This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**A GENERAL THEORY OF THE AUTOGYRO.
**

By H.

GLAUERT,

M.A.

Presented by the Director of Scientific Research Air Ministry.

**Reports and Memoranda No. 1111. (Ae. 285.) November, 1926.
**

Summal'y.-(a) Introductory.-An autogyro obtains remarkably high lift forces from a system of freely rotating blades and it is important to develop a theory which will explain the behaviour of an autogyro and will provide a

method of estimating the effect of changes in the fundamental parameters of

the system. (b) Range of

559

Appendices.

**\. The energy losses of an autogyro
**

2.

4.

**Conditions for maximum speed
**

Notation

3. Vertical descent

Tables.

I.

Maximum lift coefficientMaximumli-(drag)T 98.67Bn3. a u t o r ,g. y a r o aardanautogyroI. d

I. Introduction.-The lifting system of an autogyro or gyroplane consists essentially of a windmill of large radius R with three or whose angular rotation Sl, is maintained by more identical the forward speed V of the aircraft. Each blade is also free to rotate about a hinge at its root which is normal to the shaft of the autogyro. In the simplest case, the chord c of the blades is constant from root to tip, and the blade is attached to the shaft at a small positive angle of pitch tl, while the shape of the blade is concave downwards when viewed from front or rear. The shape of the blades will be assumed to be of this simple form in the subsequent analysis, although in practice the corners of the blades are rounded off at the tips and the chord tapers to the dimensions of the spar at the root. Variations of the chord and angle of pitch along the blade would not necessitate any fundamental changes in the method of analysis, but would involve greater complexity at all stages. When the shaft of the autogyro is inclined backwards at angle i (fig. 1) to the normal to the direction of motion, the autogyro will be said to be at angle of incidence i. The resultant force acting on the autogyro can then be resolved conveniently into the fonowing components ;-

T, the thrust along the shaft. H, the longitudinal force at right angles to the shaft III the plane of the shaft and of the direction of motion. Y, the lateral force, normal to the previous components and positive to the side on which the blades are advancing in the direction of motion. The lift Z and the drag X of the autogyro are expressed simply in terms of the thtust and longitudinal force by the equations ;-

Z = T cos i - H sin i } X=Tsini+Hcosi

(1)

560

(2)

On the other hand, when considering the motion of the aircraft as a whole, it is necessary to use the forward speed V as fundamental speed, and to define the non-dimensional coefficients of drag, lateral force, and lift by the equations

X = k. 7t R2 P V 2 } Y=k y 7tR2 p V2 Z = k, 7t R2 P V2

(3)

The relationShips between the two sets of coefficients involves a single parameter A, which is the ratio of the forward speed to the tip speed

A=

A 2k,

v

OR

H, sin i

(4)

and in particular the equations (I) become

=

=

T, cos i -

A 2k.

T, sin i

+ H, cos i f

l

(5)

It may be noted that the angle of incidence i and the speed ratio A define the state of working of the windmill.

2. Motion of the blades.-Each blade is hinged at its root about an axis normal to the shaft of the autogyro. The plan form of the blades is approximately rectangular, but the blades are curved so as to be concave downwards. Take the line joining the root to the tip as base line (fig. 2), let h be the ordinate at radial distance r, and

561

(6)

(7)

~ ~

_ -

~o2

:{--

}

= 0·0024

(8)

1)1

~

1)1

562 angles ~ and X are small. the equation of motion for the flapping of the blade is [mr2~ dr = [dElrdr .

The resultant velocity V' experienced by the autogyro is the resultant of the forward speed V and the axial induced velocity v. this induced velocity will be assumed to have a constant value over the whole disc of the autogyro. Due to the flapping of the blade and to its curvature the blade element is inclined at the small angle (~ iJ to the + . 10). and when i is nearly 90° it gIves T = 2 7t R2 P (V . The axial velocity through the disc of the autogyro is u=Vsini-v and it is convenient to write Vsini-v=u=QRx (12) The equation (II) for the induced velocity may then be expressed in the form Asini=x+ vA2 cos 2 i + (13) x 2 and for small angles of incidence a good approximation can be obtained by neglecting x in comparison with ACos i. 4. and the consideration of the effect of variation of the induced velocity will be postponed to a later stage (Para.-Consider the element dr at radial distance r on the blade which is at angular position VI to the downwind position.V)2 + V2 cos 2 i The formula proposed for the axial induced velocity is v = 27tR2 p V' T (11) which is a logical generalisation of the ordinary aerofoil formula.563 In the first place also.v) 11 which is the ordinary momentum formula for an airscrew. Flow at blade element. It is anticipated therefore that the formula (11) will be valid over a wide range of angle of incidence. When i and T are small the formula gives approximately v = ---= T 2 7t R2 P V which is the standard formula for the normal induced velocity of an aerofoil of semi-span R giving the lift T.v sin i)2 + v 2 cos 2 i = (V sin i . and may be written in the alternative forms V'2 = (V .

Now the velocity of the air relative to the autogyro has the components" along the shaft and V cos i normal to the shaft. The velocity of the air rehLtive to the blade element has therefore the following components (see fig.r ~ - (2) normal to this first component and to the element dr <I> .564 normal to the shaft. while the blade element is moving whith the angular velocities n about the shaft of the autogyro and ~ about the hinge of the blade. 4) : (I) normal to the shaft and to the element dr U cos U sin <I> = Q r + V cos i sin <jI = u .

The analysis will be developed on the assumption that k L = 3 (6 k D = I) + 1» } (17) 1 Ii " Ii " The assumption that the lift coefficient is simply proportional to the angle of incidence will cease to be valid if the angle of incidence rises to the neighbourhood of the critical angle. Also. howevcr. For small angles of incidence the lift coefficient is simply proportional to the angle of incidence. since it must take account of the increased drag coefficients which occur on the retreating blade where the angle of incidence is large. 30 stall at an angle of incidence of 9° or 0 ·16 radian in two dimensional motion.A. the drag contributes only a small correction to the force components due to the lift. This value will.F.565 The lift and drag coefficients of the aerofoil section correspond to two dimensional motion at the angle of incidence oc=6+q. be greater than the profile drag coefficient of the aerofoil section at small angles of incidence. and it is therefore legitimate to replace the actual drag coefficients by a mean value I).-For one blade of the autogyro dT _ 1 = 3 (6 1» c P U2 dr + and by virtue of equations (15) 3 (fl . since the aerofoil sections are of symmetrical shape. R) n cos 2 _ 2 t ~ + cos <jJ 3n 2 .<0·15 Ignoring periodic terms. and hence the limit of validity may be taken to be 1 I 6+q. + 1» U2 = 3 n" (6 r 2 + X R r) + Sill <jJ 3 (2 63rn+r X ~1 cosVh i . and on inserting the values of x determined at a larger stage (Para. it is necessary that 6+2x <0·15 (18) This condition imposes an upper limit to the angle of pitch 6 for which the method of analysis is valid. the following limits are obtained. equations (14) give 1> = xR{r and if the blade elements are to operate below the critical angle over the outer halves of the blades. Thrust. 7).~: (~~ ~ X) V cos i (19) . 5. Now the symmetrical aerofoil sections Gottingen 429 and R. I) = 0·004 6 = 7·8 0·006 0·008 7·4 7·0 0·010 6·6 degrees.

566 The periodic terms disappear on summing over the B blades of the autogyro and hence the total thrust is TT I' T .

6 3 . On integration. the coefficients of sin ~ and cos ~ give respectively : I : I I or (2 6 + ~ x) Q R 3 V cos i - i Q2 R4 ~1 cos ~1 = 0 = 0 ~ Q2 R4 ~1 sin 4 = "3 ~1 (~o - (~o . Thrust moment and ftapping.6112) Q R 3 V cos i ~1 sin ~1 '1)2) VCOSi} .'Q~Rc(23) (24) ~1 cos ~1 = 3" (6 and hence tan J I 8 + '4 Vcosi x) Q R ~ = 1 l ~o 6 +!x .0·014 = 0·146 ~o =0 '116. The thrust T is sensibly equal to the total weight W of the aircraft and hence the angular velocity is given by the equation W=T=BcpQ2R3(6+ ~ x) 2 Equation (10) now gives ~o (25) + = g p <:r [1. 2 the thrust moment must be independent of the angle <. or 6l degrees./J and have the value given by equation (10).157 V cos Q R R . (26) I I or which typical numerical values are ~o 0·030 = 0·160 .1 (6+ ~X)} B W 2 1 W ..2 € 7t R 3{(! 6 + x) fl. + Also tan ~1 and t>." 567 6. i or 90.0 V cosi Q 1-'1 = 0. = 0·54. ~1 = 28l degrees.-For one blade of the autogyro r dT 1 dr = 3 (6 + <1» c P U2 r I ) and according to the analysis of Para.3 '1)2 The thrust moment on each blade is I' I (TM) 1 = c PQ2 R4 (! 6 + x) and by means of equation (10) it is possible to determine the value of the coning angle ~o.

612.3 0 0812. are very sensItIve to the weIght and curvature of the blades.3 q.6545 -q.4 in(of Tc655 12. 7.6 0 0 113 993 114DTf.q.4 form(of)TjETBT/Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC 3T1_0 1 Tj0.6 169.3 567804.00.3 0.4 Tm(=)Tj ET BT /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC /T1_0 1 Tf0.380315 948.82Tj03.4 U2w).4 Tm (q.04.00.00.6 0 0 12810406719 0450.k)Tj 0 T1 7.4 Tm(r(q.00.3 0.035 Tc655 12.845 0 velocity(IlDTf.4 Tm(q1.44.3 0 0 1113 10.3 0 0 11930088818000.00.b05Tc 4.4651 03Tm0.36 q.0315 Tc271.035 Tc655512.0315Tc783.035 Tc550 10.50.3 0.76 virtubladeara.4 the(of)j1351305 Tc 10.4 Tm(q10 Tc 9.608.74.3 0 0 115 8263T14DTf.3 0.845 0 particular(of)Tj11403154.4 Tm (-)TjEMC ET BT /T1_0 1 Tc 12.4 29(q.00.4 axial(of)j20.15(q.12103 0 equatiTn(of)Tj-.035 Tc 9.6 10.6 10804. and ~.)Tj EMC /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>B)Tj /T1_3 1 Tf-0.also modified considerably if the axial flow is regarded as periodic (see para.035 Tc655 12.458.5958114 4450.56 10.934.8 0 110. Tc50.3 0 0 12.40. 10 below).0 00.6 0205167.845 0 by(IlDTf263Tj0 . .4 Tm(q.52 Tm(-)TPxialq.604 0 given(of)Tj-26.04.04.k L) C PU 2 r = (Il .05 3. .6 0 0 102 Tf35944.76 by(the)Tj 0.2))TjEBT/Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC0/T1_0 19.3 0.0315 0117.4 a(of)Tj17.5 545.315 T68127.149712.3 0.6 0 0 12 Tc846718000.3 0 0 12.604 0 case(of)j28.568 It should be n?ted that the values of <)i" ~o.5 0 of(of)Tj0. Torque.00.)TjEMC /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC 0 Tc 12.4 Tm((Il)Tj EMC ETBT/T1_0 1 Tf0 Tc 12.845 0 of(of)Tj0.-For one blade of the autogyro and Tf-0.4 the(of)j-57Tj0 Tc 10.0315 T453.50 10.4 Tm [(79-750(3)]TJ ET BT /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC /T1_0 1 Tf 12.01913 0 with(of)Tj1191305 T233.4 fP (q.04.04.3 0 0 120 0 36.3 0.6 0 0 1336 286718000.3 0.5 545.3 0.4 6(Il)TjEMC /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>B Tf -0.04.6 721.3 0 0 132Tc7224518000.4 3 (36)Tj ET BT /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC /T1_0 1 Tf-0.2) ofof0Tj0 Tc 10.0358c 0.00.5 0 autogyro(of)Tj36903154.270527.035 8.604 0 velocity(IlofofIlDTf.50.0097 Tc 10.2))Tj0. Tf0 Tc 12.00.3 0 0 1164 4424514DTf.1941 0 0 1232 508.4 angular(of)Tj16703153.50.3 0.4 0 values(of)Tj-0.447-0.9 30.035 8 370.0315 902.8 7-0.3 0.694 845 0 and(of)Tj-0. The values are .b8c 10.00.2))Tj EMC ET BT /T1_0 1 1.16 T ~~l = (kD .34.6 0 0 1102Tj373T14DTf.574.50.00.604 0 definite(of)j27303153.0315 T98127.3 0 0 12.2))TjET BT /Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC /T1_0 1 Tc 15927.852 Tm(-)TU2w).4 x=1.845 0 rewriting(of)Tj3050315-25.6 0 0 10 Tc 67704.4 the(of)j402Tj0 Tc 10.3 0 0 1255Tj0.144 845 0 operates(of)Tj3210315-25.

.6 x lJ 1) V0 R i n .)_ (~+ X) cos <)i i)<( (34Q87)-1I To obtain the sum over all the blades it is sufficient to neglect odd powers of sin <)i cos <)i in the expansion of this expression and to K .6lJl + 16 ) cos 'f lJ2 . f. Thus.I. i and the following table gives the value of x for a suitable range of values of 9 and a. the torque is retarding on the advancing blades and accelerating on the retreating blades.}] t I \ c p 0 2 R4 Ql ={(~l)+262+16ex+4X2)Sin<)i 3 3 ! i 1 + x ( 3" ~o . Values oj x_ 6= 1)=0 0-003 0-006 0-010 0·015 0° 0 0-0224 0-0316 0-0408 0-0500 2° 0 0-0136 0-0220 0-0308 0·0397 4° 0 0-0090 0-0160 0·0237 0·0318 6° 0 0-0065 0-0121 0·0188 0-0260 The torque on the individual blades is due solely to the perioclic terms which give Ql = C P0 2 R4 [sin tjJ {(i l) .d T _ _ _1 _1 r dr ' dr .cos where ~= 1 d Q SIll W. R i (30) for which typical numerical values are I c p %~ R4 = (0 ·0125 sin <)i + 0·0017 cos <)i) V~~ I I I I . 8.tjJ. v (! v + 2 x) ~1 SID and on substituting from equations (23) . .} V0cos i -.569 . i \ . Longitudinal Jorce_-The longitudinal force on one blade is calculated from the equation __ 1 dH = dr ~o-~.f.6 " lJ2 . to a close approximation. I.g6 x) V~~ cos <)il} + cos <)i i + (! 6 + 2 x) ~1 {(6 ~o + 3x 'fl ~o cos .

b y 570 replace sin' <Ji or cos' <Ji by using the expansions given1 ! B. Proceeding by this method and D (32) 3 B ! 3 ! b 3 2 2 2 y y y 3 2 2 y 2 ) y ) 3 ) 3 (2 2 3) ) 2 3 3 y 2 2 .

lr.108 V cos i nR indicating a lateral force to port. I I 10. Experimentally the lateral force appears to be to port at high speed and to starboard at low speed.!.-Hitherto the normal induced velocity has been assumed to have a constant value v over the whole disc of the autogyro. r d Ql COS <)i _ d T 1 dr dr (~+ xl sin <)i and proceeding as in the case of the longitudinal force 2 . 1 571 9. and a magnitude proportional to the forward speed of the autogyro. To explain this divergence it is necessary to abandon the assumption that the axial velocity u is constant over the whole disc and to consider the effect of a varying induced velocity.Vcosi 1) j n R Inserting typical numerical values -..3 (6r 2xR) (~o X) cosi . where the blades are retreating.l 2 .Y = T _ 0.~ -. Periodic induced veloeity.3 (2 6 r + X R) (~o+ xl n V cos i 3 n2 r2 (~o X) ~1 cos <)il + 3 n2(6 r 2 + X R r) ~1 sin <)il + + + nv + + On integrating 2Y 9 Vcosi Bcpn2R3=(961)1-26~o-9x~o) nR . but there is a discrepancy in the value at low speeds.0 +24 2)l. 9 + (~o .61)2) ~1 cos <)il + (2 6 + 2 x) ~1 sin <)il and then substituting from equations (23) Be p12 R3 = { 6 _ 5 C ~o + ~ 1)1 2 161)2) (33) x (.". but it is evident on physical grounds that the induced velocity will in fact be greater to the rear and less to the (34087)-11 i :. = 3 n2 (6 r 2 2 X R r) ~1 sin <)il Be p .i 'I '! ·1' ! I 1 I K2 i! :1 . Thus the sense of the variation of the lateral force with speed has been obtained correctly. Lateral foree.-The lateral force on one blade is calculated from the equation d Y1 = _ dr .

0668 552............97701..........................2m(exact)T R ......6 0 0 10. If the increment of the induced velocity is proportional to the distance behind the centre of the disc... then at small angles of incidence it will be of the form V + VI R cos <jI r It is not possible to assign an exact value forthen635 Tc 10.- 572 front of the disc....

32m(189)Tj0.3 nishe81 Tc 4.0492 Tc 2.0001 Tch)Tj0.5678 0 0 Tc 10.499 0 T 0 0 11.7 0 0 12.81BT/2653E5.7678 0 0 16.92 Tm(<PI)TjE9BT/Suspect 0 131C ETBT/T1_2 122 1 Tf8.087 Tc 10./S201229145.32m(the)Tj/T0 TSuspect <</</Co59 ECon88/T1_1300 Td(is)7/Suspec7/Suf0.162 0482.6187 0 0 12.6 284.812t <0MC E5.0349 Tc 1.7 255.51 /8Con88/T1_1X 1 Tf0.82492 Tc 2.5678 0 0lif 1.anspect <<3ch<15(is)Tj1730.279nf 0 >137)Tj0. (34) 6+ Ix 0·050 which has the typical numerical value tan <PI = 0·54 + ~ The increment of the longitudinal force H is obtained as d (B ~ p ~~) = .573 and so the phase angle <p.7135 490.64 Tm(=)Tj-0.0492 Tc 2.6553 2<PI)Tj1 T2 0 0 11.1 TfTm(249)Tj0.6 244.1987 538.03f0 /8Con88/T1_1X2 1 Tf7135 490.5678 0 0so52 Tm(the)Tj0.6534 490.6025 490.5678 0 0tha 1.4088E5.035 Tc 11.7863 584.0352 Tc 12.3 270.02dTc 0 1 ly.750 >>75C /C0_038.40590096. must be determined from the equation tan <PI = !~O-3'Y)2+ 16v' 1.3 0 2 r2 (~o + xl d (~I thesi 1 Tf-0.32 Tm(+Tm(=)Tj-0.32 Tm(rTm(=)TEMCT1_1 1 T<</C_1 1BTECon88/T1_1R8737 604.5678 0 0th0.48470028007E006F>TjEMC0 1 T80 1 8Con88/T1_3 0 0 12.8 Tm( 0 0 7.0287 Tc 10.09/Suspec9/S20jE97 ECon88/T1_1 1 Tf-0.59 0the/C_ .16j0.08Con88/T1_1r52 Tm(the)T9C 4 /Sus Tf 265.6 f0.035 Tc 7.2 3 VI T.09/Suspec9/S299C 17 ECon88/T1_1 1 TfTm(<PI)Tj9/682T1_1 1 T<<.3 183.819 045BT45.

-The aerodynamic characteristics of an autogyro depend on the values of three fundamental parameters : 6 6 6ofofof2 6oft 2an o f o v a l u e s of f h r 7 f 2 c s 5 .574 11. Lift and drag.

it is useful to calculatethe meanlift co· efficient liL given by the aerofoil sections.542616 -Befor 52 0 Td138va7006inl37006v 7 g 1 v a 7 0 0 6 l 3 0 0 6 v .821206._1T 84 0 or T.03. Approximately T = ( _ k L B c P QZ r Z dr } ilL B c P QZ R 3 3 1 cr kL 3 (6 +~ x) Numericalvaluesare given in the following table. Mean li]t coefficient.854e164.2710.9227 952 0 Td 7he g108 g104v 1l=0 ld06 Tc 10. so that 575 of a suitable value of Il. 0' 2' 1l=0 0·003 0·006 0·006 0·010 270219 Tc2702.4 0 5.

= sin 2 i sin i } e v a esin 2 i) ⠱ +~ + cos2 i) .k. = sin 2 i (cos i k.

defined by the values of lJ. .) By means of this table the maximum lift coefficient of any autogyro. (max. 2 Acos i 2 A k. 4x (11) cosi and by differentiation with respect to Aand i. cos i (39) Hence A smtcost-XI\CoSt=Sx 2" " (11) A2k = .3 sin 2 i) sin i cos i which give the following numerical results:- i 6 x· (11) 35! 36 ·003 ·715 37 ·017 ·645 38 ·045 ·580 I 39 ·089 ·520 40 ·153 ·463 0 ·770 k.3 sin 2 i) cos 2 i 3 Sill t o' (40) (2 .=~: Asini=x+ T. and Table 1 gives the values for a suitable range of values of the three fundamental parameters.577 13. The maximum lift coefficient increases as lJ or (1 increases and as I) decreases.= T. can be determined. (1 and I).-A good approximation to the maximum lift coefficient of any autogyro can be derived from the following approximations to the fundamental equations (36) :- a=4X(e+~X) T. Maxmimum lift coefficient. the maximum lift coefficient is found to occur when 2 A(3 sin 2 i .I ) = 3 x sin i Substituting back in the previous equations k zmax-~ ) ( where _ 2 (2 .

.

-Within the limits of validity of the preceding analysis. Typical values are given in Table 2. cr. n od e d e p e n 3 2 6 j 0 . 6 5 5 3 0 3 6 . 0 5 T c 1 0 . 4 . General discussion. the characteristics of an autogyro depend essentially on the values of the three fundamental parameters lJ. 6 0 2 6 3 1 4 6 7 j 3 4 1 8 4 5 1 5 a u t o g y r 0 T d ( t 2 9 C 0 . 2 8 ) T c 3 . 0 0 1 5 3 T c 3 .4 Tm(anc 11. weight. but the flapping of the blades and the lateral force Y depend also on the curvature. or /) decreases. / t ) thea /). 4. 1 1 7 0 T d ( o e ) T j 0 .o .-. 15. and it appears that the lift-drag ratio increases as lJ. 0 2 7 3 T c 1 0 .0575 0 0 186 . lJ. 9 3 4 1 8 4 5 1 5 o r d e r f l a p p i n g . 0 3 9 9 T c 1 0 . and /). and size of the blades.. cr and /) are known. 3 0 . 579 The maximum lift-drag ratio can be determined from this table for any autogyro when the values of the three fundamental parameters. 5 6 8 3 4 1 8 4 5 1 5 t b 6 T m ( t h e ) 7 j 0 . as discussed in para. The longitudinal force and drag are also influenced to a smaller extent by these lattcr characteristics. 6 0 3 0 7 . cr. The analysis of the torque led to the equation (29) which showt9. 1 1 ( a n a l y s i ) 2 T j 0 .

a solidity of 0·2 represents a good mean condition but a lower solidity is advantageous for high speed. r --- 580 respectively the effect of variation of the profile drag.-----------~-~-~~------~-- .. solidity and angle of pitch.. It is desirablethat the profile drag should be as low as possible.. and an angle of pitch of 2° is probably the bestthe ...

An additional sourceof loss of energyis the periodic distribution of thrust overthediscof thewindmill but no simplemethodhasbeenfound of estimating its magnitude.-2 7t R· PV· - (b) The energy loss due to the drag of the blades will be calculatedon the bew assumptionof a mean profile drag coefficient for the whole of the blades. and for small anglesof incidenceit is sufficiently accurateto take V' = V.which unfortunatelybecomelessaccurate small anglesof incidenceandintroduce at someuncertaintyin the determinationof the maximumlift-drag ratio.e. Theinducedvelocity will beassumed havea constant to valueoverthediscof thewindmill and to begiven by theequation (a) as in the previousanalysis. THE ENERGY LOSSESOF AN AUTOGYRO. This c analysisgives an upper limit only to the possiblelift-drag ratio since it is not possibleto evaluatefully every possiblesourceof loss of energy. to the region where the resultsof the previoustheory are most likely to be in error. If E is the lossof energyin unit time.duerespectivelyto the induced velocity causedby the thrust and to the profile drag of the blades. and henceit is legitimate to replacecos i hy unity and to regard the lift Z as identical with thethrustT. 1 2 4 T3 . as given in the main body of the report is developedby consideringthe aerodynamic forceson therotating blades. For simplicity also the analysishas been confined to small anglesof incidence. of Two main sources lossof energyareconsidered. The elementof drag corresponding the inducedvelocity v is to then calculatedsimply as a a Q w 2 r X1 _ V _ T Z .beenmadeto analysethe energyaccountof an autogyro in order to provide an independent heckon the previousresults.VT The thrustof the windmill causes inducedvelocity v and a correspondan ing lossof energyTv. The· theory necessarilyinvolves certain assumptionsand approximations. i.V . An attempthas. The theory of the autogyro. The velocity V' in this equationis the resultant of V and v.I. the drag X of the windmill is determined the equation by XV=E andthe drag-lift ratio of the windmill is ootainedas X E Z . As a a . therefore. The analysisassumes the angleof incidencei to be small.

where the summation extends over all the blades.582 . Thus R E = Boil f 3 = .

TABLE A. The value derived for n was 6.2) 3/2 Ii ~ = ! 8 (2 + 5 ).2 + ~ A410g VI + )..2) V 1 + ). .. 135.2 + 1 8 VI +).583 With t = 0 or lSO°.).. we obtain 1 + n ). and 315 degrees for the special case A = 1. so the agreement is satisfactory.4 log 16 ). ).09. (1+6).2) VI + )..2-1 (e) The numerical values of (1 + n ).4) + i (2 + 5 ).. Moreover.2 = ~.. and hence it is important to retain the radial velocity in the calculation of the energy losses.. ).2 1 1 + 1. 225... Values of n.... the integral is I (0) = I (180) = f: (~ VI + V 1+ 2 + )..2) and n are given below in Table A.2 - Finally. As a check on the accuracy of the method of calculating n... the integrals have also been evaluated for the angles :Ji = 45... instead of 6·13..2 + ). de1107475 315). by adding the values of the four integrals. It appears that n increases with A instead of having the constant value 3 as given by the approximate equation (c). its value is of the order of 5 in the region where the maximum lift-drag ratio is likely to occur.).2 + ).

Hence we have approximately 7 ~x Z = cr" T. Z .2 . The earlier analysis gives the higher drag.! 4 n a= (~ 62 3 + 17 6 x + 15 x 2) 2 2 + Z 6x 2 3 8 3 5 x (6 . a + ~ ----r:cr" a= 3 4x (6 2 +~砩 2 ~= ~ 62 + 17 6x+ 15 x2 The comparison of the two results therefore depends on the terms The first point to notice is that n depends only on A. A crucial test of the two alternative results would therefore be the experimental determination of the effect of varying the blade angle of an autogyro. while ~ depends on that there is an essential difference between the two results. depending on the fact that the earlier analysis assumes Ato be small and the present analysis neglects the effect of the periodic distribution of thrust over the disc of the windmill. {53} = 2 ll" 5 2" 6 (ll + 2 x) It appears therefore that the two theories agree approximately when the blade angle is zero. The a . Then ~.. and the lift-drag ratio would rise from 5·9 to 7·9. With the usual blade angle of 2 0 the difference in the values of X/Z is 0·087 A. but that there is an increasing divergence as the blade angle increases. According to the present analysis this value would be reduced to 0 '126. + ~ x) 2 § 62 3 which lies between "3 6 (6 + '2 x) and 3 6 (6 + '2 x). the difference being 6 and 8 so Now at high speed A is of the order O· 5 and so we can take approximately n=5.584 whereas the result given in the main body of the report may be expressed in the form x_ where 'I.2 + cr 4 " T. According to the earlier analysis an autogyro defined by the values cr = O· 20 and = 0 '006 had the minimum drag-lift ratio of 0 ·170 when " was approximately O· 5.

409 926.88 equations(by)Tj2T1_0 10.88 A---0 0 >>BDC 1T1_0 10.9028 1.9189 18784387 186.88 (6---lieMC bylieMC ETBT/Suspect <</Conf >>BDC 1T1_0 17.979.88 X(by)Tj/T1_0 115 6996215 6 174 19544387 186.009 1.5 86369409 926.88 mcc(the)T62429028 0 1 1.5 11.(---- .88 Tm(the)Tj65.409 926.1--_.88 0·0225ibly)0.9 84 .915 1914.93825824941170.409 926.9028 0 1 17 T0191.1 ...280116272228.34672663 11.4387 186.468T726.28357 8.88<007E>--byby ETBT/Suspect <</Conf 0 >>BDC0/T1_0 1.9028 0 1 .039612. The truth must lie somewhere B T between the two values given.88 am(and)T12449028 0 2730.--------------------------> 0 f n o C / < < t c e 585 p s u S / T earlier analysis possibly underestimates the merit of the auto-gyro and the present theory certainly overestimates it.409 926.9663 12.88 .409 926.5625 0 1 161. The profile drag coefficient of the aerofoil section used on the autogyro is determined by modellie E C M e i l e no h t and ononlieMC on bybycoefficientis14 10 .25860468T726.03511.88 =(the)Tj8..9 009.88 we(is0 81269028 0 1 139 1929.88 dm(veates)Tj9.8142902884 9946.996215 0 2.....059 2849025 0 kinedby thetheonof ETBT/Suspect <</Conf >>BDC 1T1_0 111.

0195 Tc 9.6 0 5.055311548887i/Su37·84)<0586586 ~ . 2' I Lift-drag ratiQ (cr ~ 0 '20).586 TABLE C.6 0 0eW3Tj548887i/Su36·5 Tm(586 7 0.12 /Su30'502 Tmf7899 Tc 9.6 014 0 0 296. e~o ! 4'C. 588526 Tc 9.

w which requires minimum power at a given fonvard speed. is determined by the equation x and since -vipaa + 2pV = w --"'X 2pV ~嘲 -vi p aw a X w = k. or which gives the maximum speed for given power. 3/2 + 2 X -vi aa'" -vi a aX X k = 2 y (b) [0 this case also 550 also . PV2 k this condition is equivalentto .

588 APPENDIX 3. The velocity of flow tluQugh the The problem of the vertical descent of a syroplane is essentially that of disc u is unaltered and the tip speed of the windmill is given by the equation : - In order to . determining the drag of a windmill subject to an axial velocity V. The equations of the main report remain valid with the exception of those which define or involve the axial induced velocity. Vertical descent.

0368 Tc17Q q248 0 475.7154 q 14.((<jJ-'j!.589 APPENDIX 4.). angular position of blade. S Q9 08312467 q 41. angular rotation of blade rotTm (o11. . angular velocity about shaft.04otaS Q Q BT /485ion)Tj 0.3.6.)32 EMC ET32. Notaticm.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd