Memorandum
102219
"
A Survey of Nonuniform
Inflow Models for Rotorcraft
Flight Dynamics and
Control Applications
Robert T. N. Chen
November
1989
(,N :,W7
A_.[ __ _.O? Z1 9 3
_D
C_2_iT_OL
National
Space
A StJ_V_Y
ARPLI.C.ATION_
Aeronautics
Administration
and
...... N_NtJNIt:ORt_
._'_
NASA Technical
Memorandum
102219
A Survey of Nonuniform
Inflow Models for Rotorcraft
Flight Dynamics and
Control Applications
Robert T. N. Chen, Ames Research
November
1989
I_IASA
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, Califomia 94035
Center,
Moffett
Field, California
A SURVEY
OF NONUNIFORM
FLIGHT
DYNAMICS
INFLOW
MODELS
FOR ROTORCRAFT
AND CONTROL
APPLICATIONS
Robert
NASA
Moffett
T. N. Chen
Ames
Field,
Research
Center
California
94035,
USA
ABSTRACT
This paper
calculation
survey,
of induced
conducted
spectrum
forward
summarizes
velocities
conditions
and reviews
methods
LIST
OF SYMBOLS
hover,
vertical
and dynamic
simple
flight,
Leeuw
cyclic
dynamic
analyses
and lowspeed
models
Number
of blades
b1
Lateral flapping
per rotor
angle
length
C1
Aerodynamic
rolling
Cm
Aerodynamic
pitching
CT
Thrust
Rotor drag
Total
moment
moment
coefficient
coefficient
coefficient
produced
by the rotor
641
first harmonic
it is suggested
for the
effect.
The
covers
and highspeed
A primary
developed
empha
over the
be produced
and simulations.
pitch
force
models
applications,
of the inflow.
inflow
of NACA
slope
chord
and control
aspects
first harmonic
and Castles/De
_ Lateral
Blade
including
both static
inflow
dynamics
of Heyson/Katzoff
Alc
of flight
of nonuniform
those
Lift curve
survey
of various
years, in comparison
airload computations.
of a brief
of flight
flight,
the results
using
modem
free
Ratio
of rotor
Distance
Parameter
inflow
height
of rotor
above
above
ground
in the static
components,
to rotor diameter
gain matrix
relating
K = 1 for a nonrigid
Ratio
of cosine
Ks
Ratio
of sine component
Static
gain matrix
components
the ground
component
the aerodynamic
wake,
to mean value
moments
to mean value
aerodynamic
relating
inflow,
inflow,
K c = Vc/V0
K s = Vs/V0
to the harmonic
inflow
Apparent
Distance
Rotor
radius
Rotor
thrust
Au
Groundinduced
interference
velocity
in the tippath
plane
Groundinduced
interference
velocity
perpendicular
to the tippath
Induced
speed)
at a general
radial
vi
= v, induced
vi,_o
Induced
Vz
vo
Induced velocity
at the rotor
vo = CT/[2(_t2 + _2)1/2]
Vc
Cosine
Vs
Sine component
Vh
Mean
VHOV
Induced
Av
to the harmonic
mass matrix
of blade
velocity
element
inflow
velocity
component
induced
velocity
associated
with inflow
ratio when
out of ground
and azimuthal
normalized
disc center,
(normalized
with tip
calculated
induced
induced
based on momentum
at hover
position
plane
effect
velocity
dynamics
as a function
velocity,
also denoted
theory,
by _,1c
velocity
theory
of radial
642
by the momentum
at hover,
position
v h = af_
/ 2
vT
Normalized
total velocity
vm
Mass
Voo
Freestream
Vv
Vertical
velocity
Vc
Vertical
climb
Vc
= Vc/v h
Vd
Vertical
W 0
= V 0
Aw
= Av
=r]R
)C
Wake
flow parameter,
It*
Normalized
o_
Tippath
)_
Inflow
)Llc
= vc
f2
Rotor
velocity
ratio,
angular
Azimuth
(normalized
(see Fig. 4)
)_ = tanl(_t/'L)
g = Voo cos o_
advance
plane
of the aircraft
velocity
angle,
ratio,
velocity
of the aircraft
descent
Advance
v T = (_2 + )L2)1/2
or flight
skew
angle
_ = v 0
ratio,
Ut*= [t/v h
of attack
(also (ZTpp)
Voo sin (z
velocity
position
Blade
pitch
at radial
position
00.75
Blade
pitch
at radial
position,
x = 0.75
= d/d_
1. INTRODUCTION
This brief
aerodynamic
survey
was undertaken
representation
of a generic
helicopter
643
of forming
a basis
for improving
the
mathematical
model
for realtime
flight
in terms
blade
it becomes
motion,
of the applicable
apparent
that a comparable
level of detail
dynamic counterpart.
At the heart of the helicopter
aerodynamics
and near the main rotor(s). In the past, uniform induced velocity
reduce
computational
putational
power
capability
at reduced
resentation
wake.
in the simulation
review
simulation
This survey
vertical
focus
inflow
data obtained
lation. Hoad
analytical
2. A BRIEF
rotor
wake
to determine
Both
With realtime
evaluation
tuned
the
for a specific
including
static
hover,
and dynamic
applications
of several
aspects
in mind,
simple
a main
first
and theoretically
methods.
The survey
first harmonic
provides,
inflow
therefore,
models
perform
models.
PERSPECTIVE
[3], in trying
first harmonic
calculation
wake
HISTORICAL
In 1926, Glauert
a simple
available
flight.
with
for realtime
in representing
manner
rep
associated
models
of flight conditions
forward
effect.
a more realistic
of rotorcrafl
added
com
computational
to provide
has been
a spectrum
on the comparative
using
to the advanced
observed
covers
and highspeed
was placed
models
opportunity
compared
expanding
of limited
generation
because
stateoftheart
good
possible
of the survey
harmonic
models
and lowspeed
were reviewed,
the rapidly
of inflow
flight,
With
environment
it has become
of the current
indicates
simulation
facility.
years,
accounting
A cursory
dynamic
in a realtime
cost in recent
of the inflow,
the rotor
flight
burden
must
of the
to resolve
calculated
nonuniform
discrepancies
lateral
inflow
force
model
between
of the rotor
which
the experimentally
from uniform
generates
inflow,
an induced
proposed
velocity
field
(1)
v = v0(1 + xK c cos _)
that increases
longitudinally
the gradient
K c being
unspecified.
Wheatley
edge
a preselected
the rotor
the induced
"hump"
for further
of the rotor
be calculated
[5] explained
load which
study,
(a cylindrical
component
also arrived
rotor
Seibel
of the vibratory
flighttesting
normal
flow."
of induced
at a remarkably
disc center,
which
was encountered
velocity
is expressed
define
inflow
in the lowspeed
the induced
formula
in terms
of wake
644
determination
flight
a simplified
vortex
of the rotor
of the induced
(as defined
during
the rotor
formula
velocity
of
the
regime
over
an analytical
skew angle
of the gradi
that causes
velocities
value
disc with
the accurate
model)
simple
without
30. To better
Coleman
wake
rigorously
of the rotor
disc
system
for the
disc. They
at the
in Fig. 1), as
Kc = tan(_ /
Thus
determined.
Later,
Coleman's
simple
sinusoidally
for
Drees
[7] determined
cylindrical
with azimuth.
vortex
When
2)
(2)
unspecified
Kc using
a wake
wake
to account
expressed
in terms
by Glauert,
was analytically
geometry
modified
circulation
of the wake
skew
from
varying
angle,
Drees'
formula
Kc yields
4
)_
K c = _ (1  1.8g 2) tan _
which shows
ratio, It.
is a function
(3)
skew
angle,
In 1947, Brotherhood
[8] conducted
a flight investigation
of the induced velocity distribution in hover, and showed that flighttest
measurements
correlated
well with values calculated
using
bladeelement
also reported
momentum
their flighttest
theory
[9,10].
work in forward
flight
Later,
Brotherhood
using
smoke
and Steward
filaments
[11]
to indicate
the
tended
theoretical
to substantially
calculation
underestimate
of Mangler
and Square
measurements
[12] based
of the induced
on potential
a dynamic
during
a jump
state inflow
ticipates
inflow
takeoff
model
maneuver.
to include
on the dynamic
decades
later. Meanwhile,
of induced
velocities
A concerted
vortex
effort
theory
still used
computer
wake
was carded
introduced
velocity
in the helicopter
digital
codes
models.
(e.g.,
Work
velocity
industry
computational
out at NACA
[ 17,18])
codes
during
that par
were in good
Unfortunately,
further
of the static
buildup
for steady
air mass
the model
the 1950s
loaded
rotor,
culminated
until two
aspect
using
to further
of Castles
in the NACA
in the flight
that became
were developed
on freewake
theory
particularly
power
test stand.
rotors,
today,
of the theory
rotor.
by Coleman
loaded
using
on the refinement
near a uniformly
the increasing
continued
thrust
the apparent
on a helicopter
of the induced
work
of the lifting
and Fridovich
momentum
involving
of the calculation
data obtained
aspect
rotor
the simple
buildup
the transient
extended
inflow
The results
research
simple
They
the transient
in the acceleration.
agreement
to investigate
velocities.
theory
that the
available
mechanics
(e.g., [19,20])
the
of Heyson
charts
in the 1960s,
more complicated
develop
and De Leeuw
discipline.
are
With
sophisticated
prescribed
during
and
[16] which
helical
the late
1960s
this period.
Reference
77 also discussed
the inherent
645
capability
of the transient
inflow
wind
models,
tunnel
test. He correlated
including
Coleman's
calculated
model
flapping
[6], NACA
charts,
obtained
angles
from
a well
using various
static
and a representative
pre
scribed helicalwake
computer
code [18], then available
with his experimental
data. He found
that none of the available
methods was able to predict lateral flapping in the low advance
ratio region as shown in Fig. 2. The existence
nent, as evident from Fig. 2, causes a variety
of a strong firstharmonic
of undesirable
rotorcraft
longitudinal
characteristics
composuch as
that,
to achieve
stick
an improved
correlation
[24]
data, freewake
[28] freewake
Johnson
experimental
improving
data. Work
freewake
applications
For flight
codes
dynamics
is not computationally
computer
for realtime
inflow
tum theory.
theory
A similar
the concept
developed,
Dynamic
Hohenemser,
inflow
lateral
and airload
a simple
core
with Harris'
aerodynamicists
and computational
in
efficiency
calculations.
very computationally
applications,
(tip vortex
flapping
harmonic,
from pitching
first harmonic
dynamics
introduced
theory,
for hover
and Ormiston
inflow
and rolling
model
[36]. Building
on momentum
models
for
As might
be
intensive.
finitestate,
nonuniform
nonuniform
inflow
model
intensive
and thus can be implemented
on a currentgeneration
simulation.
In 1971, Curtiss and Shupe [35] extended
Glauert's
and Peters
of inflow
based
of a parameter
by the rotorcraft
fidelity
performance
environment.
perturbations
by Ormiston
tuning
in a nonrealtime
to include
toward
to model
are, in general,
and control
some
(e.g., [29,30])
with respect
primarily
freewake
With
very
is continuing
codes
directed
expected,
analysis.
upon
moments,
by Carpenter
and Fridovich
a more complete
similar
dynamic
to that of Peters
[38], Ormiston
using
the simple
using
model
[40,41].
Peters'
vortex
and using
[13], Peters
inflow
digital
model
momen
a simple
and Shupe
that
[37]
for hover.
by Crews,
dynamic
to include
perturbed
For flight
dynamic
dynamic
forward
flight
conditions,
thereby
completing
the threestate,
first harmonic,
and Fridovich
646
[46,47],
version
inflow
models
that have
vortex
case,
theory
unsteady
the Blake/White
is compared
Coleman
which
represents
practice
current
Inclusion
recently
by Curtiss
of airmass
model
dynamic
to the development
3. INFLOW
Since
this survey
of inflow
the inflow
using
rotor
mathematical
model
vering
tasks,
system
may be expected
speed cruise.
mathematical
because
the fre
as are those
of the
is intended.
effects
hovering,
vertical
of the frequency
of the interaction
of the induced
applications
involving
of the airmass
and therefore
static
velocity
of a lifting
ascent
or descent,
for which
and moments
for other
range
Effect
A. Hover
and Vertical
Out of Ground
investigated
flight
inflow
models
rotor depend
lowspeed
forward
will be of interstrongly
flight,
on the
or high
physical description
and the associated
where available,
are reviewed
below.
are discussed.
Static
flights are
for calculations
characteristics
of appli
a specific
lowbandwidth
were
shown
[34] to be impor
of magnitude
the perspective
will be a function
consistent
to be negligible,
characteristics
conditions:
is from
or flyingqualities
the dynamic
forces
[31],
a bladeelement
have been
for rotorcraft
order
inflow
used by Howlett
systems
a simple
dynamic
Therefore,
the paper will also discuss dynamic
wake effects. Table 1 summarizes
the events related
of interest
an accuracy
operating
in 1979 from
First,
models.
models
models
dynamics
inflow
with a lifting
the signifi
MODELSSTATICS
and control,
cability
of some
[24,48],
is also addressed.
of rotorcraft
and Hindson
rotorblade
flapping
and leadlag modes.
inflow models that account for unsteady
model
first
in 1972. In addi
of the Pitt/Peters
simulation
flightcontrol
modes
by Harris
was developed
solution
associated
of several
of Harris
dynamics)
[50], Chen
of highbandwidth
of the inflow
(inflow
[49], which
in realtime
dynamics
[32], Miller
as examined
effects
model
evaluation
effects
wake
model
method.
and comparative
of their steadystate
of the lowfrequency,
review
been developed
of
result
and rolling
of Thrust
Effect.
Flight
The flow patterns
extensively
in the 1940s
in hover
both analytically
and in vertical
flight
and experimentally.
647
1926
Remarks
Author(s)
Glauert
Proposed
a "triangular"
v(r/R,_)
induced
= v0[1 + (r/R)Kc
velocity
1934
Wheafley
1944
Seibel
Explained
1945
Coleman
1949
Drees
et al.
speeds
encountered
caused
by the nonuniform
Determined
that
with a uniformly
angle).
Determined
vibration
in flight
et al.
Conducted
Mangler/Square
"hump"
at low
30 is
inflow.
Kc using
a wake
a flight
geometry
bound
test using
Developed
induced velocity
nonuniformly
loaded rotors
modified
circulation
smoke
data; found
from Coleman's
(assuming
sinusoidally
with azimuth).
Brotherhood
model:
cos _1.
varies
filaments
to indi
contours
for lighted,
for several values of TPP
angle of attack.
1953
Carpenter/Fridovich
Developed
variations.
inflow
1953to
Castles/DeLeeuw;
Developed
NACA
1959
Heyson/Katzoff/Jewel
uniformly
1959to
Miller;
1967
Piziali/DuWardt;
Developed
computer
wake models.
Davenport
1967to
present
dynamics
charts
and nonuniformly
codes
with respect
of induced
loaded
to thrust
velocities
lifting
for various
near
rotors.
prescribed
et al.
Development
of freewake
and CAMRAD.
648
codes
such as UTRC
codes
Table 1.
1972
Remarks
Author(s)
Year
1971
Continued
Curtiss/Shupe
Harris
Developed
equivalent
inflow
variations
roiling
moments.
Correlated
Lock
w.r.t,
several
number
to account
aerodynamic
inflow
models
pitching
Peters
Developed
a more complete
based on momentum
theory.
1976
RuddeU
Documented
that value
inflow
resulting
in accident
model
of the Glauert
and
for
tunnel
the lat
for hover
gradient
term,
in 1973.
1977to
1979
Banerjee/Crews/
Hohenemser
Identified
the dynamic
tunnel data.
1979
Blake/White
Determined,
using
Kc = _
sin X
Van Gaasbeek
Documented
version
1981
Johnson
Used
freewake
achieve
Pitt/Peters
Howlett
Junker/Langer
a simple
the inflow
of C81
good
Harris
inflow
model
correlation
theory,
wind
the value
of
on Drees'
wake)
using
data.
in CAMRAD
to
with lateralflapping
data
of
(1972).
Developed
a complete
ward
using
flight
dynamic
unsteady
Documented
the inflow
Black
Engineering
Hawk
Obtained
ratios
vortex
code, based
(Scully
parameters
downwash
from three
calculations
theories.
649
inflow
actuator
model
disk theory.
Simulation
model.
at low advance
and correlated
from localmomentum
for for
used in GENHEL
measurements
tunnels
model
them with
and rigidwake
Table 1 Concluded
Year
Remarks
Author(s)
1986
Chen/Hindson
Investigated
response
effects
in hover
CH47
flight
of dynamic
using
inflow
Carpenter
on vertical
and
data.
1987
Harris
Provided
a historical
perspective
inflow developmentan
update
1988
Hoad/Althoff/Elliott
Correlated
several prescribedwake
and freewake
models with their recent tunnelmeasured
inflow data
(from
Cheeseman/Haddow
a laser
Measured
velocimeter);
(using
advance
Peters/HaQuang
Refined
can be found
ing state,
state.
in Refs.
In the regions
velocity
where
the momentum
can be calculated
the tippath
plane
model
of the regions
as shown
(TPP)
theory
theory
the momentum
not exist.
reach
using
Note
Within
theory
the region
a fully developed
the fully developed
[53] using
using
a freewake
ratio
Brotherhood
analysis
This is shown
as developed
velocity
the mean
speed
a welldefined
workring
of the induced
velocity
at the
by the mean
in hover
wake
model
in Fig. 6, where
a similar
does
rapidly
to
can be calculated
[23], as shown
A recent
is somewhat
slipstream
or expands
wake
condition
as shown.
a threepart
wake
value
induced
are normalized
it contracts
and continuity
involving
in the propeller
the mean
because
exists,
in hover,
dynamic
applications.
inducedvelocity
ratio is 0.707
theory.
wake,
The induced
the slipstream
at low
/ 2, thereby removing
their dependency
on
curve is indicated
for the flight conditions
applicable
The radius
momentum
an empirical
where
wake.
contraction
is no longer
downwash
of Pitt/Peters
brake
flight
agreement.
of Kc to be about
is applicable
is applicable,
version
of the windmill
poor
value.
for practical
of the rotor
value
than Coleman's
estimated
nonlinear
inflow
showed
ratios;
50% higher
of static nonuniform
of his 1972 work.
calculation
trend
in Fig. 4.
by Bliss et al.
(Fig. 5) indicated
larger
by
that the
for
in Ref. 54.
is nonuniform.
in Fig. 7, in which
calculations
Measurements
from flight
using
bladeelement
theory [9] and uniform inflow are also shown. The measurements
0.073R and 0.39R, below the rotor TPP, and the induced velocity
were taken
at the rotor
6410
by
momentum
at two planes,
was then
2 (o
(4)
(4nV 2 / bcaf_)
correlates
very
velocity
are caused
by the strong
to tip vortex
promising,
geometry
[48]. Generally,
performance
estimation
fore a good
approximation
blade
of the contracted
for stability
applications
tip vortex.
tip based
in Fig. 8, Landgrebe
permitting
an accuracy
for simple
variations
in induced
However,
calcula
on vortex
theory
[56] calculated
are
the
several prescribed
wake models and compared
the
momentum
theory. Freewake
methods,
though
a level of accuracy
however,
/ 16n)
tip, large
[55]. As shown
is sufficient
for lowfrequency
velocity
distribution
using
the bladeelement
calculations
influence
of the induced
hoverinduced
velocity
results with those from
data.
+ V v + (bcaf_
and control
nonuniform
in flight
their routine
level somewhat
inflow,
dynamics
use in performance
analysis.
Equation
out of ground
for
(4) is there
effect,
at the rotor
and control.
A knowledge
of induced velocity near the lifting rotor is required
for the calculation
of
the forces and moments
acting on the fuselage,
the tail rotor, and the horizontal
and vertical
tails. Examples
cylindrical
shown
of NACA
wake
charts
in Fig. 9. Improvements
in lookup
rotor,
tables
of Ground.
plane
In ground
the vertical
induced
These
especially
airspeed
velocity
above
bution
the ground
along
a simple
as shown
the rotor
cylindrical
proximity,
blade
for rapid
calculations
velocity
and fullscale
effect
was calculated
becomes
at hover,
in a similar
chart
conditions
in flight
decreases,
are
form,
or
of a lifting
dynamics
and
of the ground
negligible
years
when
on the mean
for example,
the height
The induced
ago by Knight
loaded
the effects
of the rotor.
many
for a uniformly
that without
a simple
applications.
wake
using
disc loading
presented
the ground
vortex
were made
and operating
the induced
by model
is larger
are needed
component
methods
characteristics
for realtime
as determined
calculations
freewake
geometrical
lacking.
simulations,
Effect
using
for various
are presently
control
disc loading
in
of the rotor
velocity
distri
and Hefner
[58] using
of images,
of the ground,
the induced
velocity
distri
bution is uniform,
and is identical
to that shown in Fig. 9a for the uniform discloading
case.
Nonuniformity
increases
as a result of the ground effect as the rotor disc approaches
the
ground
smallest
plane.
at the blade
the distribution
calculated
Fig.
Groundinduced
interference
tip. However,
of groundinduced
and compared
velocities
the discload
interference
the uniform
is nonuniform
are largest
distribution
velocities
and triangular
in spanwise
6411
can have
over
discload
distribution,
significant
the rotor
and
effects
disc. Heyson
distributions,
particularly
as shown
for the
on
[59] has
in
Forward
of Ground
swept
angle
Effect.
rearward.
in edgewise
Flight
As the forward
The wake
flight,
skew angle
speed
increases
(see Fig.
1) increases
induced
velocity
induced
formula
hovering,
rapidly
induced
can be calculated
velocity
from
from
velocity
for various
proposed
the rotor
0 in hover
decreases.
values
by Glauert
wake
is
to 90
The wake
of TPP angle
[3], based
skew
of
on the
(5)
v 0 = C T / 2(_ 2 + _L2)1/2
and the definition
of the wake
skew angle,
tan
where
ure 12 shows
with respect
attack.
flight
_ = _t/E
the wake
to the hover
At a given
(positive
TPP angle
skew angle
flight
values
of attack,
uniform
velocity
induced
the wake
skew angle
skew angle,
Voo is normalized
of the normalized
velocity,
flight
values
is considerably
(negative
already
reaches
values
about
skew angle
The wake
as a function
(6)
velocity
Fig
(normalized
of TPP angle
larger
of
in descending
80 at the normalized
flight
induced
velocity
at low speeds
which
is dependent
upon
advance
ratio,
TPP angle
fairly
well
of attack,
and
thrust coefficient,
defines the orientation
of the rotor wake and is a key parameter
in determining the induced velocity at and near a lifting rotor. Figure 14 shows the contours
of
inducedvelocity
angles.
uniform
These
ratio
were calculated
disk loading,
by Castles
plane
and DeLeeuw
6412
wake
a cylindrical
at the rotor
plane
skew
wake
with
is strongly
(7a)
(7b)
Kc=
and K s = 0. Over the years several
Some of these, recast as an explicit
Table
Year
1949
Drees
[7]
1959
Payne
[55]
1979
Blake
and White
1981
1981
Howlett
aConsidering
only static
A comparison
With
in Table
the wake
the hover
(4/3)tan
[49]
[44]
(15rc/32)tan(X/2)
of the cosine
effect.
component
to the mean
in Fig. 15 as a function
calculated
velocity
as shown
from those
16 shows
induced
velocity
peaks
flight
sin2 X
Figure
sin
depends
speed
Thus,
6413
thrust
skew
for those
for several
angle.
of the cosine
2, at various
inflow
models
flight
shown
conin
conditions.
As the flight speed
peaks at a flight speed less than
the flight
on the thrust
for a higher
velocity
12, a comparison
listed in Table
such a comparison
velocity.
induced
of the wake
in Fig.
models
with a higher
1.2 + tan
2 is shown
uniform
Ks
(4 / 3) (1  1.81.t2) tan(X / 2)
skew angle
can be made.
operating,
Models
tan(_2)
[31]
of the induced
other formulae
for K c and Ks.
angle, are summarized
in Table 2.
Kc
et al. [6]
of the ratio
listed
component
twice
Inflow
Author(s)
Coleman
ditions,
2. First Harmonic
1945
models
(8)
speed
coefficient
coefficient.
at which
the cosine
at which
compo
the rotor is
also
peak
at flight
speeds
below
Voo/v h = 2, when
the wake
skew angle
as shown
Harris
wind
tunnel
data,
as shown
model
achieved
a fairly
good
correlation
[48] expanded
with the
his 1972
empirically
from a wind
tunnel.
Blake/White
simple model
tudinal plane of symmetry,
based
on Drees'
The results,
model
shown
together
in Figs.
6414
indicate
data
that the
experimental
data, and in the longiwell with that calculated
from
0.1
2500
0.067
2500
0.067
1250
K_
Fittedfrom measureddata[62]
1.07
Coleman
et al.
Pitt/Peters
Howlett
Blake/White
Drees
0.74
1.09
0.92
1.35
0.96
0.98
Payne
CAMRAD.
other
Harris
noted,
however,
0.96
0.61
0.90
0.79
1.26
0.81
0.82
model
0.92
0.59
0.87
0.77
1.24
0.78
0.80
[48].
Another
indirect method of estimating
K c at low speeds is by examining
the cyclic
trol requirements
for trim, since lateral cyclic inputs are required to trim out the roiling
moment
generated
from
the lateral
in the design
Effect.
flapping
analysis
above.
Faulkner
was found
to be about
a factor
in ground
on NOE
proximity
flight
in some
at low advance
ratios
[66] using
angle
mean
center
the hover
a cylindrical
mean
skew angle
induced
wake
model
has already
velocity
reached
of images
as a function
of the normalized
forward
speed
missions,
research
velocity
at the center
flight
because
the decrease
speed
the decrease
increases,
in induced
velocity
in forward
6415
effect
Although
in
approximately
indicates
75 at a flight
An early
study
values
of rotor
height above the ground. Note that for Z/R = oo, the curve, which is monotonically
ing, is identical to that out of ground effect as shown in Fig. 16 (0t = 0). For smaller
Z/R, the total induced
better
to that
data discussed
[65]
yielded
similar
operational
and Buchner
aerodynamics
discussed
rotor helicopter,
the Blake/White
model generally
did. Ruddel [25] indicated
that use of a K c value
con
rather
with speed
the simple
decreasvalues of
than decreases
is more rapid
vortex
theory
as the
than
used in
Vh)4 =
1
[(V_ / v0) + tan o_  (Au / v0)] 2 + [1 + (Av / v0)] 2
(9)
and
cos Z = (v 0 / Vh)2[1 + Av / v0]
In computing
the groundinduced
Observations
have
similar
indicated
to a lowaspectratio
ellipfically
loaded wing,
related to the momentum
interference
is considerably
wing,
schematically
as shown
of the ground
larger
wake
of the wake
tan
velocity,
(10)
rollup
takes place
must to be considered.
rapidly
behind
to use an effective
the rotor,
an analogy
skew angle
which
to an
is
He = (g2 / 4) tan
effect
in forward
skew
(11)
flight.
angle
(Note
in the region
wake
of low valuesof
angle
_.) A
distribution
not known
is the failure
of the ground
in the lowrotorheight
beforehand,
to consider
developed
the aerodynamic
interaction
calculate
the inducedvelocity
deformation
calibration
as either lookup
(similar to those
the distortion
wake.
a simplified
Here,
Since
useful.
the discload
Another
distribution
shortcoming
resulting
methods
is genof the
freewake/rollupwake
distribution
of the ground
region.
are not very
flow model
role.
to investigate
between the rotor wake, the ground, and the rollup wake and to
distribution
at the rotor plane. He found that the nearwake
the inducedvelocity
proper
the results
flightdynamic
similar
wake
simulations,
charts
large variations
particularly
6416
causes
in a realtime
curvefit
After
are needed
in
a
for
environment
equations
Forward
the forward
Flight
speed
increases
beyond
the normalized
speed,
h = 2, the mean
VoJv
less significant.
regime,
lation
Nevertheless,
and to show
correlate
with some
of inflow
resulting
forces
of the induced
how
velocity
it is of interest
on the rotor
to review
and moments
acting
briefly.
6417
and moments
firstharmonic
forces
inflow
provide
related
models
data. Applicable
which
to this flight
listed
theories
a method
becomes
in Table
for estimating
the
In 1954,Gessow[10] providedanexcellentsurveyof work on the inducedflow of a lifting rotor. He showedby anexamplethatin highspeedforwardflight, the inducedvelocity
distributionat therotor disc calculatedfrom the simplecylindrical wakemodelof Castles
andDeLeeuw [14] correlatedfairly well with thatderivedfrom smokeflowpicturesobtained
in flight by BrotherhoodandSteward[ 11]. Gessow'sexampleis shownin Fig. 31.Note that
in the figure,the normalizedinducedvelocity, V/Vh,is equalto (v/v0)(v0/vh).Thus,thecalcu,
latedvaluesin the figure canbeobtainedfrom NACA chartssuchasthosein Fig. 14(for the
example,the wakeskewangleis about82) to obtainthevalueof v/v0,andfrom Fig. 16to
obtainthe valueof v0/vh for the givenoperatingcondition.At this flight condition(advance
ratio = 0.167),theinflow distributionis nonlinear,varying from a slightupwashatthe leading edgeof therotor to a strongdownwashatthe trailing edge.In Ref. 11,a linearfit to the
testdatayields thevalue of Kc = 1.43,which is significantlyhigherthanthatcalculatedfrom
Colemanet al. (Kc= tan(_2)=0.87)asshownin Table4. Forpurposesof comparison,three
otherfirstharmonicinflow modelslistedin Table2 areincludedin the tablefor all three
flight conditionstested.
It is evidentfrom the tablethattheBlake/Whitemodelandthe Pitt/Petersmodelbetter
matchthe linear fit to the testdatathantheothertwo modelsdo. It is alsointerestingto note
thatthe meaninducedvelocity (or inducedvelocityat therotor disccenter)of thelinear fit to
thetestdatais considerablysmallerthanthatcalculatedfrom themomentumtheoryfor all
threetestconditions.Fig. 32 showsanexampleof a testconditionsimilar to thatshownin
Fig. 31. Threeadditionalfirstharmonicinflow models,i.e.,Blake,Pitt, andHowlett, are
includedin theoriginal figure in Ref. 11,in which someresultsfrom ManglerandSquare
[ 12] arealsoshown.
Table4. Comparisonof SeveralFirstHarmonicInflow Modelswith BrotherhoodSteward
[11] Flight Data
Testconditions
Parameter
Advanceratio
Estimatedwakeskewangle,deg
0.138
82.8
0.167
82.1
0.188
84.9
vO/vh
Momentum
Linear fit to data[11]
0.34
0.25
0.29
0.26
0.26
0.20
Kc
Data fit
Coleman
Pitt
Howlett
Blake
1.54
0.88
1.30
0.98
1.40
6418
1.43
0.87
1.28
0.98
1.40
1.94
0.91
1.35
0.99
1.41
6420
3.2 Static
Effect
Since,
in a steady
dynamic
moment
harmonic
inflow
matrix
radial
Resulting
from
pitching
Aerodynamic
or rolling
on the airstream,
distribution.
of the harmonic
distribution
motion,
inflow
to assume
theory
components
a firstharmonic
that there
can be applied
in hover.
components
to aerodynamic
it is reasonable
Momentum
of the inflow
Moments
Curtiss
would
be a first
[32] to determine
and rolling
moment
the gain
pitching
aero
coefficients
components
vc
by a gain matrix,
fvs
(12)
Vc
where
the value
of K depends
on the wake
model
wake
model,"
which
assumes
that the mass flow used in applying
the momentum
theory considers
only v 0' the
value of K is 2. For a "nonrigid
wake model," which considers
the total inflow, v = v 0 + v c
cos _ + v s sin _, in calculating
the mass flow when applying
value of K i s 1. Note that the rigid wake model corresponds
latter
from
a historical
Perhaps
Extension
using
unsteady
Analysis
and discuss
review
of the development
the implications
from hover
actuator
using
discussed
perspective,
an extensive
to resolve
of
the controversy
resulting
assumptions.
[82] provide
more experimental
to be more
and Peters
the momentum
theory, the
to that used in Ref. 40 and the
theory,
a prescribed
earlier.
rather
than perturbed,
angle,
it can be shown
has been
correlated
wake
method
values
to forward
flight
of the thrust
extensively
contained
L, was further
coefficient.
using
developed
momentum
and compared
in the UTRC
extended
Expressed
theory
proves
by Peters
in terms
favorably
Rotorcraft
[44]
[83]
Wake
of wakeskew
to be
CT
v0
, Vs
= [L].
C1
Cm
,Vc
6421
(13a)
1
2v T
15g tanZ
64Vm
Vm(1 + cos
Z)
(!3b)
4 cos Z
Vm(1 + cos Z)
where
parameter,
Vm, is given
by
g2 + _,(_ + vo)
Vm =
(14)
VT
Note from Eq. (13) that the Glauert gradient term, which represents
the ratio of the v 0 to v c
due to thrust, is (15r_/64)tan(ff2),
which was discussed
earlier. For hover and for highspeed
flight (more precisely,
for wake
Eqs. (15) and (16), respectively:
skew angle
= 90),
"1
1
2
1
Lhver = "_0
64
1
= _
that
theory
using
by using
as derived
onehalf
the nonrigid
in the original
that shown
elements
wake
discussed
of C y and v 0. When
Pitt/Peters
dynamic
= 1/(4v0).
those
proper
shown
coordinate
coefficient.
system
to those
derived
earlier.
The value
model
Notice
the momentum
of L 11 is obtained
of Lll
is only
adopting
analysis,
components,
6422
values
from
the
When
(16)
the perturbation
inflow
sine component
of the induced
velocity is uncoupled
cosine components
are, in general, closely coupled,
coefficient
Note
12
45rc
to
64
(15)
75rc
Lcruise
an inflow
care should
model
such as
force
(thrust)
MODELS_DYNAMICS
(except
induced
namic
aspect
in the discussion
velocity
builds
moments,
of the induced
of freewake
up instantaneously,
velocity.
methods)
in response
state.
Since
a large
it was tacitly
to changes
mass
assumed
that the
in discloading
or aerody
to
model
time constants
( a threestate
associated
state characterization
induced
velocities
model
of the induced
velocity,
velocity
of the three
at the rotor
inflow
disc),
components.
such as a freewake
rotor is in consonance
model,
there
will be
of the
of the
dynamic
model
as at the rotor
For simulation
rigidbody
of rotorcraft
modes,
dynamic
must be considered.
Recent
the inflow
modes
flapping
dynamic
and leadlag
studies
between
[3234,50]
strong
the inflow
For nonlinear
simulation,
methods
computational
power
of rotorcraft
to the updated
state model
[47,82]
suitable
the dynamic
inflow
equation,
at reduced
as those
flight
dynamic
version
dynamics.
inflow
environment,
for linear
of the
inflow
analysis
the discussion
models
or for
that follows
models.
of the Pitt/Peters
for flightdynamic
M.
of
the stabil
because
finitestate
suited
motion
in the future
cost. However,
be
the frequencies
in a nonrealtime
would
can be present,
particularly
of inter
that, because
range
dynamics
of magnitude
coupling
area
frequency
have indicated
dynamic
model,
in a higher
on the finitestate
According
freewake
dynamics
interactions
of Pitt/Peters
simulation
is focused
flight
modes,
freewake
expanding
such as those
dynamic
applications,
v0
v0
CT
v s,+Ll*
v s _=.
C1 ,
Vc.
Vc.
6423
,Cm,
inflow
the apparent
theory
mass
for a threematrix,
M, in
(17)
is given by
8
3_
16
M_
the
(The value
respectively
[44]).
Mll
element
of Mll
45x
to be 128/75x
to "uncorrected"
Recent
16
was suggested
studies
[45,85]
and "corrected"
have
found,
(18)
45x
in which
value
values
however,
for rotors
with twisted
for a twisted
stated
in the original
identical
to that originally
proposed
by Carpenter
and Fridovich
the flighttest
data, even though the rotor blades are twisted.
['_]'
Vs
,Vc.
[47].
Pitt/Peters
model
[13], correlates
better
is obtained
is
with
by multi
"CT _
v0
.+.
blades
correspond
of M 11 = 8/3x, which
v0
blade
= [L],
vs
(19)
C1 .
Cm'
v c
where
1
vT
3x
i__m tan z
64
[x] = LM =
45XVm(1 + cos
(20)
X)
64 cos
45XVm(1 + cos
Values
given
matrix
in hover
and in edgewise
by
6424
flight
X)
3re
1
[Z]hover
16
45rc
vo
45rc
1
3re
(21)
16
1
[Xlcruise = _
12
64
45rc
(22)
It is of interest
L, discussed
theory
in moments
as explained
hingeless
section.
associated
matrix
Equation
changes
the timeconstant
in the preceding
momentum
used,
that in hover
earlier,
the static
inflow
as large
are. Correlations
[82,86,87]
to that derived
variations
as those
mixed
results
on the
assumption
resulting
shown
produced
gain matrix,
based
gains
in hover
as is the static
(21) is identical
assumption
rotor model
is diagonal,
is
from
using
from
wake assumptions.
lem. For detailed
reader
to the excellent
review
paper
of nonuniform
inflow
models
is referred
of Gaonkar
and Peters
[82].
5. SUMMARY
A brief survey
and near a lifting
rotor
trol applications.
The survey
out of ground
effect.
firstharmonic
inflow
cated
developed
methods
dynamic
aspects
the comparative
correlation
monic
models
developed
of the inflow
and lowspeed
has been
predict
available
flight,
static
and
is considered
from
effect,
simple
sophisti
Both
aspect
both in and
with more
at
and con
of various
disciplines.
surprising.
the induced
in comparison
velocities
dynamics
on the evaluation
and structure
however,
of induced
of flight
and highspeed
placed
were reviewed;
using
are somewhat
models
hover
emphasis
evaluation
effort
inflow
covers
A primary
as the freewake
methods reviewed
when compared
to a set of new data at advance ratios of 0.15, 0.23,
0.30. The results of correlation
with several sets of test data indicate
that the Pitt/Peters
harmonic
inflow
suggested
that charts
should
be produced
model
works
similar
using
well overall.
to those
modern
For inflow
of Heyson/Katzoff
freewake
methods
6425
in
this limited
or in ground
Leeuw
and
first
effect,
it is
of NACA
analyses
and
simulations.Finally, it is suggestedthatadditionalexperimentsbeconductedtoresolve
issuesconcerningtheinfluenceof massflow assumptionson aerodynamicmomentsandtime
constantsassociatedwith inflow dynamics.
REFERENCES
Elliott,
J. W. and Althoff,
on a Helicopter
o
4.
Hoad,
Ratio,
Model
S. L., Inflow
in Forward
Measurement
Flight,
Glauert,
H., A General
Theory
of the Autogyro,
Inflow
R&M
Velocimeter
April
Variability
1988.
with Advance
A.R.C.,
1926.
Wheatley,
J. B., An Aerodynamic
Analysis
of the Autogiro
Rotor with a Comparison
Between
Calculated
and Experimental
Results, NACA Report No. 487, 1934.
Coleman,
Velocity
with a Laser
TM 100541100543,
J. W., Rotor
5,
NASA
Made
Drees,
R. P., Feingold,
Field
Helicopter
of an Idealized
J. M. Jr., A Theory
Problems,
on Rotors
Helicopter
of Airflow
J. Helicopter
Assoc.
Brotherhood,
P., An Investigation
Helicopter
Rotor When Hovering,
10.
11.
Brotherhood,
a Helicopter
Rotor
in Forward
Rotors
J. Aero.
of the Induced
ARR L5E10,
1945.
Britain,
Sci.,
to Some
1949.
of Information
P. and Steward,
NACA
Great
Flight,
C. W., Evaluation
Rotor,
Through
in Forward
on Induced
W., An Experimental
Flight,
R&M
of the Helicopter,
Flow of a Lifting
Investigation
No. 2734,
Sept.
Frederick
Rotor,
Ungar
NACA
of the Flow
Through
1949.
12.
Mangler,
K. W. and Square,
No. 2642, May 1950.
13.
Carpenter,
P. J. and Fridovich,
B., Effect of a RapidPitch
Response
of the Thrust and
InducedVelocity
Response
of a FullScale
Helicopter
Rotor, NACA TN 3044, 1953.
6426
Velocity
Field
of a Rotor,
R&M
Heyson,
form
16.
17.
1954.
H. H. and Katzoff,
Disk Loading,
NACA
Rotor,
NASA
Piziali,
MEMO
R. A. and Du Waldt,
Davenport,
Forward
Suitable
of the Induced
Rotor
with Nonuni
Velocities
Near
a Lifting
1959.
F. A., A Method
flight,
F. J., A Method
Flight
May
Near a Lifting
1957.
H. H., Charts
41559L,
in Forward
Velocities
R_p$. 1319,
Jewel,
Distributions
Nov. 1962.
18.
S., Induced
U.S.Army
for Computing
TRECOM
for Computation
for Application
Rotary
Rept.
of the Induced
to Tandem
Rotor
Wing
NO, TCREC
Velocity
Airload
TR 6244,
Field
Configurations,
of a Rotor
in
J. AHS,
Landgrebe,
A. J., An Analytical
Vol. 14, No. 4, Oct. 1969.
20.
Sadler,
S. G., Development
Positions
and Resulting
OR1911,
22.
Baskin,
23.
Stewpniewski,
Harris,
Vol.
25.
26.
Blade
Rotor
of a Method
Air Loads,
Vol.
Wake
Geometry,
for Predicting
1Model
J. AHS,
Free Wake
and Results,
NASA
Survey
NASA
of Rotary
Wing
L. S., Vozhdayev,
TIT823,
W. Z. and Keys,
Aerodynamics
Rotor
Feb.
Induced
Velocity
NASA
G. I., Theory
of the
1976.
C. N., RotaryWing
Aerodynamics,
(with Application
to Helicopters),
Blade
Theory,
Flapping
Motion
Vol. IBasic
NASA
at Low Advance
CR3082,
Ratio,
J. AHS,
Blade
Concept
(ABC
Development,
TM)
Ann.
Fo_m
AHS,
1976.
Johnson,
W., Comparison
ping Angles,
27.
Rotor
F. D., Articulated
Ruddell,
May
and Application
V. E., Vil'dgrube,
Airscrew,
Theories
of Rotor
Jan. 1979.
24.
for predicting
1971.
21.
Lifting
Method
Johnson,
Dynamics
J. AHS,
of Calculated
W., A Comprehensive
Part
and Measured
1: Analysis
Analytical
and Development,
6427
Helicopter
Rotor
Lateral
Flap
1981.
Model
of Rotorcraft
NASA
TM 81182,
Aerodynamics
June
1980.
and
March
1975.
Miller,
R. H., Ellis,
Rollup
30.
Bliss,
on Blade
D. B. and Miller,
Numerical
31.
32.
Matching
and Farfield
H. C. Jr., Stability
Zhao,
Sept.
35.
Curtiss,
Ann.
Forum
Ormiston,
form
Peters,
Feb.
Crews,
40.
Johnson,
nance,
41.
Johnson,
AHS,
Analytical/
May
Program:
12th European
1989.
Vol. I
R0torcraft
Forum,
Model
of Helicopter
Conf.
Rotorcraft
Dynamics
Basic
Res.,
Including
Univ.
of
N. K., Stability
and Control
Theory
for Hingeless
Rotors,
1971.
D. A., Hingeless
Blade
Bending,
Rotor
Frequency
Helicopter
J. Aircraft,Vol.
Response
Rotor
Response
with Unsteady
with Nonuni1972.
Inflow,
in NASA
1974.
S. T., Hohenemser,
Ormiston,
Analysis,
and Elastic
D. A., Hingeless
Hingeless
39.
May
R. A. and Peters,
Inflow
SP362,
38.
AHS,
Using
Ann, Forum
Simulation
During
1986.
H. C. Jr., A Linearized
Schrage,
D. P., et al., Helicopter
Verification
on Two Helicopters,
1988.
Migration
1989.
Calculation
Modelling,
34.
37.
Linearization,
and Control
FRG,
X. and Curtiss,
Correlation
Maryland,
36.
Free Wake
Howlett,
J. J., UH60A
Black Hawk Engineering
Mathematical
Model, NASA CR66309,
1981.
Curtiss,
of Wake
W. O., Efficient
GarmischPatenkirchen,
33.
Ve_ica,
Rotor,
J. Aircraft,
R. A., Application
J. AHS,
Vol.
W., Influence
J. Aircraft,
Vol.
W., Helicopter
Vol.
of Simplified
Inflow
R. A., An Unsteady
Wake
Model
for a
1973.
Models
to Rotorcraft
Dynamic
Aerodynamics
on Hingeless
1982.
Princeton
6428
Univ.
Press,
1980.
Rotor
Ground
Reso
42. Banerjee,D., Crews,S. T., Hohenemser,K. H., andYin, S. K., Identificationof State
VariablesandDynamicInflow from RotorModel dynamicTests,J.AHS, Vol. 22,
No. 2,April 1977.
43. Banerjee,D., Crews,S.T., andHohenemser,K. H., ParameterIdentificationApplied to
Analytic HingelessRotorModeling, J. AHS, Vol. 24, No. 1, Jan. 1979.
44.
45.
46.
Chen,
R. T. N. and Hindson,
Response,
Ve_ica,
Peters,
D. A., The
Influence
System,
Peters,
Prediction
of Dynamic
Inflow
Derivatives,
1981.
Vertical
Body
47.
D. A., Theoretical
W. S., Influence
Vol.
of Steady
and Dynamic
D. A. and HaQuang,
of Dynamic
Inflow
Wqrksh0p,
N., Dynamic
Inflow
on the Helicopter
1987.
Inflow
NASA
on the Stability
Ames,
for Practical
June
of Rotor
1983.
Application,
J. AHS,
Harris,
F. D., Rotary
Issues, National
TX, Feb. 1987.
49.
White,
Miller,
53.
Ann.
and Aeroacoustics,
of Predicting
AHS,
May
of the Impact
Forum
AHS,
and Important
Helicopter
Fort Worth,
Control
1979.
of RotorFuselage
St. Louis,
and Aerodynamics,
MO,
Sir Isaac
May
Pitman
Coupling
on
1987.
& Sons,
LTD.
1959.
Drees,
J. and Hendal,
Rotors,
Aircraft
Forum
Kocurek,
AHS,
May
J. D., Berkowitz,
Textron,
W. P., Airflow
Engineering,
Bell Helicopter
55.
Ann. Forum
Dynamics
copter
Ann.
54.
Qualities,
Meijer
Bliss,
Method
F., A Treatment
P. R., Helicopter
London,
52.
Handling
Perspective
on Aerodynamics
B. B., Improved
D. G. and White,
Payne,
Meeting
Helicopter
51.
AerodynamicsHistorical
Specialists'
F. and Blake,
Response
50.
Wing
Approach
Patterns
in the Neighbourhood
of Heli
1951.
Problem
for Hovering
Rotors,
1985.
L. F., and Harris,
Ann.
Forum
AHS,
F. D., Hover
May
Performance
1980.
Landgrebe,
A. J., The Wake Geometry
of a Hovering
Helicopter
on Rotor Performance,
J. AHS, Vol. 17, No. 4, Oct. 1972.
6429
Methodology
Rotor
at
56. Landgrebe,A.
Hover
1971.
J., An Analytical
Performance
and Wake
and Experimental
Geometry
Characteristics,
USAAMRDL
Prouty,
Boston,
R. W., Helicopter
MA, 1986.
58.
Knight,
NACA
59.
60.
Schrage,
D. A. and Peskar,
AHS, May t977.
Reichert,
Power
62.
G., Helicopter
Lift Aircraft
Cheeseman,
Beneath
1988.
63.
Chen,
Vibration
F0r0m,
Rotor
R. T. N., Selection
64.
Van Gaasbeek,
DATAMAP
1979.
65.
Rotor
National
Ratios,
Airscrew,
on the Induced
Investigation
Parameters
Flight
to Reduce
Meeting
Simulation
Faulkner,
A. J. and Buchner, F., Flight Investigations
Estimation
System Based on Measurement
of Control
craft Forum,
1980.
66.
Rotors
67.
Cheeseman,
in Forward
68.
Sheridan,
P. F. and Wiesner,
W., Aerodynamics
Ann. Forum AHS, May 1977.
69.
Fradenburgh,
E. A., The Helicopter
pp. 2433, Oct. 1960.
Ann. Forum
Rotorcraft
and
of the Downwash
R0torcraft
Forum,
PitchRoll
on Rotor
Computer
Coupling
System
Program,
TR80D38A
of
Design,
C81
with
and B, Dec.
of a Helicopter
Low Airspeed
Parameters,
6th European
Rotor:
in forward
Flight,
of the Ground
1955.
of Helicopter
6430
June
Engineering,
6th European
14th European
Specialists'
for Lifting
TR 7124,
of the Lifting
Effect
Rotor
1980.
C., An Experimental
of Some
PWS
Requirements,
survey,
England,
Helicopter
Flight Dynamics,
Philadelphia,
PA, 1980.
Effect
Vibration
ControlA
Bristol,
and Control,
of Ground
R. E., Helicopter
I. C. and Haddow,
a Lifting
Stability
of Helicopter
57.
61.
Performance,
Investigation
Effect
NASA
TND2_4,
on a Helicopter
Flight
Machine,
Rotor
J. AHS,
Vol. 5,
Tischler,
ships,
73.
75.
Systems
Curtiss,
Res.,
74.
Dynamics
Technology,
Inc. TR 1151211,
H. C. Jr., Ground
Research
Triangle
Effect
Park,
J. AHS,
Using
A. J. and Egolf,
the Rotorcraft
Wake
Aerodynamics
T. A., Prediction
analysis,
Landgrebe,
A. J. and Cheney,
Sept.
Intern.
Conf.
Effect
of Helicopter
AHS,
WakeKey
to Performance
Egolf,
T. A. and Landgrebe,
A. J., Helicopter
Rotor
Wake
in Forward
Flight, Vol. IGeneralized
Wake Geometry
Airloads
and Performance,
NASA CR3726,
Oct. 1983.
81.
T. S., A Wake
Basic
Curtiss,
Res.,
82.
Gaonkar,
Flight
83.
Model
Research
H. C. Jr., Dynamic
communication,
G. H. and Peters,
Ve_ica,
Sept.
1315,
Prediction,
for High
Resolution
of the Helicopter
Geometry
and Wake
Airloads,
Triangle
Park,
NC, Feb.
1985.
Inflow
Effect
on Blade
Flapping
Proc.
on Rotor
Int. Conf.
in Hovering
Flight,
Rotor
Private
1986.
Dynamics,
From
of
1972.
79.
craft
Ratios,
Flow Velocities
Beddoes,
Basic
1976.
78.
80.
Rotorcraft
at Low Advance
Induced
May
Wake Analysis
Jan. 1976.
M. C. Jr., Rotor
Lift Air
1985.
Ann. Forum
77.
of Heavy
1982.
in Ground
Landgrebe,
A. J. and Egolf, T. A., Rotorcraft
Induced Velocities,
USAAMRDL
TR7545,
CP111,
Dec.
Proc.
1921,
76.
AGARD
and Simulation
Aerodynamics,
NC, Feb.
Curtiss,
Landgrebe,
Analysis
Inflow
D. A., Review
Vol.
D. A., Rotor
Models,
of Dynamic
9th Eor0pean
1983.
6431
Inflow
Rotorcraft
Inflow
Modeling
for Rotorcraft
1988.
Derivatives
Forum,
and Time
Stresa,
Italy,
Constants
a Closedform
1989.
Houston,
copter
86.
State Wake
S. S. and Tarttelin,
Aeromechanics
Bousman,
Stability
W. G., A Comparison
Friedman,
Models
Decennial
1984.
Ames
Rotor
Research
the Aeromechanical
Specialist's
Meeting
Ann,
Model
Center,
in Forward
AH$,
C., Influence
Flight,
Ann.
of Various
Dynamics,
with Results
Forum
Correlation
AHS,
of Heli
1989.
for Coupled
RotorBody
Assessment
Work
1983.
of a Helicopter
6432
Velocities
ITR Methodology
June 2122,
on Rotor
May
and Experiment
in Hover,
Stability
Induced
and Experimental
For0m
of Theory
Model
P. P. and Venkatesan,
on
of Measured
P. C., Theoretical
in Hover,
of a Hingeless
sh____12,
NASA
87.
Finite
Comparison
Unsteady
in Ground
AHSNASA
Aerodynamic
Resonance,
Ames,
Nov.
Second
79,
\
\
V T
,u
WAKE
SKEW
ANGLE:
tan
_
/l
Voo cosc_
S2R
Voo
X = vo
Figure
1. Wake
sins
_R
skew angle.
b1
]
4/3
#13o
AIC
4/3
/_/3o
A1C
2/_v/_2R
4/3
/_/3o
A1C
v/_R
WITH
CASTLES
AND
WITH
VERTOL
HELICAL
WITH
HEYSON
AND
tan
DE
X12
LEEUW
CHARTS
WAKE
KATZOFF
(REF
METHOD
(REF
CHARTS
(REF
14)
18)
15)
_4
e_
iii
]
TEST
3
(3
CT/_
.08
_TPP
+1
(3
(3
Z
<
Z
<
.d
ii
.d
<
er
UJ
<
l
0
.04
.08
.12
.16
.20
.24
ADVANCE
Figure 2. Comparison
of calculated
test data (from Ref. 24).
lateral
RATIO
flapping
6433
angles
using
several
inflow
models
with
MOMENTUM
EMPIRICAL

THEORY
THEORY
VORTEXRING
STATE
i\
STATE
_VERTICAL
 14
CLIMB
DESCENT_
3i
 12
_VERTICAL
1I
CLIMB_
Vc/v h
Figure
3. Induced
velocity
relations
in vertical
flight
(from
Ref. 10).
Ru/R
2.0
T
I
I
i
I
I
Vd
Vd
IVdl
1.5
12Vdl
J
1.0
'__,'_Vc
 .5
', _':
V C
I
5
I
4
IVdl
I
3
_ IVdl
t
2
; _'v
I
d
1
Vc  Vc/Vh
0

41
Figure
4: Ratio
of fully developed
DESCENT
wake
radius
Ref. 23).
6434
CLIMB
PRIMARY
BLADE
, 1/2__p_
PRIMARY
0_ T
_ FREE
VORTEX
FREE
/

LAST
WAKE

ADAPTIVE
MID WAKE
1
!
_
FREE
POINT
2
!
z/R 2_
WAKE
ADAPTIVE
I
!
 MID
3
WAKE
4
MOMENTUM
THEORY
Figure
hover
5. Threepart
analysis
(from
wake
model
0
WAKE
for the
.6
(5 turns/
blade)
z/R
.8
!
i
FAR
.4
FREE
3
.2
1 1/2
WAKE
WAKE
1 TURN'_//
,
FAR

WAKE
.5
rlR
54xNt
WAKE
1.0
(REF
54)
EMPIRICAL
1.2
.2
.4
.6
r/R
.8
i
1.0
1.2
Figure 6. Computed
wake envelope
for a
twobladed
rotor having five turns of free
Ref. 53).
with
C T =.0058
(from
3O
20
CALC.
_.
I.I.
O
r
>
10
Figure
7. Comparison
.2
FRACTION
of calculated
.4
OF
BLADE
uniform
6435
.6
RADIUS,
.8
r/R
and nonuniform
1.0
inflow
with measurements.
MOMENTUM
ANALYSIS
(TIP

GOLDSTEINLOCK

PRESCRIBED
CLASSICAL
PRESCRIBED
EXPERIMENTAL
(GENERALIZED
LOSS
= 0.97)
ANALYSIS
WAKE
ANALYSIS
WAKE
ANALYSIS
WAKE)
u. 80
>
p.
_) 60
40
20
m
/
=
0.2
I
.4
I
.6
r/R
<
Figure 8. Comparison
of induced velocities
prescribedwake
analyses
(from Ref. 56).
calculated
6436
I
.8
from
I
1.0
momentum
theory
and three
z/R
/
\
z/R
0
f
/
/
6437
z/R
1.0
2
.
_..
3/2
1
1,_
.6
i
.20
I ....
.40
I
.60
I
.80
i
1.00
r/R
Figure
10. Inducedvelocity
distribution
DISKLOAD
along
rotor
blade
in ground
effect
(from
Ref. 58).
DISTRIBUTION
UNIFORM
.....
TRIANGULAR
H/R =_
.2
.4
<1 .6
.8
1.0
Figure
the rotor
11. Distribution
in hover
(from
I
.8
I
,6
of groundinduced
I
.4
I
.2
0
r/R
interference
Ref. 59).
6438
I
.2
I
.4
I
.6
velocities
I
.8
I
1.0
axis of
= 40
20
140
oo
_20
120
40
"0
_.,...._
,..." _
;2 100
LU
I
(3
Z
8O
60
4o
20
3
V_/v
Figure
angle
12. Wake
skew
flight
I
4
I
5
I
6
velocity
at several
values
of tippath
plane
at low speeds
(from
of attack.
60
50
DOWNWIND
II
UPWIND
_/OG)
__M
J_
_
z
CALC.
FROM
MOMENTUM
o 40
30
_ 20
_.
10
0
_EECwT
0
I
.2
'I_
IAONNG_E_X
t
.4
t
.6
I
.8
R
1.0
t
1.2
L
1.4
Voo/v h
Figure
Ref.
13. Comparison
of calculated
and measured
10).
6439
wake
skew
angles
'X= 26.56
z/R
1
2
X = 45.00 1
z/R
1
2
3
2
1
0
x/R
Figure 14. Lines of constant values of isoinduced velocity ratio v/v 0 in longitudinal
symmetry for several wake skew angles (from Ref. 16). (a) Z =26.56. (b) Z = 45.
6440
plane of
z/R
1
2
z/R
1
2
3
2
1
x/R
Figure
14. Concluded.
6441
1.6
BLAKE/WHITE
PITT/PETERS
1.2
.8
..'2"
_/"
"x
"X?..
.4
_ "
,, I,,
20
40
60
80
100
WAKESKEW
Figure
15. Comparison
ANGLE
,deg
6442
I
120
inflow
models.
I
140
1.0
r
"..
CLIMB:
_ =20
*e
oe
oloooeooe
o
Vo/V h
BLAKE
......
PITT
e
>O
HOWLETT
.6
.4
>J
.2
.... ___.......
_'/
_.
_.
_..'3_T
1.0
ooooo
Vc/Vh
_ = 0
.8
.4
.2
1.2
1.0
0
>
.8
.6
.4
Figure
angle
16. Comparison
of attack.
6443
inflow
models
at three
values
of TPP
om
LOW SPEED
REGIME
n
MODERATE
SPEED REGIME
HIGH SPEED
REGIME
k/J
,.d
O
.)
20
40
helicopter
vibration
04
140 160
knots
characteristics
,F\
20
iii
>
18. Vibration
180
200
with increasing
airspeed
(from
02
01
Figure
100
120
AIRSPEED,
FLARE
03
_.J
F.
F.
ira
60
80
FORWARD
characteristics
40
...._._
60
AIRSPEED,
for a fourbladed
6444
80
_b'_''_
100
120
140
knots
1,4
c_= 20
1.2
'
1.0
.8
.6
..:_.I___ .......
/J/'/
SLAKE
.....
PiTT
'
COLEMAN
GEN. HEL.
.4
/
.2
/,/j/
r_
I
(a)
1,6
o'
1,4
1,2
___
".o/
_ _
/f
,,,G_ _
I'
o / ,,V.. _
_l,_/
0 _'_/''r/
(b)
1,6 r

o
_ = 20
I /,,;
.....
//
1.0
_._,_,_
'I/,:;:;;'"
' !
'r / ,,.2/
,F/,,'k"
._llJ
0
(c)
V_/v h
of K c values
of several inflow
6445
models
d,
TEST
REFERENCE
[]
THEORY
_1 _ 0
THEORY
_1 = 0
(24)
==
'ID
o3
==
'ID
t,..Q
] BB
ot
.05
.10
,15
.20
BB
.25
10
0.75'
Figure
Harris'
20. Correlation
test data (from
of calculated
Ref. 63).
flapping
angles
KAA_
using
deg
the Blake/White
5
0
_:, deg
inflow
model
with
BLAKE
(REF
__
jCAMRAD
49)
f_3"
(REF
24)
(REF
26)
/C81
(REF
64)
<,_
_T
l/o,
/
TEST
.04
.08
.12
.16
ADVANCE
Figure
21. Prediction
of lateral
RATIO,
flapping
.20
.24
//
is improving
(from
Ref.
48).
C18
64)
CAMRAD
(REF
26)
BLAKE
(REF
49)
.16
.20
1.0
=
180
I
1.0
0
RADIUS
STATION
Figure
22. Induced
velocity
distribution
in the plane
I.t = 0.08, _TPP =1.4 , CT/O = 0.08 (from Ref. 48).
6447
ff
of symmetry
is sort of triangular
at
i
20
i
40
I
60
AIRSPEED,
of Kc values
i
80
kN
analysis
and determined
from flight
, deg
14.04
45.00
0
26.56
i
i
i
63.43
i
75.97
i
.8:...">.___
.
.......
84.29
i
 2.0
._._'_
.
1.5
.6 __
 I _  _ _.._._ .......
lo:_
4
"_ _:_'_
.2
.........
0
O
"'"
I
.5
i
1.0
i
1.5
i
2.0
i
2.5
I
3.0
3.5
Voo/Vh
velocity
at center
of rotor in forward
6448
(from
_
Voo
_,
_
J'_
i .S__i_.
GROUND
Figure
w
o == v
o
Aw
Av
L F_
_wlwol
Figure
NOTE:
26. Schematic
6449
wakes
.2
.2
.4
.6
DISK LOAD
DISTRIBUTION
.8
UNIFORM

1.0
TRIANGULAR
(a)
1.2
,2
I
0
__
e = 60
HIR....
2.0
.2
.4
_
.6
<1
.8
o_7_.o
",_
_0.5
_0
1.0
_03
1.2
1.4
H/R
= oo
e = 30
"_'''_
,2
2.0 ..=
"_"='_='_
 1.5 .....
_1
,,..._... .,,
, .0
.4
  _:"_
.6
:c.____
  o.7  
.8
"0.3,
_o3.=.___
I.0
(c)
1.2
1.0
i
.8
i
.6
=
.4
i
.2
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
x/R
6450
interference
Ref. 59).
velocity
1.0
(9"_
.4
.2
MOMENTUM
THEORY
(OGE)
.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
Vodv h
1.2
00.75
(C T _ 0.005
= 8.4
THEORY
00.75
 0.006)
[49]
= 9.8
THEORY
OGE
z/R
= 088/
/..
/
/
/
/"
"
/
/,
j
,
^
O.bt_
/../.o.48
/,,
,"
OGE
= 0.88
. ._'_
/"
/ .. 0.68
/...
. _. 0.46
/:
(b)
I
.4
.8
1.2
1.6
0
Vodvh
[49]
0.007)
_'_
(a)
0
z/R
.4
/
/
.4
(C T = 0.006
.4
.8
1.2
1.6
= 0). (a) 00.75 = 8.4 . (b) 00.75 = 9.8 (from Ref. 73).
6451
i._
.6
E
ill
I
<
O
_.2
ira
I.H
i
I
.2
i
:4
I
.6
NORMALIZED
I
.8
ADVANCE
I
1.0
RATIO,
/a*
Voo =
1.0
53
mph
LAT.
flow regimes
DISTANCE
.8
I
1.2
TO
[]
0.25R
0.30R
0.40R
determined
from
STB'D
.6
z_
__ .4
.2
0
Q
.2
I
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
L.E.
FRACTION
OF
BLADE
and measured
6452
RADIUS,
r/R
(approximated
T.E.
from smokeflow
pictures)
.........
EXPERIMENTAL
1:I
.6
RESULTS,
OF SMOKE

COLEMAN
CURVE
....
MANGLER
CURVES

PLANE
(REF.
12 LOAD
ACROSS
FORE
IN PLANE
DISTRIBUTION
AND
0.4R
.OWLETT
I
i
_
0.4R
"I"
F]
0.3R
0.25R TO
TO STARBOARD
STARBOARD
DIAMETER
LATERAL
TYPE
PITT
AFT
TO STARBOARD
(REF.
OFFSET
6)
+..<
...._=0
..J
I)
..J
.if"
i = 15
_,..._+.."T,
:"" " .i
+./I"
__.:.:"'I.L'"
I"
+++._+_
._."3::':_":""I
...."$
.2
_'_
._....t'
_
,,'".if
.2
.8
FORE
Figure
.6
32. Comparison
.4
.2
LONGITUDINAL
of calculated
I
0
POSITION
and measured
(It = 0.167).
6453
ON
.2
ROTOR
induced
I
.4
DISC,
.6
.8
1.0
AFT
x/R
velocity
distributions
in longitu
LV TEST DATA

UNDISTORTED
DISTORTED
WAKE
WAKE
ROTORCRAFTWAKE
/ ANALYSIS
.10
.06
.04
%=_10
"_N .02
_
t_
I<_
z
_,.'_._
.04
.05
.;r
_
F<
Z
>, .04 _
_."
oI , /y','/I
.07
(.9
<
"\ .,j /
_
.05
nO
O
O
_J
< .07
,71, .02
o
o
o
J
_
Ire
w
>
.10
.5>''
, /.> i
>.o5
/,'_
.03
o_TpP = 6.6
.03
.o5
V/E_R = 0.18
0 = 8.5
.04 &E
.o2F
.09
,,._'"'"
"_"
oI ' _...v_
_'', ,,
.09
.02
r' __._
05 I o_
""
.0
.7
.8
RADIAL
.9
i
1.0
COORDINATE,
i
1.1
i
1.2
y/R
 .10 _(b)
.15 /
.7
V/aR
I
I
 %=10o
\/
I
.8
RADIAL
= 0.18
o=8.5o
I
.9
(XTPP= 6'6
t
I
1.0
1.1
COORDINATE,
y/R
6454
AFT
FORE
0/I
_:t_'_._,
._... _._.._,
/
/
.02
_.,,_
I
I
_"__
"
_'__"
_'__
"'
I
.I
"'1
......
I
....
_"_'_
_.'i_".
__
.......
TEST
DATA
'
GEN.
HEL.
.
COLEMAN
(REF.
__ BLAKE
..... _,TT
"
I
.06
_'_._._
1)
.>
, """
.02
QOIQI
I
........ I
e_
__
eO*OOoo..=
oeeO
Oea.
0
,J
"
Z
.02
D
w
_._._
_._
._ .04
_U =
.02
0.23
.06
",,,
leo
.01
iIoe
o
!
elil,
O
lo
O
lllIOlill
e
1..
eooe
.01
=
.02
0.30

.03
1.2
.9
.6
_j =
Figure
34. Comparison
plane of symmetry
I
.3
180
of calculated
at three advance
6455
.6
.9
1.2
(r/R)
and measured
ratios.
I
.3
_j
induced
inflow ratios
in the longitudinal
.02
,,
_ = 180
_9
.....
I
TEST
_
....
'''"
I _
.........
.02
=0
DATA
I
(REF.
1)
BLAKE
PITT
GEN. HEL,
__
"o
.04
.06
.O2
.9
1.2
0
cc
o
_1
g.
z
3
.02

IJJ
o
a
z
.04

.02
= 240
l.
.02
= 60

.04
1.2
.9
.6
.3
.3
.6
"'""1
r/R
Figure
t.t = 0.15
35. Comparison
for several
of measured
azimuthal
and calculated
positions.
6456
induced
inflowratio
distributions
at
INFLOW
FLOW
ANGLE
ERROR,
deg
Z0_"
II
r_
ANGLE
ERROR,
deg
FLOW
ANGLE
ERROR,
INFLOW
deg
ERROR,
ANGLE
deg
_
b
b_ o
b_ b
b_ bb_
_1
O1
O
O
_'c_
Ill
&
"11
iI
II
/L /
_'
k.o
O
= _///
._ _//
o"
{.0
0_
.;.
Ct_
,.p
INFLOW
INFLOW
;_"
FLOW
ANGLE
ERROR,
deg
ERROR,
_0
....
k_'" _ >_o
FLOW
ANGLE
ERROR,
deg
ERROR.
I[
ANGLE
'
deg
N"
ANGLE
'_. _'
I,
' _',',
II
Nm._>
i5
_
nl
"__
'l/_,
,,>o_o
o_m
_,
deg

BLAKE
....
PITT
HOWLETT
==
o
COLEMAN
cE
, _,.4,_
li:Tj"
O
a:5
uJ
ILl
_4
(3
N3
0
I
"
Z
0
1.2
.9
.6
= 180
, =
.3
.3
.6
r/R
_,L"
.9
_
180
=0
10
==
"0
1.2'
= 0
LASER
[]
BEDDOES
VELOCIMETER
METHOD
CAMRAD
FREE
DATA
WAKE
/_
UTRC
CLASSICAL
WAKE
UTRC
FREE
_Ik
UTRC
GENERALIZED
WAKE
WAKE
==s
LU
=,
O
...I
u.
5
0
.5
1.0
I
1.5
r/R
.5
1.0
I
1.5
r/R
6458
inflow
(a) _ = 0
(b) _ = 180
_6
_5
w
<
4
3
BLAKE
....
PITT
_
_!_
.....

HOWLETT
COLEMAN
_o
_J
Z
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
r/R
r/R
10
10
REF.
==
[2]
REF.
[2]
[]
_
LASER
VELOCIMETER
BEDDOES
CAMRAD
DATA
METHOD
FREE WAKE
Z_ UTRC
CLASSICAL
WAKE
n"
LU
LU
I
_Z
UTRC
o
_J
LI.
5
.5
110
1.5,
5 0
.5i
1.10
1.5
r/R
r/N
Figure 38. Comparison of inflowangle errors calculated from simple firstharmonic inflow
models with those from wake models evaluated in Ref. 2, g = 0.30. (a) _ = 0. (b) _ = 180 .
6459
.02
= 180
=
.02
= 225
.02
_=
45/
O .04
nr
0
.06
_J
.02
LU
D
Z
,02
.04
6
'01.5
1
L I
.5
.5
1.5
r/R
Figure
39. Correlation
of Takahashi
6460
model
= 0.30
0.23
_
0.15
.03
.02
.01
_ =300
_ =120
,i_;
,.
.01
_
__..._
.....
./
.02
.03
.04
.05
.04
= 240
.02
_ = 60
_ol
_kl
.02
(
.qJ
.04
.06
.08
.02
inflow
ratios calculated
from Takahashi
6461
model
at test conditions
of
_
_ = 0.30
0.23
.....
/'_
0.15
../%
O
ee
= 180
./'//J/_i/,'\"
"x\ \
,,
ill
_=o
_0
O
_d
ii
Z2
m
4
1.2
~.9
.6
.3
.3
.6
.9
1.2
r/R
Figure
41.
symmetry
Induced
inflow
errors
advance
generated
ratios
tested
from
Takahashi
in Ref.
6462
1.
model
in the longitudinal
plane
of
Na_onal
Aeronautics
Report Documentation
and
Page
Space AdminisbatJon
2. Government
1. Report No.
NASA
Accession
No.
3. Recipient's
Catalog No.
TM 102219
5. Report Date
A Survey
of Nonuniform
Inflow
Models
Dynamics
and Control
Applications
for Rotorcraft
November
Flight
6. Performing
1989
Organization
Code
8. Performing Organization
7. Author(s)
Robert
Report No.
A89220
T. N. Chen
5056151
9. Performing
Ames
Organization
Research
Moffett
Center
Field,
CA
94035
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring
Technical
National
Aeronautics
Washington,
DC
15. Supplementary
14. Sponsoring
Memorandum
Agency Code
205460001
Notes
Point of Contact:
Robert
(415)
This paper
was originally
September
1215,
T. N. Chen, Ames
6945008
Research
Center,
MS 2112,
Moffett
Rotorcraft
Forum,
Field,
CA
94035
or FTS 4645008
prepared
European
1989, Amsterdam.
16. Abstract
This paper
of induced
the
summarizes
velocities
perspective
of flight
including
hover,
dynamic
aspects
inflow
models
vertical
developed
well overall.
Inflow
over
and aMoad
For inflow
dynamic
of a brief
analyses
and
survey
and lowspeed
indicate
with more
The results
flight,
effect,
several
developed
freewake
for
inflow
that charts
conditions
first harmonic
methods
with
from
simple
first harmonic
using modem
conducted
and reviews
sophisticated
it is suggested
be produced
of various
of correlation
or in ground
of NACA
forward
models
The survey,
a spectrum
is on the evaluation
in comparison
effect
inflow
effect.
covers
and highspeed
computations.
Leeuw
applications,
emphasis
the years,
of nonuniform
control
A primary
and Castles/De
Induced
flight,
Heyson/Katzoff
in flight
dynamics
of the inflow.
use in performance
obtained
the results
model
similar
works
to those
methods
and simulations.
by Author(s))
UnclassifiedUnlimited
velocity
dynamics
Subject
Flight dynamics
Ground effect
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
Unclassified
Category
 08
65
of
for use
22. Price
A04