of attack variation for both rotors clarifies the differences

between the baseline and swashplateless solutions. The uniform inflow predictions

are shown in Figure 4.22. The swashplateless rotor closely follows the trends of

the baseline around the azimuth, but the angle of attack increases in magnitude by

as much as 4◦ on the retreating side. Including free wake shows that the general

trends remain the same, but the difference in magnitude becomes larger (see Fig.

4.23). The third quadrant (between 180◦ and 270◦ azimuth) in particular shows the

greatest differences between the baseline and swashplateless rotors. The increase in

angle of attack occurs in response to the large negative lift contribution from the

trailing edge flap. Angle of attack and the Mach number vary at every azimuth

angle, as the blade advances and then retreats through the four quadrants of the

rotor disc. The highest Mach numbers occur on the advancing side (between 0◦

and 180◦ azimuth) where the forward speed of the blade combines with the forward

speed of the vehicle. On the retreating side, where the flow of air over the blade is

slower, the angles of attack increase. Stall becomes a concern as the angle of attack

increases, and Figures 4.24 and 4.25 show that the sectional angle of attack for the

swashplateless rotor at 0.75R approaches close to the stall boundary.

Breaking the angle of attack into its constituent components lends further

197
insight. The largest contributions to the angle of attack for the baseline rotor

are provided by the control angles and twist, then the influence of the inflow and

blade flexibility (see Fig. 4.26). Figure 4.27 shows that the largest contribution

for the swashplateless rotor is provided by elastic twist. The torsional frequency

was reduced from 4.38/rev to 1.92/rev to enable a 1/rev elastic twist as the driving

mechanism of the swashplateless primary control. However, an unintentional 2/rev

harmonic was also introduced, which may make the inflow a dominant contributor

on the retreating side, leading to stall.

The lift and drag envelope shows important differences between the baseline

and swashplateless rotors at µ = 0.30. Figure 4.28 shows the lift coefficient of the

baseline rotor ranges from -.05 to 0.2, with corresponding drag coefficients reaching

a maximum of 0.0035 in the second quadrant. The lift and drag coefficients for the

swashplateless rotor in Figure 4.29 include the effect of the trailing edge flap. The

range of the lift coefficient has been extended down to -0.09 and up to 0.21, but

the largest change is in drag coefficient, which reaches a maximum of 0.008 in the

second quadrant, an increase of over 100% from the baseline. There is significant

discontinuity seen in the second and third quadrants of the lift-drag envelope which

may be caused by the similar discontinuity seen in the angle of attack. Figures 4.30

and 4.31 show the deflection of the trailing edge flap for both inflow models. The

inclusion of the free wake decreases the range of TEF motion at the 0.75R station

by 4◦ , from 18◦ to 14◦ , but results in the introduction of roughness to the TEF

deflections that mimics the discontinuity seen in the angle of attack.

At low speed, µ = 0.11, strong vortex interaction takes place and the free wake

198
is necessary for correct prediction of the angle of attack. The shaft angle at this

speed is nearly vertical at -0.20◦ . The power prediction is affected by a large increase

in angle of attack seen by the swashplateless rotor compared to the baseline. For

uniform inflow, Figure 4.32 shows a maximum of 2◦ difference on the retreating side;

when free wake is included in Figure 4.33, the difference increases to 5◦ . The trend

of the angle of attack is similar for both the baseline and swashplateless rotors using

uniform inflow, but the free wake predictions do not correlate well. The angle of

attack envelope shows that the swashplateless prediction in Figure 4.35 is near or

exceeds the airfoil stall boundary on the retreating side. The baseline rotor is well

within the stall boundary at this section (see Figure 4.34).

When the angle of attack is separated into components in Figures 4.36 and

4.37, the difference between the baseline and swashplateless prediction is empha-

sized. As seen previously at µ = 0.30, the elastic twist is the key contribution, and

is influenced by unanticipated higher harmonics. Unlike the predictions at µ = 0.30,

the trends differ as much as the magnitude. This indicates that the uniform inflow

model can provide neither trends nor magnitude for power prediction and angle of

attack at low speed. For these cases, the prediction relies on a robust and valid free

wake model.

In Figure 4.38 the lift-drag envelope for the baseline rotor is smooth, reaching a

maximum cd of 0.005 in the second quadrant. By comparison, Figure 4.39 shows that

the swashplateless lift-drag envelope has more discontinuities, and the maximum cd

of 0.014 occurs on the retreating side where stall has occurred. Although the TEF

deflections are continuous for both inflow models, seen in Figures 4.40 and 4.41,

199
the range of motion varies greatly. Uniform inflow predicts 6◦ of total deflection,

while the free wake results in almost 19◦ of TEF deflection. The very large negative

trailing edge flap deflection on the retreating side causes a lift decrement. For

the swashplateless rotor to trim at the same thrust level as the baseline, there

is a compensating large increase in blade angle of attack. As a result, the rotor

performance is degraded.

4.3.2 Refining the Wake Model to Include Trailing Edge Flaps

The results discussed in the preceding sections use the baseline wake model

without any modification for the trailing edge flap. This means that the sectional

angles of attack do not include the effect of the flap, and the near and far wake are

calculated as they would be for an unflapped blade. A revision to the wake model is

proposed which includes the trailing edge flap in the near and far wake calculations

by assuming small interruptions to the flow at the inboard and outboard bounds of

the flap.

The trim solution for the swashplateless rotor is a three degree of freedom

solution, with targeted thrust and zero hub moments; the longitudinal and lateral

shaft angles, plus the tail rotor collective, match those of the conventional rotor at

each advance ratio. The trim solution for the conventional rotor is full vehicle trim

with six degrees of freedom. The power predicted with the TEF trailer wake model

follows the trend of the baseline rotor power prediction for the range of advance

ratio from µ = 0.11 to µ = 0.30, as shown in Fig.4.42. In Figure 4.42a, at low speed

200
transition (µ = 0.11), the predicted power for the swashplateless rotor has decreased

to 15% below the baseline rotor, using the refined wake model. As the advance ratio

increases to µ = 0.25, the swashplateless prediction approaches the baseline power.

From µ = 0.25 to µ = 0.30, the swashplateless power prediction increases to 10%

above the baseline rotor. This represents a large change from the swashplateless

power predicted by the tip vortex model, particularly in the low speed range from µ

= 0.25 to µ = 0.11. The trends of the power predictions from the two wake models

are divergent at this speed. The tip vortex model is above the baseline at µ = 0.15,

and increases sharply to µ = 0.11. In contrast, the TEF trailer model predicts power

below the baseline at µ = 0.15, and follows the trend of the baseline power prediction

to µ = 0.11. Figure 4.42b compares the swashplateless power predictions from the

refined free wake model to uniform inflow and the baseline rotor. For both inflow

models, the swashplateless power prediction follows the trend of the baseline rotor;

however, the refined free wake model predicts higher rotor power from µ = 0.10 to

0.25. To understand the differences between the free wake models, the details of

angle of attack are shown for azimuth and Mach number at low speed (µ = 0.11),

where the swashplateless predictions from the tip vortex and TEF trailer models

diverge.

At low speed, µ = 0.11, strong vortex interaction takes place and the free wake

is necessary for correct prediction of the angle of attack. The shaft angle at this

speed is nearly vertical at -0.20◦ . Figure 4.43 shows the two free wake predictions

for the swashplateless rotor and compares them to the baseline rotor. The power

prediction from the tip vortex free wake model is affected by a 5◦ increase in angle

201
of attack seen by the swashplateless rotor compared to the baseline at 0.75R. The

TEF trailer free wake model predicts no increase in maximum angle of attack at this

station and a small decrease in the power prediction. Figure 4.44 shows the angle

of attack vs. Mach number envelope for both wake models for the swashplateless

rotor. The original wake model resulted in a trim solution where the angles of attack

on the retreating side of the disk were near the stall boundary of the airfoil. The

TEF trailer model prediction has reduced the angles of attack for the swashplateless

rotor so that they remain within the static stall boundary at this section.

In Figure 4.45 the lift-drag envelope for the TEF trailer wake model is smooth

and compact, reflecting the small range of angles of attack predicted for this section.

The lift-drag envelope predicted by the tip vortex wake model has a maximum drag

coefficient that is 5 times larger than the revised wake model, which contributes

to the much larger power prediction. Although the trend of the TEF deflections

are similar for both wake models, seen in Figure 4.46, the range of motion varies

greatly. The tip vortex free wake results in more than 20◦ of TEF deflection, while

the range of TEF deflection for the revised wake model is reduced to 7◦ . The very

large negative trailing edge flap deflection predicted by the tip vortex model causes

a lift decrement. For the swashplateless rotor to trim at the same thrust level as

the baseline, there is a compensating large increase in blade angle of attack. As

a result, the rotor performance is degraded. The reduction of TEF deflection that

accompanies the TEF trailer wake model eliminates the increase in the blade angle

of attack, and thus the performance prediction improves.

202
4.4 Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, in Vehicle Trim

Having refined the wake model to reflect the probable physics of the flapped

blade, the performance predictions in forward flight are re-evaluated using full vehi-

cle (6 dof) trim for both the conventional and swashplateless rotors. For the swash-

plateless rotor, the six trim variables are: the flap collective (mean deflection), the

two flap cyclics, the shaft roll and pitch positions, and the tail rotor collective. The

effects of increasing rotor thrust and reducing fuselage drag are also examined for

the swashplateless rotor.

First, the rotor torque and shaft angles were re-calculated for the baseline

UH-60A, using the full refined wake model with the Weissinger-L near wake and

free wake. With respect to the rotor power, the primary consequence of including

the near wake model in the analysis is that the prediction improves slightly from

µ = 0.30 to µ = 0.40, and is very close to the flight test data for CW /σ = 0.0783

(See Figure 4.47). Figure 4.48 shows that the shaft angles undergo a very small

change at the lower end of the speed range.

Next, the swashplateless rotor is compared to the baseline using vehicle trim.

Figure 4.49 compares the power predictions for both rotors across the range of for-

ward flight speeds. The swashplateless power follows the baseline prediction from

µ = 0.16 to µ = 0.30 more closely than the results obtained using the 3dof trim.

Compared to the baseline, there is a moderate increase in the swashplateless power

prediction from µ = 0.25 to µ = 0.30, so that at µ = 0.30, the predicted swash-

plateless power is 11% higher than the baseline. At low speed, the swashplateless

203
power is reduced 1% from the baseline prediction at µ = 0.16. The predicted shaft

angles are also nearly identical across the speed range, until µ = 0.27, where the

swashplateless shaft angles level off (see Figure 4.50). The change in the predicted

power of the swashplateless rotor can be explained by the rotor hub moments, which

were forced to zero for the previous 3 dof targetted thrust trim solutions. Despite

the change in the trim procedure, the trend of the power prediction is not altered

from that originally seen with the refined TEF trailer wake model (in Figure 4.42).

At low speed, the swashplateless power prediction is lower than the baseline, and as

the forward flight speed increases, the prediction increases above the baseline power

calculation.

4.4.1 Effect of Increasing Rotor Thrust on Swashplateless Perfor-

mance

The flight condition is changed so that the weight coefficient is increased, and

the performance of the swashplateless rotor is compared to the baseline UH-60A

across the range of flight speed. The predictions for the baseline rotor at higher

thrust levels are validated against flight test data obtained from the NASA/Army

UH-60A Airloads Program, and previously published in a performance analysis of

the rotor [127]. The main rotor power is calculated for CW /σ = 0.0783, CW /σ =

0.0891 and CW /σ = 0.1000; these conditions are also identified in the airloads

program as flight 85, flight 84 and flight 88. They are steady level flights, and the

measure power coefficient is based on the torque of the main rotor.

204
 The predicted power for the baseline rotor is very close to the flight test data

for all three weight coefficients. At CW /σ = 0.0891, there is a small over-prediction

at low speed (0.1 ≤ µ < 0.20), as shown in Figure 4.51. Figure 4.52 shows that at

CW /σ = 0.1000, the power is slightly under-predicted at higher speeds (0.25 ≤ µ <

0.35). In general, the trend is for the main rotor power to increase smoothly with

increasing weight (Figure 4.53, while the rotor shaft angles decrease (Figure 4.54.

Trim solutions for the swashplateless rotor were obtained at two thrust levels,

CW /σ = 0.0783 and CW /σ = 0.0891. Figure 4.55 compares the swashplateless and

conventional rotor power predictions at CW /σ = 0.0891. At low speed, µ = 0.13, the

prediction for the swashplateless rotor is 2% below that of the conventional rotor.

As the forward flight speed increases, the predicted power rises with respect to the

conventional rotor until at µ = 0.26, there is a 13% increase. For the range of forward

flight speed at this thrust level, the swashplateless rotor trim position is very similar

to the conventional rotor, as shown in Figure 4.56. In the range 0.20 ≤ µ ≤ 0.26, the

swashplateless rotor shaft angle decreases slightly with respect to the conventional

rotor. At both thrust levels, CW /σ = 0.0783 and CW /σ = 0.0891, the flap control

angles for the swashplatess rotor show a steady decrease in the mean flap angle as

the advance ratio increases, and a corresponding increase in the half peak-to-peak

(hpp) angles (See Figures 4.57 and 4.58.

Figure 4.59 and Figure 4.60 compare the swashplateless power predictions at

the two different thrust levels. As the thrust increases, the predicted power curve

increases at a nearly constant offset. This differs from the conventional rotor, for

which the difference between the power curves decreases as the forward flight speed

205
increases. The predicted shaft angles for the swashplateless rotor show a similar

trend as the advance ratio increases, where the swashplateless predictions fall below

those for the conventional rotor. As the thrust increases, the flap control angles in

Figure 4.59 show a similar trend to the power curves: there is a nearly constant

offset between the curves for each thrust level. Note that as the thrust increased

from CW /σ = 0.0783 to CW /σ = 0.0891, the maximum forward flight speed for

which trim solutions were obtained decreased.

4.4.2 Effect of Fuselage Drag on Swashplateless Performance

The original UH-60A production vehicle had an equivalent flat plate area of

26 ft2 for the fuselage drag. The sixth-year production vehicle tested in the Air-

loads Program is equipped with External Stores Support System (ESSS) fairings,

accessories to the de-icing system and a wire-strike kit that increase the drag area

significantly [127]. The addition of the additional stores and systems changed the

UH-60A from a relatively “clean” drag profile to one that can better be described

as “dusty” [3] for its gross weight. For this investigation, a value of 35 ft2 has been

used throughout as an estimate of the fuselage drag for both the conventional and

swashplateless rotors.

Figure 4.62 shows the equivalent flat plate area for helicopters at a range of

gross weights, along with a typical breakdown of the sources of parasite drag. The

hub is assigned a value of 30% of the total fuselage drag; removing the swashplate

should reduce the hub drag significantly. Accordingly, for this study the swash-

206
plateless rotor is examined for the effect of reducing the drag to 90% and 80% of the

initial value. Reducing the drag by 10% or 20% simulates the removal of the swash-

plate, and may indicate a performance advantage achievable with the swashplateless

configuration.

In Figure 4.63, each 10% decrease in the parasite drag results in a 2.5% decrease

in the power prediction for the swashplateless rotor, so that the case with 80% drag

has a power prediction 5% lower than the 100% drag case. This moderate reduction

in predicted power is accompanied by a large change in the rotor shaft angle in

Figure 4.64. At µ = 0.25, the shaft angle of the 80% drag case has decreased 23%

from the position for the 100% drag case. The flap control angles are not significantly

affected by decreasing drag, as shown in Fig. 4.65. This is a consequence of the

rotor trimming at different shaft angles. If the shaft angles were held constant and

the thrust and hub moments prescribed, larger changes in flap control angles would

result.

The swashplateless rotor used throughout this performance study is nearly

identical to the UH-60A. The torsional frequency of the rotor was lowered by reduc-

ing the stiffness of the root pitch spring, and trailing edge flaps were added to the

blades. The blade airfoils, selected to maximize the performance and maneuverabil-

ity of the baseline rotor, are unchanged. It is seen that the swashplateless rotor,

operating with a different distribution of angle of attack due to the lowered torsional

frequency, uses these airfoils less efficiently. The rotor lift-to-drag ratio in Fig. 4.66

was calculated for the baseline rotor and for the swashplateless rotor at 100%, 90%

and 80% parasite drag. For the range of forward flight speed from µ = 0.1 to 0.25,

207
the lift-to-drag ratio of the swashplateless rotor is very close to the baseline rotor,

regardless of decreases in parasite drag. However the baseline rotor sees a maximum

lift-to-drag ratio near µ = 0.30, while the ratio for the swashplateless rotor declines

sharply after µ = 0.25.

4.5 Concluding Remarks

The predictions of main rotor power and rotor lift-to-drag ratio are dependent

on the accuracy of aerodynamic model of the comprehensive analysis. For the cur-

rent work, the aerodynamic model was refined to include the effect of the trailing

edge flap through airfoil table lookup and through the wake model. Tabs and aero-

dynamic balance were not included in this section of the current work because the

difficulty and expense of producing either wind tunnel test data or thorough CFD

simulation of these features for airfoil lookup tables is disproportionate to the scope

of the investigation. The swashplateless rotor used in every performance study is a

variant of the UH-60A, where the torsional frequency has been reduced from 4.3/rev

to 2.0/rev by reducing the stiffness of the root pitch spring. The trailing edge flap

on each blade is 0.15c in size, has no aerodynamic balance and spans 0.40 of the

blade radius. This flap configuration was selected to facilitate actuator performance

through the minimization of flap deflection and hinge moment. The purpose of the

current study is to assess the impact of this configuration on rotor performance, and

the focus is not on modifying the swashplateless rotor to improve performance.

208
4.5.1 Validation of Baseline Rotor

The power predictions of the comprehensive analysis were validated with flight

test data from the UH-60A Airloads Program. The rotor power predictions for the

baseline rotor model in vehicle trim showed very good correlation to test data in

forward flight and in hover, for a range of vehicle thrust levels. The shaft angles pre-

dicted in forward flight show good agreement at advance ratios above µ = 0.3, and

fair agreement at slower speeds. The effect of the inflow distribution was demon-

strated for the baseline rotor in forward flight; the two models used were uniform

inflow and free wake with a single tip vortex. Since torsional frequency was iden-

tified as a key design parameter for swashplateless rotors, its effect on the baseline

(swashplate) UH-60A rotor was examined.

4.5.2 Hover Performance of Swashplateless Rotor

This section of the performance study was conducted in wind tunnel trim

with targeted thrust and zero first blade flap harmonics; the inflow distribution was

uniform. For varying index angle, swashplateless rotor power, figure of merit, and

angle of attack at the 0.75R radial station were compared to the baseline values

across a range of thrust. The effect of index angle on trailing edge flap deflection

was also shown for the swashplateless rotor.

209
4.5.3 Forward Flight Performance of Swashplateless Rotor

The swashplateless UH-60A was examined in forward flight using both isolated

rotor and vehicle trim conditions. In the first case, isolated rotor trim was used to

study the effect of the wake model on the power prediction. The targets of the trim

solution were thrust and zero hub moments, and the rotor shaft angles were set to

match those of the baseline rotor at the same speed in free flight. The wake models

used were uniform inflow and a free wake model with a single tip vortex; these

produce swashplateless rotor power predictions with very different magnitudes and

trends across the range of forward flight speed. The free wake model was revised to

include the effect of the trailing edge flap in both the near and far wake. The theory

underlying the revision is that the flap deflection disrupts the flow at the trailing

edge. Trailed vortices were added at the inboard and outboard ends of the flap to

model the disruption. Results from the modified free wake model were compared to

the two previous swashplateless rotor power predictions, and to the baseline rotor.

The torsional softness at the blade root of the swashplateless rotor allows the

blade to easily twist in response to load. The result of this characteristic is that

the swashplateless rotor generally operates with a different distribution of angle of

attack than the conventional rotor. The 0.75R station of the blade was examined in

detail at µ = 0.30 and at µ = 0.11, for the sectional angle of attack distribution, the

lift-drag envelope and flap deflection. This information showed that at that radial

station, the swashplateless rotor operates at a higher angle of attack compared to

the baseline rotor; offsetting the increase in angle of attack is the large negative lift

210
contribution of the deflected trailing edge flap. For the nonlinear inflow distribution

calculated by the free wake model, the angles of attack are close to or exceed the

airfoil static stall boundary. The lift-drag envelope is large compared to the baseline

rotor. The flap cyclic deflections are also large, both absolutely and relative to the

deflections predicted by uniform inflow.

Finally, the swashplateless and baseline rotors were examined in free flight.

The power predictions for the baseline rotor showed good correlation to the flight test

data for a range of vehicle weights. For two vehicle weights, the swashplateless rotor

was trimmed across the range of forward flight speed and compared to the baseline

rotor. The trend of the swashplateless power prediction remains the same regardless

of vehicle weight: at the low end of the speed range, the swashplateless rotor is

predicted to require less power than the baseline rotor, and at the high end the

requirement increases over baseline. The flap angles required to trim the rotor are

moderately large. The range of forward flight speed over which the swashplateless

rotor could be trimmed is limited. The comparison to the baseline rotor was repeated

for several increments of parasite drag. The parasite drag used in the analysis is

reduced by increments of 10%, to simulate the drag reduction that might be caused

by the switch to a swashplateless configuration. In response, the rotor shaft angles

experience a large decrease with each reduction in parasite drag, while the decreases

to rotor power are small to moderate. The rotor lift-to-drag ratio was calculated for

each level of parasite drag, and compared to the baseline rotor.

The following conclusions are drawn from the performance study:

211
1. Examination of the conventional (swashplate) UH-60A showed that rotor tor-

sional frequency has a significant effect on blade elastic twist response and thus

on the pitch trim angles at given thrust and forward flight speed. Reducing

the torsional frequency by 40% leads to a large change in trim requirements,

and a small to moderate decrease in the rotor power calculation; the predicted

rotor shaft angles are unchanged. The decrease in rotor power predicted for

the conventional rotor with torsional frequency between 2/rev and 3/rev is

similar to the power reduction measured and predicted in other investigations

of higher harmonic control (HHC) for rotors. The collective pitch required to

trim the rotor when the torsional frequency is reduced offers an estimate of a

suitable pitch index angle for a swashplateless rotor at a similarly low torsional

frequency.

2. Index angle and torsional frequency are key design parameters for the swash-

plateless rotor: they act together to reduce the flap deflections required to

trim the rotor, and produce a different blade twist distribution compared to

the baseline (swashplate) rotor. Trailing edge flap deflections in combination

with blade twisting redistribute lift and drag about the rotor disk to produce

changes to rotor power across the range of forward flight speed.

The TEF deflections required for trim increase with thrust in hover and with

speed in forward flight, but can be reduced by increasing the index angle.

In this study, using the flap aerodynamic lookup tables produced by CFD

analysis, 15◦ was the highest index angle that produced trim solutions across

212
 the range of flight speeds. The maximum index angle that can be used in this

investigation was limited by blade deflection divergence; it is not clear whether

this phenomenon is numerical or physical.

3. In hover, the swashplateless rotor requires less power than the conventional

rotor, for a limited range of thrust at each index angle. A high index angle

produces an increase in figure of merit (FM) compared to the baseline, at some

thrust levels. Beyond the thrust level at which the maximum FM is produced,

the predicted power increases rapidly compared to the baseline rotor and the

figure of merit drops. This appears to limit the upper range of thrust at which

the swashplateless rotor operates efficiently in hover.

4. The wake model used to analyze the swashplateless rotor has a significant

effect on the prediction of rotor power in forward flight. A uniform inflow

model produces a predicted power curve that follows the trend of the baseline

(swashplate) rotor. This model might be sufficient for relative comparisons

between rotors. A refined free wake model that accounts for the trailed vor-

ticity from the trailing edge flap produces rotor power predictions that also

follow the trend of the baseline rotor. The refined model indicates that the

swashplateless rotor may require less power than the baseline at low speed,

and more at high speed. This conclusion depends on the rotor models having

identical configurations (and parasitic drag), except for torsional frequency

and trailing edge flaps.

5. The flap deflections required to trim the swashplateless rotor in forward flight

213
 vary with the inflow model used in the comprehensive analysis. Using 3 degree

of freedom rotor trim and a target thrust level of cT /σ = 0.0783, the three

inflow models used required the following flap deflections to trim:

• Uniform inflow resulted in mean flap deflections of −4◦ to −10◦ , and half

peak-to-peak cyclic deflections of 3◦ to 11.5◦ .

• The free wake model with a single tip vortex resulted in mean flap de-

flections of −6◦ to −9◦ , and half peak-to-peak cyclic deflections of 7.5◦

to 11.5◦ .

• The modified free wake model with trailers at the flap boundaries resulted

in mean flap deflections of −3◦ to −6.5◦ , and half peak-to-peak cyclic

deflections of 3◦ to 8◦ .

6. Solutions can be calculated for the swashplateless rotor in full vehicle trim

across the range of forward flight speed. Trim solutions obtained for the rotor

using the modified wake model result in power predictions that closely follow

the power prediction of the baseline rotor. At low speed, µ = 0.16, the swash-

plateless prediction is 1% lower than the baseline. The difference between

the predictions increases slowly until at µ = 0.30, the swashplateless power is

11% higher than the baseline. The predicted rotor shaft angles for the swash-

plateless rotor show good agreement with the predictions for the baseline rotor

across the range of forward flight speed until µ = 0.30. The mean trailing edge

flap deflections range from −3◦ to −9◦ . The half peak-to-peak flap deflections

range from 4◦ to 11◦ .

214
7. The swashplateless UH-60A rotor can be trimmed at a higher weight level,

CW /σ = 0.0891. The increase in predicted rotor power is similar to the trend

seen for the baseline, but the maximum speed at which a solution could be

obtained is reduced to µ = 0.26. The flap control angles increase with the

increased thrust, but follow the same trend as the solutions found for CW /σ =

0.0783. Trim solutions could not be obtained for vehicle weights higher than

CW /σ = 0.0891.

8. Except where noted explicitly, the equivalent flat plate area is held constant

in comparisons between the baseline and swashplateless rotors for most of this

investigation. Accordingly, the power predictions shown for the swashplateless

rotor are conservative. When the parasitic drag was reduced 20% from the

baseline, the swashplateless power prediction decreased 5%, with a concurrent

decrease of the rotor shaft angle of 23%.

9. The rotor lift-to-drag ratio was calculated for the swashplateless rotor at dif-

ferent increments of parasitic drag, and compared to the baseline rotor (with

unchanged parasitic drag). For all increments of parasite drag, the maximum

lift-to-drag ratio of the swashplateless rotor occurs at or below µ = 0.26. This

is in contrast to the baseline rotor, where the maximum lift-to-drag ratio oc-

curs near µ = 0.35. Up to µ = 0.26, the swashplateless ratio follows the

baseline rotor closely, then decreases rapidly. Beyond µ = 0.30, trim solutions

are difficult to obtain for the swashplateless rotor. These results indicate that

at higher advance ratios, the swashplateless UH-60A operates less efficiently

215
than the baseline rotor.

216
Figure 4.1: Predicted and Measured Shaft Angles for UH-60A in Forward Flight,

CW /σ = 0.0783 (FW: free wake)

Figure 4.2: Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.0783 (FW: free wake, Uniform: uniform inflow)

217
Figure 4.3: Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Pitch Collective for Rotor in

Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783

218
Figure 4.4: Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Half Peak-to-Peak Pitch Cyclic

for Rotor in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783

219
Figure 4.5: Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Predicted Power for Rotor in

Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783

220
Figure 4.6: Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Predicted Shaft Angles for

Baseline in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783

221
Figure 4.7: Effect of Reduced Torsional Frequency on Blade Tip Elastic Twist

Distribution for Rotor in Forward Flight, µ = 0.368, CW /σ = 0.0783

222
Figure 4.8: Variation of Pitch Collective with Torsional Frequency for a Range of

Thrust in Hover

223
Figure 4.9: Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Hover, Uniform Inflow

Figure 4.10: Predicted and Measured Figure of Merit for UH-60A in Hover, Uniform

Inflow

224
Figure 4.11: Effect of Index Angle (idx) on Predicted Power, in Hover

225
 Figure 4.12: Effect of Index Angle on Figure of Merit

Figure 4.13: Effect of Index Angle on Figure of Merit at Low Thrust

226
Figure 4.14: Effect of Index Angle on Blade Angle of Attack at 75%R, in Hover

Figure 4.15: Effect of Index Angle on Required TEF Deflection, in Hover

227
Figure 4.16: Predicted Power in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Uniform Inflow

Figure 4.17: Predicted Power in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Free Wake

228
Figure 4.18: Mean Flap Control Angles in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Uniform

Inflow

Figure 4.19: Mean Flap Control Angles in Forward Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783, Free

Wake

229
Figure 4.20: Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline Rotor, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R

230
Figure 4.21: Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Swashplateless, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R

231
Figure 4.22: Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors, Uni-

form Inflow, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R

Figure 4.23: Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors, Free

Wake, for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R

232
Figure 4.24: Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =

0.30 at 0.75R

Figure 4.25: Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake,

for µ = 0.30 at 0.75R

233
Figure 4.26: Angle of Attack Components, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.30

at 0.75R

234
Figure 4.27: Angle of Attack Components, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ

= 0.30 at 0.75R

235
Figure 4.28: Lift and Drag Envelope, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.30 at

0.75R

Figure 4.29: Lift and Drag Envelope, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.30

at 0.75R

236
Figure 4.30: TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Uniform Inflow, for µ

= 0.30 at 0.75R

Figure 4.31: TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =

0.30 at 0.75R

237
Figure 4.32: Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors, Uni-

form Inflow, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

238
Figure 4.33: Angle of Attack vs Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors, Free

Wake, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

239
Figure 4.34: Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =

0.11 at 0.75R

240
Figure 4.35: Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake,

for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

241
Figure 4.36: Angle of Attack Components, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.11

at 0.75R

242
Figure 4.37: Angle of Attack Components, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ

= 0.11 at 0.75R

243
Figure 4.38: Lift and Drag Envelope, Baseline Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.11 at

0.75R

Figure 4.39: Lift and Drag Envelope, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ = 0.11

at 0.75R

244
Figure 4.40: TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Uniform Inflow, for µ

= 0.11 at 0.75R

Figure 4.41: TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Free Wake, for µ =

0.11 at 0.75R

245
 (a) TEF Trailers Compared to Tip Vortex Model

(b) TEF Trailers Compared to Uniform Inflow

Figure 4.42: Effect of Free Wake Model on Predicted Power in Forward Flight,

CW /σ = 0.0783

246
Figure 4.43: Angle of Attack vs. Azimuth, Baseline and Swashplateless Rotors, Tip

Vortex and TEF Trailer Wake Models, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

Figure 4.44: Angle of Attack vs Mach Number, Swashplateless Rotor, TEF Trailer

Wake Model, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

247
Figure 4.45: Lift and Drag Envelope, Swashplateless Rotor, TEF Trailer Wake

Model, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

Figure 4.46: TEF vs. Angle of Attack, Swashplateless Rotor, Tip Vortex and TEF

Trailer Wake Models, for µ = 0.11 at 0.75R

248
Figure 4.47: Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.0783, W-L Near Wake and Free Wake

Figure 4.48: Predicted and Measured Rotor Shaft Angles for UH-60A in Forward

Flight, CW /σ = 0.0783

249
Figure 4.49: Predicted Power of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783

Figure 4.50: Predicted Shaft Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783

250
Figure 4.51: Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.0891, W-L Near Wake and Free Wake

Figure 4.52: Predicted and Measured Power for UH-60A in Forward Flight, CW /σ =

0.1000, W-L Near Wake and Free Wake

251
Figure 4.53: Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Power for UH-60A in Forward

Flight. (Flt 85: CW /σ = 0.0783; Flt 84: CW /σ = 0.0891; Flt 88: CW /σ = 0.1000)

252
Figure 4.54: Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Rotor Shaft Angles for UH-

60A in Forward Flight. (Flt 85: CW /σ = 0.0783; Flt 84: CW /σ = 0.0891; Flt 88:

CW /σ = 0.1000)

253
Figure 4.55: Predicted Power of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0891

Figure 4.56: Predicted Shaft Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0891

254
Figure 4.57: Flap Control Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0783

255
Figure 4.58: Flap Control Angles of Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF

Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ = 0.0891

Figure 4.59: Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Power of Swashplateless Rotor

in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim

256
Figure 4.60: Effect of Increasing Thrust on Predicted Shaft Angles of Swashplateless

Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim

Figure 4.61: Effect of Increasing Thrust on Flap Control Angles of Swashplateless

Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim

257
Figure 4.62: Distribution of Parasite Drag (Ref. [3])

258
Figure 4.63: Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Predicted Power of Swashplate-

less Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ =

0.0783

259
Figure 4.64: Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Predicted Shaft Angles of

Swashplateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim,

CW /σ = 0.0783

260
Figure 4.65: Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Flap Control Angles of Swash-

plateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ =

0.0783

261
Figure 4.66: Effect of Decreasing Parasite Drag on Lift-to-Drag Ratio of Swash-

plateless Rotor in Forward Flight, TEF Trailer Wake Model, Vehicle Trim, CW /σ =

0.0783

262
Chapter 5

Conclusions

The summary and the key conclusions of this investigation are presented in

this chapter. This investigation addressed the analysis, design and performance

evaluation of swashplateless rotors controlled with trailing edge flaps and tabs. The

objective was to understand the fundamental responses of such a rotor, and develop

an analytical method that can accurately represent them.

Two rotors were used in the course of the investigation. A conceptual rotor

based on the work of the Kaman Aerospace Group was used with an initial, linear

analysis using rigid blades to establish basic behavior of the swashplateless rotor

system with trailing edge flaps and tabs. The conceptual rotor was characterized by

moderate, linear twist of −10◦ , a rectangular planform and very low blade torsional

stiffness which facilitates blade elastic twist in response to the aerodynamic pitching

moments generated by the deflections of the trailing edge flap and tab. The UH-60A

Black Hawk rotor was used to validate the predictions of a refined comprehensive

analysis and as a testbed for the design and evaluation of swashplateless primary

control. The UH-60A is a modern, mission optimized rotor, characterized by nonlin-

ear blade twist of −16◦ , tip sweep and sectional center of gravity offsets. The elastic

blade deformations of the baseline rotor are large, and there are nonlinear couplings

between the flap, lag and torsion modes. These two rotors represent the opposite

263
extremes that can be considered in the design of the swashplateless primary control

concept: the one a new rotor that could be design optimized for trailing edge flap

control, and the other an existing production rotor that could be retro-fitted with

a new control system.

This investigation was conducted in two major parts. In the first section, trail-

ing edge flap and tab control systems were designed for the rotors using parametric

studies. The linear, rigid blade analysis was developed with four degrees of freedom:

blade flap, blade pitch, flap deflection and tab deflection; the inflow distribution was

uniform. The comprehensive analysis was refined to include the contributions of the

flap and the tab in both the structural and aerodynamic models; the inflow distri-

bution was calculated with a free wake model. For both analyses, the aerodynamic

model was based on quasi-steady thin airfoil theory. The baseline test condition for

both rotors was steady level flight at high advance ratio (µ ≥ 0.35) and at constant

blade loading, ct /σ. Each flap configuration parameter was varied across a range

of values, while the others were held constant, and the sensitivity of the system to

the parameter was established. The results of the parameter studies were used to

produce flap-tab designs which minimized both control angles and hinge moments.

This minimization is key for on-blade smart actuators, which deliver limited stroke

and force, but have the light weight, compact size, and high bandwidth necessary

for the practical implementation of swashplateless primary control. The second sec-

tion focused on the evaluation of the swashplateless rotor derived from the UH-60A.

Flight test data from the UH-60A Airloads Program were used to validate the per-

formance predictions of the comprehensive analysis. The aerodynamic model was

264
further refined to include airfoil table lookup for flapped airfoils and the effect of

the trailing edge flaps in the near and far wake. The swashplateless rotor power

and rotor lift-to-drag ratio predictions from the comprehensive analysis were com-

pared to the baseline rotor in hover and in forward flight for several levels of thrust

and parasitic drag. These performance metrics provide necessary information to

compare the swashplateless primary control concept to existing rotors.

5.1 Key Conclusions

Detailed discussion of the conclusions for each section of this investigation

are at the end of each chapter. The principal conclusions of the entire work are

summarized here:

1. A swashplateless derivative of a modern heavy utility (UH-60A) rotor can be

trimmed across the range of forward flight speed with tab-actuated trailing

edge flaps. Compared to controlling the rotor with trailing edge flaps only,

at high speed (µ = 0.368) with fixed shaft angles and zero hub moments, the

required tab control angles are less than half the deflections required by a flap

only system. The tab hinge moment is larger than the flap hinge moment of

an equivalent system, but it still small in absolute magnitude. The low stroke

and force required for the tab-actuated trailing edge flap concept make it a

good candidate for on-blade smart actuators.

2. Index angle and torsional frequency are key design parameters for the swash-

plateless rotor: they act together to reduce the flap deflections required to

265
 trim the rotor, and produce a different blade twist distribution compared to

the baseline (swashplate) rotor. Trailing edge flap deflections in combination

with blade twisting redistribute lift and drag about the rotor disk to produce

changes to rotor power across the range of forward flight speed.

The TEF deflections required for trim increase with thrust in hover and with

speed in forward flight, but can be reduced by increasing the index angle.

In this study, using the flap aerodynamic lookup tables produced by CFD

analysis, 15◦ was the highest index angle that produced trim solutions across

the range of flight speeds. The maximum index angle that can be used in this

investigation was limited by blade deflection divergence; it is not clear whether

this phenomenon is numerical or physical.

3. In hover, the swashplateless rotor requires less power than the conventional

rotor, for a limited range of thrust at each index angle. A high index angle

produces an increase in figure of merit (FM) compared to the baseline, at some

thrust levels. Beyond the thrust level at which the maximum FM is produced,

the predicted power increases rapidly compared to the baseline rotor and the

figure of merit drops. This appears to limit the upper range of thrust at which

the swashplateless rotor operates efficiently in hover.

4. The wake model used to analyze the swashplateless rotor has a significant

effect on the prediction of rotor power in forward flight. A uniform inflow

model produces a predicted power curve that follows the trend of the baseline

(swashplate) rotor. This model might be sufficient for relative comparisons

266
 between rotors. A refined free wake model that accounts for the trailed vor-

ticity from the trailing edge flap produces rotor power predictions that also

follow the trend of the baseline rotor. The refined model indicates that the

swashplateless rotor may require less power than the baseline at low speed,

and more at high speed. This conclusion depends on the rotor models having

identical configurations (and parasitic drag), except for torsional frequency

and trailing edge flaps.

5. Except where noted explicitly, the equivalent flat plate area is held constant

in comparisons between the baseline and swashplateless rotors for most of this

investigation. Accordingly, the power predictions shown for the swashplateless

rotor are conservative. When the parasitic drag was reduced 20% from the

baseline, the swashplateless power prediction decreased 5%, with a concurrent

decrease of the rotor shaft angle of 23%.

6. The rotor lift-to-drag ratio was calculated for the swashplateless rotor at dif-

ferent increments of parasitic drag, and compared to the baseline rotor (with

unchanged parasitic drag). For all increments of parasite drag, the maximum

lift-to-drag ratio of the swashplateless rotor occurs at or below µ = 0.26. This

is in contrast to the baseline rotor, where the maximum lift-to-drag ratio oc-

curs near µ = 0.35. Up to µ = 0.26, the swashplateless ratio follows the

baseline rotor closely, then decreases rapidly. Beyond µ = 0.30, trim solutions

are difficult to obtain for the swashplateless rotor. These results indicate that

at higher advance ratios, the swashplateless UH-60A operates less efficiently

267
 than the baseline rotor.

5.2 Future Work

The following suggestions are made for future research of swashplateless rotors

with trailing edge flaps. In the current investigation, it has been shown that adding

actuated tabs to trailing edge flaps for primary control results in smaller trim control

angles and hinge moments than flaps alone. The performance of the trailing edge flap

controlled rotor has been studied and compared to a baseline rotor with a swashplate.

Two parts of the aerodynamic analysis are key to the accurate prediction of trim

requirements and rotor performance: sectional properties and inflow distribution.

Additional research to improve the model and to advance the design and analysis

of swashplateless rotors is suggested below.

1. Experimental data are required to validate the prediction of trim requirements

and rotor power for the swashplateless rotor in hover and in forward flight.

Sectional aerodynamic data for airfoils with flaps and/or tabs remains limited.

Computational fluid dynamics can be used to produce properties for different

flap and tab configurations with aerodynamic balance and hinge gaps. Both

static and dynamic flap/tab deflections, at ±15◦ , for a wide range of angles of

attack and Mach numbers, are required to validate and improve the aerody-

namic model.

Investigation of the effect of trailing edge flaps on the rotor wake is required to

confirm the correct inflow model for comprehensive analysis. Flow visualiza-

268
 tion can be used to identify the generation and evolution of the vortices trailed

at the flap boundaries and at the blade tip. Wake measurements are needed

to confirm the strengths of the vortices and how the tip vortex is modified by

the deflecting flap.

Wind tunnel tests of a rotor with and without flaps can be used to study the

effect of torsional frequency on rotor power (for flapped and unflapped rotors),

and on trailing edge flap effectiveness.

2. Steady level flight has been assumed throughout this investigation. More

demanding conditions, such as maneuvering and autorotation, must be studied

for proper design of swashplateless rotors controlled with trailing edge flaps.

3. The index angle, or pre-collective, of the blade was identified as a key design

parameter that minimizes the flap angles required to trim the rotor. How-

ever, the index angle chosen by a parameter study at high advance ratio is

not optimum at all speeds. To improve the design and performance of the

swashplateless rotor, variable indexing should be included in the analysis, so

that the optimum index angle is identified for each flight condition.

4. Airfoil selection is an important aspect of rotor performance. In the present

investigation, flaps and tabs were added to the SC1094R8 airfoil, which was

selected for the UH-60A rotor in response to particular performance crite-

ria. The resulting lift-to-drag ratio for the swashplateless variant of the rotor

followed the baseline up to moderate advance ratio (µ = 0.25). A thorough in-

vestigation of airfoils suited for the operating conditions of the swashplateless

269
 rotor is required to determine if the rotor lift-to-drag ratio can be improved

at faster forward flight speeds.

5. The major advantage of the swashplateless control system lies in the potential

for simultaneous primary control, vibration reduction, noise suppression and

performance enhancement. Multiple flaps per blade and flexible flaps should

be implemented in the comprehensive analysis to facilitate investigations of

multi-use flaps. In addition, this modification would allow other concepts

such as deformable trailing edges to be examined.

270
 Bibliography
[1] M. Ames and R. Sears. Wind tunnel investigation of two airfoils with 25-
percent-chord gwinn and plain flaps. Technical Report TN 763, NACA, 1940.

[2] A. Hassan, F. Straub, and K. Noonan. Experimental/numerical evaluation

of integral trailing edge flaps for helicopter rotor applications. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society, 50(1):3–17, January 2005.

[3] R.M. Carlson. Helicopter performance - transportation’s latest chromosome:

The 21st annual Alexander A. Nikolsky lecture. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 47(1):3–17, January 2002.

[4] A. Datta, M. Nixon, and I. Chopra. Review of rotor loads prediction

with the emergence of rotorcraft CFD. Journal of the American Heli-
copter Society, 52(4):287–317, 2007. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.52.287. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/52/287/1.

[5] J. Hobbs. Bristol Helicopters: A Tribute to Raoul Hafner. Frenchay Publica-

tions, Bristol, UK, 1 edition, 1984.

[6] W. Johnson. Helicopter Theory. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1994.

[7] J.G. Leishman. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK, 1 edition, 2000.

[8] A.Z. Lemnios and R. Jones. The servo-flap - an advanced rotor control system.
In Proceedings of AHS and NASA Ames Research Center Vertical Lift Aircraft
Design Conference, San Francisco, January 1990. AHS.

[9] F.S. Wei and F. Gallagher. Servo-flap rotor performance flight testing and data
identification. In American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum Proceedings
AHS [129].

[10] B. Rocconella and F.S. Wei. Wind tunnel model testing of the improved K-
MAX servo-flap blade section. In American Helicopter Society 57th Annual
Forum Proceedings AHS [129].

[11] F.S. Wei. Design of soft torsion rotor systems at Kaman Aerospace Corpo-
ration. In American Helicopter Society 58th Annual Forum Proceedings AHS
[130].

[12] R.P. Pescara. Screw propeller of helicopter flying machines. U.S. Patent Office,
March 1923. Patent No. 1,449,129.

[13] C. d’Ascanio. Helicopter. U.S. Patent Office, May 1934. Patent No. 1,960,141.

[14] C.H. Kaman. Aircraft of rotary wing type. U.S. Patent Office, May 1948.
Patent No. 2,455,866.

271
[15] A.Z. Lemnios and A.F. Smith. An analytical evaluation of the controllable
twist rotor performnce and dynamic behavior. Technical Report TR 72-16,
USAAMRDL, May 1972.

[16] A.Z. Lemnios and F.K. Dunn. Theoretical study of multicyclic control of a
controllable twist rotor. Technical Report NASA-CR-151959, NASA, May
1976.

[17] J.L McCloud. An analytical study of a multicyclic controllable twist rotor. In

American Helicopter Society 31st Annual National Forum, Washington, D.C.,
May 1975. AHS.

[18] J.L McCloud and A.L. Weisbrich. Wind-tunnel test results of a full-scale mul-
ticyclic controllable twist rotor. In American Helicopter Society 34th Annual
National Forum, Washington, D.C., May 1978. AHS.

[19] F.-S. Wei and A.L. Weisbrich. Multicyclic controllable twist rotor data anal-
ysis. Technical Report NASA-CR-152251, NASA, 1979.

[20] F.-S. Wei and R. Jones. Correlation and analysis for sh-2f 101 rotor. Journal
of Aircraft, 25(7):647–652, July 1988.

[21] F.-S. Wei. Advanced servo flap rotor using variable blade index angle control.
In 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, pages 876–884, Kissimmee, FL, April 1997. AIAA.

[22] F.-S. Wei, J.P. Basile, and R. Jones. Vibration reduction on servo flap con-
trolled rotor using HHC. In American Helicopter Society National Specialists’
Meeting on Rotorcraft Dynamics, Arlington, TX, November 1989. AHS.

[23] F.-S. Wei. Active trailing edge tab control for helicopter rotor vibration re-
duction. In AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, April
1996. AIAA.

[24] T. Ning, F.-S. Wei, and A. Suen. Servo-flap rotor design parameters indenti-
fication via spectral analysis of flight data. In 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2008. AIAA.

[25] F.S. Wei. Design of an integrated servo-flap main rotor. In American Heli-
copter Society 59th Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [131].

[26] P.R. Payne. Higher harmonic rotor control: The possibilities of third and
higher harmonic feathering for delaying the stall limit in helicopters. Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 30(8):222–226, 1958.

[27] P.J. Arcidiacono. Theoretical performance of helicopters having sec-

ond and higher harmonic feathering control. Journal of the Ameri-
can Helicopter Society, 6(2):8–19, 1961. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.6.8. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/6/8/1.

272
[28] J. Shaw and N. Albion. Active control of the helicopter rotor for vibration
reduction. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 26(3):32–39, July 1981.

[29] J. Shaw, N. Albion, E. Hanker, and R. Teal. Higher harmonic control: Wind
tunnel demonstration of fully effective vibratory hub force suppression. In
American Helicopter Society 41st Annual Forum Proceedings, Fort Worth, TX,
May 1985. AHS.

[30] K. Nguyen and I. Chopra. Application of higher harmonic control to rotors op-
erating at high speed and thrust. Journal of the American Helicopter Society,
35(3):78–89, July 1990.

[31] K. Nguyen. Active control of helicopter blade stall. Journal of Aircraft, 35

(1):91–98, January-February 1998.

[32] K. Nguyen. Active suppression of stall on helicopter rotors. In 25th European

Rotorcraft Forum, Rome, Italy, 1999. ERF.

[33] W. R. Splettstoesser, R. Kube, W. Wagner, U. Seelhorst, A. Boutier,

F. Micheli, E. Mercker, and K. Pengel. Key results from a higher har-
monic control aeroacoustic rotor test (HART). Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 42(1):58–78, 1997. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.42.58. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/42/58/1.

[34] R. Kube, W. Splettstoesser, W. Wagner, U. Seelhorst, Y. Yu, C. Tung,

P. Beaumier, J. Prieur, G. Rahier, P. Spiegel, A. Boutier, T. Brooks, C. Bur-
ley, D. Boyd, E. Mercker, and K. Pengel. Hhc aeroacoustic rotor tests in
the german dutch wind tunnel: Improving physical understanding and predic-
tion codes. In American Helicopter Society 52nd Annual Forum Proceedings,
Washington, D.C., June 1996. AHS.

[35] Y. Yu, C. Tung, B. van der Wall, H. Pausder, C. Burley, T. Brooks, P. Beau-
mier, Y. Delrieux, and E. Mercker. The HART-II test: Rotor wakes and
aeroacoustics with higher-harmonic pitch control (hhc) inputs - the joint ger-
man/french/dutch/us project. In American Helicopter Society 58th Annual
Forum Proceedings AHS [130].

[36] B. Van der Wall, C. Burley, Y. Yu, H. Richard, K. Pengel, and P. Beaumier.
The HART II test - measurement of helicopter rotor wakes. Aerospace Science
and Technology, 8(4):273–284, June 2004.

[37] R.P. Cheng, C.R. Theodore, and R. Celi. Effects of two/rev higher
harmonic control on rotor performance. Journal of the American He-
licopter Society, 48(1):18–27, 2003. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.48.18. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/48/18/1.

[38] R. Cheng and R. Celi. Optimum two-per-revolution inputs for improved rotor
performance. Journal of Aircraft, 42(6):1409–1417, November-December 2005.

273
[39] D. Wachspress, T. Quackenbush, and C. Solomon. On minimum induced
power of the helicopter rotor. In American Helicopter Society 61st Annual
Forum Proceedings AHS [132].

[40] K.F. Guinn. Individual blade control independent of a swashplate. Journal of

the American Helicopter Society, 27(3):25–31, 1982. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.27.25.
URL http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/27/25/1.

[41] N.D. Ham. Helicopter individual-blade-control and its applications. In Amer-

ican Helicopter Society 39th Annual Forum Proceedings, St. Louis, MO, May
1983.

[42] I. Chopra. Status of application of smart structures technology to rotorcraft

systems. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 45(4):228–252, 2000. doi:
10.4050/JAHS.45.228. URL http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/45/228/1.

[43] N.D. Ham. Helicopter individual-blade-control research at MIT 1977-1985.

Vertica, 11(1):109–122, 1987.

[44] D. Teves, V. Kloppel, and P. Richter. Development of active control technology

in the rotating system, flight testing and theoretical investigations. In 18th
European Rotorcraft Forum, Avignon, France, September 1992.

[45] P. Richter and T. Schreiber. Theoretical investigations and windtunnel tests

with HHC-IBC. In 20th European Rotorcraft Forum, Amsterdam, Nether-
lands, October 1994.

[46] D. Roth. Advanced vibration reduction by ibc technology. In 30th European

Rotorcraft Forum, Munchen, Germany, September 2004.

[47] S. John, N. Wereley, and J. Sirohi. Development of a piezohydraulic active

pitch link for a swashplateless helicopter rotor. Journal of Aircraft, 46(1):
328–331, January 2009.

[48] P. Chen and I. Chopra. Wind tunnel test of a smart rotor model with individ-
ual blade twist control. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
8(5):414–425, May 1997.

[49] W. Wilkie, M. Wilbur, P. Mirick, C. Cesnik, and S. Shin. Aeroelastic analysis

of the NASA/Army/MIT active twist rotor. In American Helicopter Society
55th Annual Forum Proceedings, Montreal, Canada, May 1999. AHS.

[50] M. Wilbur, P. Mirick, W. Yeager, C. Langston, C. Cesnik, and S. Shin. Vi-

bratory loads reduction testing of the NASA/Army/MIT active twist rotor.
In American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [129].

[51] S. Shin, C. Cesnik, and S. Hall. Closed-loop control test of the

NASA/Army/MIT active twist rotor for vibration reduction. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society, 50(2):178–194, April 2005.

274
[52] J. Kim, N. Koratkar, and A. Messac. Optimal design of a swash-
plateless main rotor featuring active control of blade twist. In 43rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Mate-
rials Conference, Denver, CO, April 2002. AIAA.

[53] L. Dadone, J. Cowan, and F. Mchugh. Variable camber rotor study. Technical
Report NASA-CR-166382, NASA, 1982.

[54] P. Anusonti-Inthra, R. Sarjeant, M. Frecker, and F. Gandhi. Design of a con-

formable rotor airfoil using distributed piezoelectric actuators. AIAA Journal,
43(8):1684–1695, August 2005.

[55] P. Janker, F. Hermle, S. Friedl, K. Lentner, B. Enenkl, and C. Muller. Ad-

vanced piezoelectric servoflap system for rotor active control. In 32nd European
Rotorcraft Forum, Maastricht, The Netherlands, September 2006.

[56] C. Maucher, B. Grohmann, P. Janker, A. Altmikus, F. Jensen, and H. Baier.

Actuator design for the active trailing edge of a helicopter rotor blade. In 33rd
European Rotorcraft Forum, Kazan, Russia, September 2007.

[57] F. Straub and A. Hassan. Aeromechanic considerations in the design of a

rotor with smart material actuated trailing edge flaps. In American Helicopter
Society 52nd Annual Forum Proceedings, Washington, D.C, June 1996. AHS.

[58] F. Straub and B. Charles. Aeroelastic analysis of rotors with trailing edge
flaps using comprehensive codes. Journal of the American Helicopter Society,
46(3):192–199, July 2001.

[59] F. Straub, D. Kennedy, D. Domzalski, A. Hassan, H. Ngo, V. Anand, and

T. Birchette. Smart material-actuated rotor technology - SMART. Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 15:249–260, April 2004.

[60] F. Straub and D. Kennedy. Design, development, fabrication and testing of an

active flap rotor system. In American Helicopter Society 61st Annual Forum
Proceedings AHS [132].

[61] F. Toulmay, V. Kloppel, F. Lorin, B. Enenki, and J. Gaffiero. Active blade

flaps - the needs and current capabilities. In American Helicopter Society 57th
Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [129].

[62] O. Dieterich, B. Enenkl, and D. Roth. Trailing edge flaps for active rotor
control aeroelastic characteristics of the ADASYS rotor system. In American
Helicopter Society 62nd Annual Forum Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ, May 2006.
AHS.

[63] P. Konstanzer, B. Enenkl, P. Auborg, and P. Cranga. Recent advances in

eurocopter’s passive and active vibration control. In American Helicopter
Society 64th Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [133].

275
[64] K. Noburu, S. Saito, M. Kosaka, and H. Fuse. A study of closed loop control
with BVI detection method for helicopter noise reduction. In Proceedings of
the 44th Aircraft Symposium, Japan, 2006.
[65] K. Noboru and S. Saito. Performance evaluation of full scale on-board active
flap system in transonic wind tunnel. In American Helicopter Society 64th
Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [133].
[66] R. Spangler and S. Hall. Piezoelectric actuators for helicopter rotor control.
In 31st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, Long Beach, CA, 1990. AIAA.
[67] M. Fulton and R. Ormiston. Hover testing of a small-scale rotor with on-blade
elevons. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 46(2):96–106, April 2001.
[68] N. Koratkar and I. Chopra. Wind tunnel testing of a smart rotor model with
trailing-edge flaps. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 47(4):263–272,
October 2002.
[69] B. Roget and I. Chopra. Individual blade control methodology for a rotor with
dissimilar blades. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 48(3):176–185,
July 2003.
[70] T. Millott and P. Friedmann. Vibration reduction in helicopter ro-
tors using an active control surface located on the blade. In 33rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Mate-
rials Conference, Dallas, TX, April 1992. AIAA.
[71] P. Friedmann and T. Millott. Vibration reduction in rotorcraft using active
control: A comparison of various approaches. Journal of Guidance, Control
and Dynamics, 18(4):664–673, July-August 1995.
[72] J. Milgram, I. Chopra, and F. Straub. Rotors with trailing edge flaps: Analysis
and comparison with experimental data. Journal of the American Helicopter
Society, 43(4):319–332, October 1998. Analysis compared to test data from
MDD AFR, indicial aero.
[73] T. Myrtle and P. Friedmann. Application of a new compressible time domain
aerodynamic model to vibration reduction in helicopters using an actively con-
trolled flap. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 46(1):32–43, January
2001.
[74] T. Theodorsen. General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism
of flutter. Technical Report 496, NACA, 1935.
[75] J. Zhang, E.C. Smith, and K.W. Wang. Active-passive hybrid optimiza-
tion of rotor blades with trailing edge flaps. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 49(1):54–65, 2004. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.49.54. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/49/54/1.

276
[76] G. Depailler and P. Friedmann. Alleviation of dynamic stall induced vibrations
using actively controlled flaps. In American Helicopter Society 58th Annual
Forum Proceedings AHS [130].

[77] M. Fulton. Aeromechanics of the active elevon rotor. In American Helicopter

Society 61st Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [132].

[78] D. Patt, L. Liu, and P. Friedmann. Simultaneous vibration and noise reduc-
tion in rotorcraft using aeroelastic simulation. Journal of the American He-
licopter Society, 51(2):127–140, April 2006. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.51.127. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/51/127/1.

[79] R.A. Ormiston. Aeroelastic considerations for rotorcraft primary control with
on-blade elevons. In American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum Pro-
ceedings AHS [129].

[80] J. Shen. Comprehensive Aeroelastic Analysis of Helicopter Rotor with Trailing-

Edge Flap for Primary Control and Vibration Control. PhD thesis, University
of Maryland, College Park, 2003.

[81] J. Shen, I. Chopra, and W. Johnson. Performance of swashplateless ultralight

helicopter rotor with trailing-edge flaps for primary flight control. In American
Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [131].

[82] J. Shen and I. Chopra. Swashplateless helicopter rotor with trailing-edge flaps.
Journal of Aircraft, 41(2):208–214, March-April 2004.

[83] J. Shen and I. Chopra. Aeroelastic modeling of trailing-edge-flap helicopter

rotors including actuator dynamics. Journal of Aircraft, 41(6):1465–1472,
November-December 2004.

[84] J. Shen, M. Yang, and I. Chopra. Swashplateless helicopter rotor with trailing-
edge flaps for flight and vibration control. Journal of Aircraft, 43(2):346–352,
March-April 2006.

[85] R. Ganguli, B. Jehnert, J. Wolfram, and P. Voersmann. Survivability of heli-

copter with individual blade primary control failure. The Aeronautical Journal,
111(1124):645–658, October 2007.

[86] R. Ganguli, B. Jehnert, J. Wolfram, and P. Voersmann. Optimal location

of centre of gravity for swashplateless helicopter UAV and MAV. Aerospace
Engineering and Aircraft Technology, 79(4):335–345, 2007.

[87] I. Abbott and A. von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publications,
New York, NY, 1949.

[88] I. Abbott and H. Greenberg. Tests in the variable-density wind tunnel of

the NACA 23012 airfoil with plain and split flaps. Technical Report TN 661,
NACA, 1939.

277
 [89] I. Abbott, A. von Doenhoff, and L. Stivers. Summary of airfoil data. Technical
Report TN 824, NACA, 1945.

[90] C. Wenzinger and M. Ames. Wind tunnel investigation of rectangular and

tapered NACA 23012 wings with plain ailerons and full-span split flaps. Tech-
nical Report TN 661, NACA, 1938.

[91] C. Wenzinger and T. Harris. Wind tunnel investigation of an NACA 23012

airfoil with various arrangements of slotted flaps. Technical Report TN 664,
NACA, 1939.

[92] W. Street and M. Ames. Pressure-distribution investigation of a naca 0009

airfoil with a 50-percent-chord plain flap and three tabs. Technical Report TN
734, NACA, 1939.

[93] M. Ames and R. Sears. Pressure-distribution investigation of a naca 0009

airfoil with a 30-percent-chord plain flap. Technical Report TN 759, NACA,
1940.

[94] M. Ames and R. Sears. Pressure-distribution investigation of a naca 0009

airfoil with an 80-percent-chord plain flap and three tabs. Technical Report
TN 761, NACA, 1940.

[95] M. Ames and R. Sears. Determination of control-surface characteristics from

naca plain-flap and tab data. Technical Report TN 721, NACA, 1940.

[96] R. Sears and P. Purser. Wind tunnel investigation of control-surface charac-

teristics XIV- NACA 0009 airfoil with a 20-percent-chord double plain flap.
Technical Report 3F29, NACA, 1943.

[97] R. Liddell. Wind tunnel investigation of control-surface characteristics XIX- a

double flap with an overhang and an internal aerodynamic balance. Technical
Report L4F23, NACA, December 1946.

[98] E. A. Mayda and C. P. van Dam. Automated generation of airfoil performance

tables using a two-dimensional navier—stokes solver. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 50(4):338–348, 2005. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.50.338. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/50/338/1.

[99] W. Bousman. Aerodynamic characteristics of sc1095 and sc1094r8 airfoils.

Technical Report TP-2003-212265, NASA, December 2003.

[100] M. Smith, M. Potsdam, T.-C. Wong, J. Baeder, and S. Phanse. Evaluation of

computational fluid dynamics to determine two-dimensional airfoil character-
istics for rotorcraft applications. Journal of the American Helicopter Society,
51(1):70–79, January 2006.

278
[101] A. Shelton, J. Abras, R. Jurenko, and M. Smith. Improving the CFD pre-
dictions of airfoils in stall. In 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2005. AIAA. 2005-1227.

[102] A. Jose and J. Baeder. An investigation into the aerodynamics of trailing edge
flaps using CFD and analytical methods. In American Helicopter Society 61st
Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [132].

[103] A. Jose, A. Mishra, and J. Baeder. An investigation into the aerodynamics

of trailing edge flaps with overhang and gap. In American Helicopter Soci-
ety Specialists Conference on Aeromechanics Proceedings, San Francisco, CA,
January 2008. AHS.

[104] P. Purser and J. Riebe. Wind tunnel investigation of control-surface charac-

teristics XV- various contour modifications of a 0.30-airfoil-chord plain flap on
an NACA 66(215)-014 airfoil. Technical Report 3L20, NACA, 1943.

[105] P. Gerontakos and T. Lee. Active trailing-edge flap control of oscillating-wing

tip vortex. AIAA Journal, 44(11):2746–2754, November 2006.

[106] A. Panagakos and T. Lee. Tip vortex control via an active trailing-edge tab.
Journal of Aircraft, 43(4):1152–1158, July-August 2006.

[107] T. Lee and J. Pereira. Tip vortex control via a tab deflecting at higher har-
monic frequencies. AIAA Journal, 46(6):1342–1350, June 2008.

[108] K. Noonan, W. Yeager, J. Singleton, M. Wilbur, and P. Mirick. Wind tunnel

evaluation of a helicopter main-rotor blade with slotted airfoils at the tips.
Technical Report NASA-TP-2001-211260, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA, December 2001.

[109] A. Gagliardi and G.N. Barakos. Analysis and design of a flap-equipped low-
twist rotor for hover. Journal of Aircraft, 46(1):74–84, January-February 2009.

[110] B. Glaz, P. Friedmann, and L.Liu. Active/passive vibration reduction and per-
formance enhancement of helicopter rotors at high advance ratios. In American
Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum Proceedings AHS [133].

[111] L. Liu, P. Friedmann, I. Kim, and D. Bernstein. Rotor performance enhance-

ment and vibration reduction in presence of dynamic stall using actively con-
trolled flaps. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 53(4):338–350, Oc-
tober 2008.

[112] H. Yeo. Assessment of active controls for rotor performance enhancement.

Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 53(2):152–163, April 2008.

[113] S. Gai and R. Palfrey. Influence of trailing-edge flow control on airfoil perfor-
mance. Journal of Aircraft, 40(2):332–337, March-April 2003.

279
[114] K. J. Standish and C. P. van Dam. Computational analysis of a microtab-based
aerodynamic load control system for rotor blades. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 50(3):249–258, 2005. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.50.249. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/50/249/1.

[115] M.S. Chandrasekhara, P.B. Martin, and C. Tung. Compressible dynamic

stall performance of a variable droop leading edge airfoil with a gurney
flap. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 53(1):18–25, 2008. doi:
10.4050/JAHS.53.18. URL http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/53/18/1.

[116] M.P. Kinzel, M.D. Maughmer, and G. A. Lesieutre. Miniature trailing-edge

effectors for rotorcraft performance enhancement. Journal of the American He-
licopter Society, 52(2):146–158, April 2007. doi: 10.4050/JAHS.52.146. URL
http://link.aip.org/link/?JHS/52/146/1.

[117] R. Loewy and S.P. Tseng. Smart structures stabilized unstable control sur-
faces. In 34th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynam-
ics and Materials Conference, La Jolla, CA, 1993. AIAA.

[118] S. Heinze and M. Karpel. Analysis and wind tunnel testing of a piezoelectric
tab for aeroelastic control applications. Journal of Aircraft, 43(6):1799–1804,
November-December 2006.

[119] T. Theodorsen and I.E. Garrick. Nonstationary flow about a wing-aileron-tab

combination including aerodynamic balance. Technical Report 736, NACA,
1942.

[120] N. Hariharan and J.G. Leishman. Unsteady aerodynamics of a flapped air-

foil in subsonic flow by indicial concepts. Journal of Aircraft, 33(5):855–868,
September-October 1996.

[121] G. Bir and I. Chopra. University of Maryland advanced rotor code (UMARC)
theory manual. Technical Report UM AERO 94-18, Center for Rotorcraft
Education and Research, July 1994.

[122] A. Datta and I. Chopra. Validation and understanding of UH-60A vibratory

loads in steady level flight. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 49(3):
271–287, July 2004.

[123] A. Bagai and J. Leishman. Rotor free-wake modeling using a pseudo-implicit

technique - including comparisons with experimental data. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society, 40(3):29–41, July 1995.

[124] A. Datta and I. Chopra. Validation of structural and aerodynamic modeling

using UH-60A airloads program data. Journal of the American Helicopter
Society, 51(1):43–58, January 2006.

280
[125] D.H. Hodges and E. Dowell. Nonlinear equations of motion for the elastic
bending and torsion of twisted nonuniform rotor blades. Technical Report TN
D-7818, NASA, 1974.

[126] D.H. Hodges, R. Ormiston, and D. Peters. On the nonlinear deformation

geometry of euler-bernoulli beams. Technical Report TR 1566, NASA, 1980.

[127] H. Yeo, W.G. Bousman, and W. Johnson. Performance analysis of a util-

ity helicopter with standard and advanced rotors. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 49(3):250–270, July 2004.

[128] P. Lorber, R. Stauter, and A. Landgrebe. A comprehensive hover test of the

airloads and airflow of an extensively instrumented model helicopter rotor. In
American Helicopter Society 45th Annual Forum Proceedings, Boston, MA,
May 1989.

[129] American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum Proceedings, Washington,

D.C., May 2001. AHS.

[130] American Helicopter Society 58th Annual Forum Proceedings, Montreal,

Canada, June 2002. AHS.

[131] American Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ,
May 2003. AHS.

[132] American Helicopter Society 61st Annual Forum Proceedings, Grapevine, TX,
June 2005. AHS.

[133] American Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum Proceedings, Montreal,

Canada, May 2008. AHS.

281