You are on page 1of 36

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Helicopter Sizing by Statistics


Omri Rand Vladimir Khromov

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering Technion Israel Institute of Technology Haifa 32000, Israel.
Presented at the American Helicopter Society 58th Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada, June 11-13, 2002.

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


1

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Introduction
Sizing is the first and an important stage in helicopter preliminary design process. Preliminary design tools are relatively simple and were developed for fast design cycles.

Design trends analysis is a well known technique in which flying configurations are analyzed in order to conclude or identify a trend which is common to many configurations, and therefore, it may represent physical constrains which are not clear and evident at the early stages. Design trends analysis is useful for the sizing stage in its broad sense: geometrical sizing and preliminary sizing of performance, power required, etc. The present study is based on a (partial) database for more than 180 conventional single rotor helicopter configurations. The analysis has been carried out using advanced computerized correlation technique which is based on Multiple Regression Analysis.

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


2

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

The Analysis Methodology


Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA):
... . Y = a X1 X 2 X 3

A computerized algorithm has been coded to generate and select hundreds of combinations of independent variables, in order to identify the groups that provide high correlation measure. The purpose was to find design trends that contain minimal number of independent unknowns (preferably one or two) that exhibit high correlation indicators. Error definition:

(%) = 100

| EV - DBV | DBV

where EV and DBV stand for the estimated value and the database value, respectively. For each case we shall present the averaged AVER and maximum MAX error obtained, defined by

AVER

1 N i N i =1

and

MAX

= max( i )

where N is the number of configurations involved,

is the error calculated for the i-th configuration.

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


3

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

The Analysis Methodology (cont.)


Multiple Regression Correlation Measure:
1 R 2 = 1 i = N

e yi yie j e yi y j
i =1

e where yi are the data base values, y is the averaged data base value, and yi are the estimated values.

Hence, R = 1 stands for a perfect correlation, while in most cases the minimal value of R was set to be above 0.9 in order to conclude that a correlation is of a value and represents a genuine trend.

The Database

The database used is the one stored in RAPID/RaTE (Rotorcraft Analysis for Preliminary Design / Rand Technologies & Engineering) - a desktop rotorcraft analysis package . RAPID/RaTE is designed to model general rotorcraft configurations, conventional helicopters and tilt-rotors. RAPID/RaTE performs trim response, mission analysis, vibration analysis, stability analysis, and both flight mechanics and aeroelastic simulations.

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


4

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

The Analysis Methodology Scheme


RAPID/RaTE Helicopter Configurations DATABASE Generation of helicopter parameters combinations {Xi, i=1,2,} Filtering of Database configurations for selected parameters groups Calculation of the MRA parameters and the multiple correlation measure R
AVER Evaluating error estimation .... , MAX

a , , , , e tc .

Identification of parameter combinations with high correlation measures Helicopter Configuration Model

Helicopter Design trends

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


5

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main Scheme of Helicopter Sizing


Vertical tail average chord, 12% Tail Rotor RPM, 6.6% Tail Rotor Solidity Hover Tip Speed 170-250 m/sec Tail rotor Blade number Main Rotor RPM, Hover Rotor RPM, 6.5% Tail Rotor chord, 10% 6% Main rotor chord, 10% Fuel value (liters), 11.5% Empty Weight, 9.3% Useful load, 9.5% Fenestron diameter, 7.7% Tail rotor diameter, 7.6% Horizontal tail arm, 16% Horiz. tail area, 29% Range with standard fuel, S/L

Gross Weight
Total power T-O, 14.3% T-O Transmission rating, 8%

Overall length, rotor turning, 1.7% Main rotor Blade number Fuselage Length, 6.2% Tail Rotor Arm, 3.3% Height to rotor head, 7% Vertical tail Arm, 4.2% Width over landing gears, 10% Long range speed, 6.5% Clearance Fuselage - Ground .3-.7 m Main Rotor Solidity Main Rotor Diameter, 6% Disc load

Total power Max cont., 10.5% Max cont. Transm. rating, 9%

Max speed, S/L Never exceed speed, 5.9%

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


6

AHS Forum 58, June 2002


a MT = f ( D) aVT = f ( D)

FH = f ( D)

Helicopter Geometry Sizing Parameters

FL = f ( D)
RT FL = f ( D)

FW = f ( D)
TR cTR = f (W0 , N B )

c = f (W0 , N B ) = f ( N B , D, c)

DLOAD & D = f (W0 ,Vmax )

cVT = f ( DTR )

TR TR = f ( N B , DTR , cTR )

TR = f ( DTR )
DTR = f (W0 )

= f ( D)

a HT = f (W0 )

S HT = f (W0 )

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


7

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main Rotor Diameter


The " square cube" scaling law: D W0 1 3
40

40 30 Error (%) 20 10 0 Average error Max error 7

D = f (W0 )
30 21 6

D = f (W0 ,Vm )

Main Rotor Diameter (m)

30

20

10

D=f (W f (W 0)) ) max D = f (W (GW &V 0, Vm Estimation


0 10 20 30 40

D = 0.980 W00.308, where D is in [m] and W0 is in [kg] ( = 7%, = 30%, R = .9606)


AVER MAX

Main Rotor Diameter Estimation (m)

0.515, D = 9.133 W00.380 / Vm Vm is in [km / hr] S / L ( = 6%, = 21%, R = .9744).


AVER MAX

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


8

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main Rotor Disc Loading


0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Disc )) DiscLoading Loading (kg/m22

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
80

Gross Weight (kg)

RAH-66 Comanche CH-53E Mi-6 & Mi-22 Mi-26

Disc Loading (kg/m2)

10 0

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

RAH-66 Comanche Estimation

Database configurations

ASI Ultrasport 254


2000 4000 6000 8000

Database configurations Estimation


10000 12000 14000 16000

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


9

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Wing & Disc Loading Comparison


60
2 Wing & Disc Loading (lb f t 2) W ing/D isk Loading (lb / f t /)

50

Helicopter Database configurations Disc Loading (rotory-wing) Wing Loading Upper boundary (fixed-wing) Wing Loading Lower boundary (fixed-wing)
2.94 (W
1/3

40
- 6) Fixe d-wing

30

[McCormick, 1995]
1.54 (W
1/3

- 6)

[Current study]
.334 (W
1/3

20

[McCormick, 1995]

- .74)

10

0 0 10 20 30
1/3

40

50

60

(Gross Weight, lb)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


10

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Wing & Disc Loading


1000
Jet transport/bomber

Wing & Disk Loading (kg/m2)

586

Some transport helicopters Civil/utility low speed helicopters

100
Sailplane
30

73

73

10

20 7.5

Fixed-wing typical loading [Raymer, 1999]

Rotary-wing typical loading [Raymer, 1999]

Rotary-wing [Current study]

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


11

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main Rotor Blade Chord & Solidity


1

Main Rotor Blade Chord (m)

0.8

c = .0108 W00.540 / Nb0.714 ,


where c is in [m] and W0 is in [ kg] ( AVER = 10%, MAX = 41%, R = .9535).

0.6

0.4

0.2

Database configurations Estimation

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Main Rotor Blade Chord Estimation (m)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


12

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main & Tail Rotor Angular Velocity

5000

Rotor Angular Velocity (RPM)

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 5

Main Rotor Database Main Rotor Estimation Tail Rotor Database Tail Rotor Estimation FENESTRON Database

10

Rotor Diameter (m)

15

20

25

30

35

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


13

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main & Tail Rotor Angular Velocity (cont.)


Main Rotor: = 2673. / D 0.829 where is in [ RPM ] and D is in [m] ( AVER = 6%, MAX = 35%, R = .9630). Tail Rotor: 0.828 [ RPM ] = 3475. / DTR ( AVER = 7%, MAX = 16%, R = .9737)
or

800

Main Rotor Angular Velocity (RPM)

600

400

200

[rad / sec] = 364. / D


where DTR is in [m].

0.828 TR

Database configurations Estimation

0 0 200 400 600 800

Main Rotor Angular Velocity Estimation (RPM)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


14

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Main & Tail Rotor Tip Speed


300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

Tip Speed (m/s)

Main Rotor Database configurations Tail Rotor Database configurations Fenestron Database configurations
Main Rotor Estimation Tail Rotor Estimation
5 10

Rotor Diameter (m)

15

20

25

30

35

Main Rotor: V Tail Rotor: V

TIP

TIP

= 140. D 0.171, where V TIP is in [m / sec] 0.172 , where V TIP is in [m / sec] = 182. DTR
Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.
15

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Tail Rotor Diameter


8

Tail Rotor Diameter (m)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10000 20000

Database configurations Estimation FENESTRON Estimation


FENESTRON configurations

DTR = .0895 W00.391 where DTR is in [m] and W0 is in [ kg] ( = 8%, = 25%, R = .9754)
AVER MAX

F = .3081 W 0.154 DTR 0

Gross Weight (kg)

30000

40000

50000

60000

2 USAAMRDL Report 1974: D / DTR = [7.0 7.3] .27 DL {lb / ft }

RAPID/RaTE analysis:

D / DTR = 6.88 .19 DL {lb / ft 2}

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


16

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Tail Rotor Arm


25

20

Tail Rotor Arm (m)

15

RAPID / RaTE analysis:

. , a MT = .5107 D 1061

10

Database configurations RAPID+ Estimation RAPID/RaTE Estimation USAAMRDL Report 1977 Ref. 13 Estimation
0 5 10 15 20 25

where a MT and D is in [m] ( AVER = 3%, MAX = 14%, R = .9907).

Tail Rotor Arm Estimation (m)


USAAMRDL Report 1977: a MT = ( D + DTR ) / 2 + .5 feet

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


17

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Tail Rotor Blade Chord & Solidity


0.5

cTR = .0058 W00.506 / NbTR 0.720 ,


where cTR is in [m] and W0 is in [ kg] ( AVER = 10%, MAX = 30%, R = .9437).

Tail Rotor Blade Chord (m)

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Database configurations (without FENESTRON)

Tail Rotor Blade Chord Estimation (m)


Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.
18

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Horizontal Tail Surface Area


SHT = .0021 W00.758 ,
9 8

where SHT is in [m2 ] and W0 is in [ kg] ( AVER = 29%, MAX = 214%, R = .9117).
Mi-26

Surface Area of 2 Horizontal Tail (m )

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Database configurations Mi-28 Estimation

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


20

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Vertical Tail Surface Arm


20 18 16

Database configurations Estimation

Vertical Tail Arm (m)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20

aVT = .5914 D 0.995,


where aVT and D are in [m] ( AVER = 4%, MAX = 20%, R = .9853).
25 30 35

Main Rotor Diameter (m)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


21

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Vertical Tail Average Chord


Average Chord of Vertical Tail (m)
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5

Database configurations (Diameter < 3.5 m) Database configurations (Diameter > 3.5 m) Database configurations (FENESTRON) Estimation (Diameter < 3.5 m) Estimation (Diameter > 3.5 m) Estimation (FENESTRON)
0.927 cVT = .909 DTR

Fenestron

1745 . cVT = .161 DTR DTR < 35 . m ( = 12%, = 43%, R = .9709)


AVER MAX

106 . cVT =6 .297 DTR 7

D .9 m 8 TR > 35

Tail Rotor Diameter (m)

where cVT and DTR are in [m]

For Fenestron configurations

cVT DTR
Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.
22

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Configuration Length
40 35

Fuselage Length

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15

50 45 40 35 30

Estimation
20

25

30

35

40

Main Rotor Diameter (m)


. FLRT = 1.09 D 103 ( = 2%, = 9%, R = .9982) where FLRT and D are in [m].
AVER MAX
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

25 20 15 10 5 0

Main Rotor Diameter (m)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


23

Overall Length, Rotor Turning (m)

FL = 0.824 D 1.056 ( = 6%, = 17%, R = .9807) Database configurations where FL and D are in [m].
AVER MAX

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Fuselage Height and Width


9

Height to Rotor Head (m)

8 7 6 5 4 3

FH = 0.642 D 0.677 ( = 7%, = 25%, R = .9371) where FH and D are in [m].


AVER MAX

Mi-26

1 0 0 5 10 15 20

Database configurations
Estimation
25 30 35

Mi-6 & Mi-22

Main Rotor Diameter (m)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

FW = 0.436 D 0.697 ( = 10%, = 40%, R = .8818) where FW and D are in [m].


AVER MAX

EH 101

10

15

Main Rotor Diameter (m)

20

25

30

35

40

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.

Width Over Landing Gears/Skids (m)


24

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Fuselage-Ground Clearance

Clearance Fuselage - Ground (m)

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Database configurations

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


25

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Empty Weight & Useful Load


0 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Gross Weight (kg)

Empty Weight (kg)

Helicopter Database configurations Rotor-wing Estimation Fixed-wing Estimation [McCormick, 1995]

WE = 0.4854 W0 1.015, ( AVER = 9%, MAX = 30%, R = .9932), where

WE and W0 are in [kg]


7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 14000

WU = 0.4709 W0 0.99, ( AVER = 10%, MAX = 46%, R = .9870), where

WU and W0 are in [kg]


0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


26

Useful Load (kg)

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Empty Weight & Useful Load (continued)


14000

Weight Estimation (kg)

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

W0 = WPL + WF + WC + WE


WU

.4709 W00.99 +.4854 W01.015


Useful Load Est. + Empty Weight Est. Empty Weight Estimation Useful Load Estimation

W0

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


27

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Empty Weight & Useful Load (continued)


Empty Weight / Gross Weight, %
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Fixed-wing [McCormick, 1995]

Fixed-wing [Raymer, 1999]

Rotary-wing [Raymer, 1999]

Rotary-wing [current study]


74

80 70 60 50 45 30 42

Upper bound Lower bound

* Group Weight Statement of the US military.

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


28

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Fuel Value
W0 = WPL + WF + WC + WE


WU

WF = 0.0038 W0 0.976 Rg 0.650,

Rg

= Range with standard fuel at sea level

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Fuel Value (liters)

( AVER = 11%, MAX = 33%, R = .9942), where WF is fuel value in [liters], W0 is in [kg],
and Rg is range with standard fuel, S / L in [km].

Database configurations Estimation

Fuel Values Estimation (liters)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


29

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Speed
1.0565, VNE = .8215 VM ( AVER = 6%, MAX = 20%, R = .9399),
1.0899 , VLR = .5475 V M ( AVER = 6%, MAX = 31%, R = .9408),

where VNE is never exceed speed (S / L) in [km / hr], VLR is long range speed (S / L) in [km / hr],

VM is in [km / hr],
Speed; S/L (km/hr)

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

Long Range Speed Database configurations Long Range Speed Estimation Never Exceed Speed Database configurations Never Exceed Speed Estimation

VM

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Max Speed; S/L (km/hr)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


30

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Take-Off Total Power & Transmission Rating


0 25000 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Gross Weight (kg)

Total Power T-O (kW)

20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Database configurations Estimation

PTO is the take - off total power in [ kW ] and W0 is in [ kg]


12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 35000

PTO = .0764 W0 1.1455, ( AVER = 14%, MAX = 37%, R = .9891), where

TTO = .0366 W0 1.2107 , ( AVER = 8%, MAX = 22%, R = .9943), where

transmission rating in [ kW ] and W0 is in [ kg]

TTO is the take - off

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


31

T-O Transmission Rating (kW)

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Max Continuous Total Power & Transmission Rating


Max Continuous Total Power Estimation
0 12000 3000 6000 9000 12000

Database Estimation

Max Continuous Total Power (kW)

9000

0.9760 , PMC = .0013 W0 0.9876 V M ( AVER = 10%, MAX = 37%, R = .9889), where PMC is the Max Cont. total power in [kW ], W0 is in [kg], V M is Max speed in [km / hr ]
12000

CH - 53E
6000

EH 101
9000

3000
6000

EH 101

1.3393, TMC = .000141 W0 0.9771 VM ( AVER = 9%, MAX = 20%, R = .9870), where

3000

TMC is the Max Cont. transmission rating in [kW ], W0 is in [kg], VM is in [km / hr]

3000

6000

9000

0 12000

Max cont. transmission rating estimation (kW)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


32

Max Continuous Transmission rating (kW)

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Power & Transmission Loading


Power loading = the ratio of the take off gross weight over the maximum engine power. Transmission loading = the ratio of the take off gross weight over the take-off transmission rating.
10 Power/Transmission Loading (kg/kW) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Mi - 26 MINI-500 BRAVO

Transmission Loading Database configurations Transmission Loading Estimation Power Loading Database configurations Power Loading Estimation

Gross Weight (kg)

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


33

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Power & Transmission Loading


Propeller powered aircrafts

10
Power / Transmission Loading (kg/kW)

8 6 4 2 0

9 6.4

6 4.9

6.3

3.5 1.8
Rotary-wing typical power loading [Raymer, 1999]

2.6
Rotary-wing power loading [Current study] Rotary-wing transmission loading [Current study]

Fixed-wing typical power loading [Raymer, 1999]

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


34

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

RAPID/RaTE Helicopter Sizing Software

Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.


35

AHS Forum 58, June 2002

Concluding Remarks
A database for conventional helicopter configurations has been established and studied using advanced computerized correlation technique which is based on multiple regression analysis. Design trends were obtained and demonstrated. Currently, such data can not be found in the open literature. The study presented in this paper is expected to give designers a perspective of the existing flying designs and their inter-correlation. This is extremely important in the early preliminary stages where sizing issues are discussed in order to activate the preliminary design process. The collection of design trends presented in this paper contains also valuable information when comparison of performance of various configurations is under discussion. The present study results have been implemented as an autonomous component of RAPID/RaTE package.
Faculty of Aerospace Eng., Technion - I.I.T.
36