Performance Validation of a Novel High Speed, eVTOL Compound Helicopter Demonstrator

Joseph J. Andrews
Kymatics, LLC
joe.andrews@kymatics.net
Oakland, CA

ABSTRACT

A novel Group 2 UAV was designed, built, and hover tested to develop a new eVTOL configuration capable of high-
speed, long endurance flight without compromising on hover endurance. The design focused on payload capability, speed,
lifetime cost, safety, and reliability to balance the design requirements. Commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) parts were used to
focus on a first principles validation study at limited cost in order to reduce risk on the design prior to a fully custom, high
performance design effort. The design lends favorably to future scaling to sizes required for passenger transport. Rotorcraft
Comprehensive Analysis System (RCAS) was used to predict gross rotor performance in hover and forward flight. The
RCAS results were used to inform the design trade study. The design was built and tested on a custom test stand and
compared to the RCAS results in order to validate the trade study hover performance.

INTRODUCTION* Kymatics proposes an experimental demonstrator at

Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft have
been indispensable over the decades, serving many needs
where fixed-wing aircraft are incapable of operating. The
ongoing development and capability expansion of these
platforms has made them safer, faster and more reliable.
Many companies have even begun to explore unmanned
on-demand aerial delivery and transport. While there are
many configurations in contemplation at many different
scales and use cases, there currently does not exist a fast,
electric VTOL (eVTOL) platform that can operate in all
environments at extended hover times. A compelling
need for this capability is sea rescues (Figure 1), which
require fast response, long hover times, and low disc
loading.
the UAV scale that leverages existing commercial-off-
the-shelf (COTS) parts to enable an eventual top speed of
250 knots. The design is fully rooted in a multi-
disciplinary, first-principles approach. Projected to full
scale, the design would be capable of expanding the speed
range well beyond 350 knots. The speeds would be
achieved while also maintaining traditional hover
endurance benefits of a helicopter, which have endured
mostly unchanged for nearly 100 years.
The design UAV would perform well as support for
full scale military aircraft with belly mounting a
possibility due to the flat packaging.
MOTIVATION

A brief survey of the state-of-the-art in electric VTOL

(eVTOL) will reveal three leading design approaches.
These are multi-rotor platforms, tiltrotor or wing
configurations, and compound multi-rotor designs that are
present from UAV scale to full-scale passenger transport.

Historically, quadcopters have existed since the

Figure 1: Helicopter Sea Rescue
Presented at the VFS International Powered Lift
Conference 2020, San Jose, CA, January 21-23, 2020.
Copyright © 2020 by the Vertical Flight Society. All
rights reserved.
1920’s [1] but the design was dropped due to their
mechanical complexity. As electronics, electric motors,
and batteries improved, quadcopters came to prominence
as a commercial UAV platform due their new-found
design simplicity. This simplicity inherently drives a low
price point for consumer applications and fueled rapid
consumer adoption.

1
 In recent years, many are attempting to bring the
quadcopter’s design simplicity in the UAV world to Cruise Power =
passenger transport. A fully electric platform is a
Equation 3: Cruise Power
desirable option in replacing fossil fuels for a sustainable
future. Their redundancy is often touted as a safety
As it is commonly known that batteries store less
feature in conversation, while quietly avoiding
energy per pound than fossil fuels, electric flight becomes
implications on long term maintenance costs. Most have
an exercise in efficiency. From simple momentum theory
focused on urban air mobility (UAM), where hover is a
(Equation 1), the overarching challenge of VTOL
small consideration of the planned flight envelope.
efficiency is to reduce disk loading as much as possible.
In the traditional turbine helicopter world, there is an
For a given disk loading and airfoil selection, multiple
increased priority to replace aging single-main rotor
rotors will be less efficient than a similarly sized single-
designs with designs capable of higher speeds. These
main rotor. The reduction in rotor radius incurs a
have predominately included coaxial and tiltrotor designs
Reynolds number penalty [2]. If solidity is kept constant,
where the added complexity is a necessity to avoid blade
it incurs a significant figure of merit penalty. If solidity is
stall at speed or human factor impacts, respectively. The
adjusted for optimal hover performance, there are rotor
requirements drive mechanical complexity, reliability,
drag penalties in forward flight. However, this may be
and safety in tiltrotors, or a packaging effort that results in
mitigated through airfoil optimization at each scale.
higher empty weight fractions and/or hub separation
aerodynamic penalties in coaxial designs at full scale. In The additional rotors and associated electronics of
these cases, fossil fuel free design considerations have not electric propulsion, each of which contain several hundred
yet been considered. As evidenced by almost any vehicle components, drive up repair costs as it reduces MTBF
industry, in general, speed is expensive. (Equation 2). With aircraft repair costs sometimes
exceeding $1000/hr as of this writing, this can add up to
Kymatics undertook a design study over two years ago
significant repair and opportunity costs over the lifetime
to find a solution to electric flight at the UAV scale which
of the aircraft. Looking at the wind turbine industry
would enable high speed while maintaining hover
whose sole purpose as an industry is to generate as much
efficiency. In order to inform the design, many aspects of
power as efficiently as possible using an electric drive
physics were considered. Of those, the following first-
train, it is reinforcement that size and component-count
principles equations were drivers:
matter.

When looking at forward flight (Equation 3), drag is

the main challenge in any aircraft. The key aspect here, is
that even though this equation is for a rotor as well
where, (propeller), disc area is not a major driver. A smaller and
more efficient propeller can be used for forward flight.
and R – radius of single rotor
SPEED LIMITS
Equation 1: Momentum Theory
Most of the aerodynamic performance issues
mentioned can be mitigated, but would do so without
MTBFsystem =
regard to dynamics or structures. While this is a lengthy
MTBF – Mean time between failure topic worthy of its own paper, it is beneficial to evaluate
Equation 2: System failure rate two approaches as it relates to maximum achievable
velocity. Both are chosen to have dual redundancy for the
sake of fair comparison. The rotors are kept to simple,
untwisted, un-tapered NACA 0012 airfoils, also for the
sake of discussion and fair comparison to the

2
configuration covered in this paper. Both examples were
calculated with a 23 lb Basic Design Gross Weight
(BDGW) and 2 lb/ft^2 disk loading.
The first of these is the quadcopter compound
configuration. Four propellers are used for hover as in
quadcopters. When the transition to forward flight is
made, a wing, aileron, rudder, and elevator are used. The
rotors are typically stopped inline with the direction of
travel, such that they provide a very low drag penalty
compared to using the rotors for lift in forward flight.
However, a simple stress calculation [3] would reveal that
for the simple geometry chosen, 62 mph is the point that a
1-degree angle of attack would cause mechanical failure
of the rotor. To maintain a safety factor, 55 mph would
have to be the maximum speed for this configuration
without design changes and necessitates a restrictive pitch
envelope. More realistically, the maximum velocity will
be lower as the center of lift leads the center of gravity.
As such, it is expected that dynamic instability would
occur when the negative aerodynamic damping exceeds
any built-in structural damping. With these structural,
stability and fatigue concerns, speeds exceeding 60 mph
would start to require design changes to maintain
structural integrity and would become more difficult with
increasing velocity.
Another popular configuration is the octocopter.
These configurations also use fixed-pitch propellers to
avoid mechanical complexity. Regardless of an
additional pusher propeller, if the 8 rotors are used for lift,
the configuration would face the struggle of helicopter
designers prior to Juan de la Cierva’s addition of
articulation [1]. For these rotors without cyclic controls
or articulation, the asymmetric velocity profile from
forward flight would result in a moment at the rotor head.
For the same rotor loading as the quadcopter-compound,
the maximum speed achievable is roughly 130 mph
before the moment exceeds the strength of the material.
Faster speeds would be achievable but would incur
aerodynamic penalties. Alternatively, the design could
progress to more traditional rotor designs, but with so
many rotors and controls, it would impact weight and
reliability.
3
DESIGN
Given the motivation, it is seen that keeping the
design to two traditional rotors is ideal. It enables high
speed flight, while minimizing component count. As in
traditional fixed wing, it is also beneficial to separate the
jobs of lifting, propulsion, and control. Additionally,
tilting surfaces and coaxial designs at the UAV scale
prove difficult to manufacture for reliability and
performance in multiple areas.
All these considerations led to the design proposed in
this paper, a transverse rotor compound (Figure 2). Much
to the author’s dismay, this was a re-discovery of a mostly
ignored configuration around since the 1940’s. The first
transverse rotor was developed in 1936, with the Focke-
Wulf Fw 61 [1]. While this was not a compound, there
are some that have been designed. It remains a novel
design, as there is no evidence available to the author of
testing the compound configuration in literature.
Figure 2: Sparrow - Unladen (Initial High-Speed
COTS eVTOL Design)
Similar to tandem and tilt rotors, the design incurs a
size penalty when compared to coaxial and single-main
rotors, but at significant benefit to the overall design,
especially at UAV scales. Intermeshing rotors, a design
similar to the transverse rotors, were considered but have
similar issues to the coaxial design at this scale.
The rear propulsor, later changed to a ducted fan for
ground clearance, and wings allows for the rotors to
remain completely unloaded, serving mainly for control at
speed. This ensures a dual-redundant, dissimilar
distributed drive system by design. Power to the rotors A future version with custom designed parts would
and propulsor can be lost, without losing the aircraft. As enable higher speeds, as well as increased reliability and
the rotors are used mainly for control, the rotor speed can range. The design enables fixed-wing level dual-
be reduced dramatically in steady level flight, reducing redundancy by design and maintains a minimal number of
drag. As such, the rotor drag can be estimated from fixed rotors for reliability. This lends well to high-
autogiro equations [4]. Power requirements can be reliability military UAV designs, where it can be scaled
estimated with Equation 3, where drag components down to <class 1 sizes.
include: wing/body induced, wing/body profile, rotors,
When scaled up, the required wingspan is more
hub, nacelles, and shafts.
appropriate in commercial applications, namely regional
Control actuators in the design are only used on the transport, as the coaxial helicopter is more compact for
rotors. This reduces part count, as additional control military applications. For a four-person vehicle, storage
surfaces on the body are unnecessarily redundant. A full dimensions would be equivalent to a Cesna 172.
complement of three rotor swashplate controls allows for
Though it would need quite a bit of effort and
additional safety. Loss of any one actuator on the rotors
validation, the increase in size would allow design
results only in degraded-mode control of the aircraft on
changes for envelope expansion well into the supersonic
that axis.
regime; the largest of which is power density/range.
While hover differential roll cyclic can be used to
Table 1: Sparrow Demonstrator Specifications
offset download losses, it is expected to be incur higher
losses at these low disk loadings. By reducing lift over Class
the wing, the inflow velocities over the wing would be COTS 4-person
Parameter Original 2
Demo Commercial
reduced therefore reducing drag velocities on the wing. UAV
However, non-uniform losses are expected to outweigh BDGW
2.1 lbs ~23 lbs
rotor download from non-uniform inflow losses with up (No 20 lb 4000 lbs
(meas.) (meas.)
to 30% inflow losses vs 8% wing download losses for the Payload)
COTS demonstrator. A proper study would have to be Max
0 lbs 20 lbs 30 lbs 1000 lbs
conducted to characterize inflow velocities at which Payload
differential cyclic can help. Wingspan
2.62 ft 6 ft 6 ft 60 ft
In operation
During the trade study, the design appeared overly
optimistic. As such, the effort described in this paper Wingspan
- <4 ft <4 ft ~34 ft
Folded
focuses on a demonstrator leveraging COTS parts to
Hover
validate the methodology. While far from optimal, the
Endurance 100+
demonstrator can prove out many of the touted features at 7.5 min 37 min 120+ min
(No min
significant cost reduction. Because of the relationship payload)
between hover efficiency and wingspan, the wingspan Rotor 2.62
2.62 ft 2.62 ft 27.5 ft
was maximized, within reason, in order to maximize Diameter ft
hover times possible on electric power. Reasonable
Rotor
folded-rotor sizes were chosen based on existing aircraft Figure 0.22 ~0.45 0.6 0.75
to ensure similar storage sizes. The proposed range and of Merit
endurance would ideally remove much of the need for
Vmax goal - 170 kts 250 kt 350+ kt
ultra-compact transportability.
Range
The goal of the demonstrator would target a 170 knots (10 min.
top speed to prove out the design methodology and flight hover, 25+ 120+
-
control. Additionally, a strong focus would be placed on 5 min. miles miles >200 miles
validating hover efficiency; the topic of this paper. reserve
)

4
 Specifications for the COTS demonstrator, production 0.70 Rotor Speed
(%NR)
UAV and a full-scale commercial vehicle are listed in
0.60 19%
Table 1. To note, Table 1 is based test data collected in 25%

this paper. 0.50 31%

38%

Figure of Merit
44%
ANALYSIS 0.40
50%
56%
For rotor performance simulation, Rotorcraft 0.30
63%

Comprehensive Analysis Software (RCAS) was used. As 69%

0.20 75%
the regime of the demonstrator is at lower Reynolds 81%
numbers than full scale, comparatively little data exists. 0.10 88%
94%
Due to the lack of data, and the desire to quickly iterate
100%
0.00
on future rotors, the analysis will focus on using Thrust (lbs)

analytically generated airfoil data. The necessary Figure 4: 2-bladed Rotor Efficiency (RCAS Results)
corrections will be noted to correct future endeavors. The
airfoil data in C81 table format was generated using XFoil
[5]. 19%
25%

The rotor used for this study was an easily obtainable, 31%
38%
commercial off-the-shelf design which uses untwisted 44%

Thrust (lbs)
carbon fiber blades with a NACA0012 profile. Both 2- 50%
56%
blade and 4-blade variants were available at the same
63%
rotor radius, so both were analyzed in RCAS to compare 69%
performance characteristics. 75%
81%

RCAS analysis that informed the hover performance 88%

94%
aspect of the trade study are given in Figures 3-6. The 100%
axes between the 2 and 4 blade plots are the same. Power (Watts)

Rotor Speed
(%NR) Figure 5: 4-bladed Rotor Performance (RCAS Results)
19% 0.70 Rotor Speed
25% (%NR)
31% 19%
0.60
38% 25%
44%
31%
Thrust (lbs)

50% 0.50
38%
56%
44%
Figure of Merit

63%
0.40
69% 50%
75% 56%
81% 0.30 63%
88%
69%
94%
0.20 75%
100%
81%
0.10 88%
Power (Watts)
94%

0.00 100%
Thrust (lbs)
Figure 3: 2-bladed Rotor Performance (RCAS Results)
Figure 6: 4-bladed Rotor Efficiency (RCAS Results)
Because the rotors are held to a constant radius and
chord (the blades for the 2 and 4-bladed rotors are the
same), the thrust generated at any given rotor speed is
significantly greater for the 4-bladed rotor. The figure of

5
merit for the 4-bladed rotor is only slightly higher
analytically.

Since the power required for any given thrust level

will be similar between the two, the 4-bladed rotor will be
beneficial for the final design. The lower rotor speed of
the 4-bladed rotor should provide lower noise, vibration,
and loads. The increase in hover drag is captured in the
figure of merit number and can be mitigated with variable
rotor speed and collective.

To ensure controllability at speed, a simple rigid rotor

open loop transfer function was generated for the 4-
bladed rotor, depicted in Figure 7 and Figure 8. A chirp
signal was generated and applied in the time domain to
Figure 8: Rotor Cyclic Pitch Open-Loop Transfer
the RCAS model of the rotor. The rotor was chirped in Function – 174 kts
collective, pitch cyclic and roll cyclic. The linear chirp
While there is some cross-coupling of thrust and roll
signal included frequencies from 3 Hz to 120 Hz and was
for collective, it is expected and at these speeds is small.
performed with a 0.5 deg blade pitch amplitude over a 25
Given that the design uses two rotors, the small roll
second duration.
moment coupling can be ignored until higher speeds are
reached, and/or a lighter airframe is developed. The pitch
control is entirely uncoupled. This is all encouraging of
good controllability up to 170 knots, though a higher
fidelity modeling effort will be necessary to ensure
success. Of note, no dynamics are included due to the
rigid rotor assumption, but is still informative of any
aerodynamic issues at speed. Given the planned decrease
in rotor speed variation, rotor dynamics at speed are
expected to play an integral part in the success of the
configuration.

TEST STAND

Validation test data was obtained using a custom test

Figure 7: Rotor Collective Open-Loop Transfer Function stand (Figure 9). While lacking many typical parameters,
– 174 kts
such as collective and cyclic measurements, the data
provides insight into the performance methodology used
in developing the concept in a cost-effective manner.

Load measurements are collected using four full bridge

aluminum bar load cells typically used in electronic
scales. The load cells come in 1, 2, 5, and 10 kg ranges.
This setup used 5 kg cells to maximize data collection
range.

6

Figure 9: “Shadetree” Calibrated Hover Test Stand
Each load cell was connected to an individual HX711
load cell amplifier. These analog-to-digital converters are
24-bit resolution, up to a rate of 80 Hz. All four HX711
sensors were wired to an Arduino Uno, where the loads
were resolved and averaged into thrust, roll, and pitch
measurements at 1-2 Hz output over serial. After
calibration, the system was able to accurately and
repeatedly measure down to a resolution of 10 g on the
20kg range. Additionally, the TMP102 temperature
sensor was included to account for the up to 4%
differences in air density due to temperature swings. The
TMP102 can accurately measure temperature to under a
0.5 degrees C error and comes verified against NIST-
traceable equipment.
The load stand bill of materials amounts to less than
$300 at the time of writing and makes for a very good,
cost-effective and low-lead time testing platform for
college projects and start-ups.
7
While the control electronics for the electric motor
included power measurements, the results during initial
measurements proved suspect and un-correlated. As a
result, power draw measurements for the system were
obtained using a Rigol DS1052e oscilloscope and an
AEMC SL261 AC/DC current probe on the DC input
side. These were chosen to accurately measure the high
frequency content. The DC current average calculated on
the Rigol was recorded over USB with the NI-VISA
software suite and Python.
An FPGA was used for the control servos, where pre-
set static collective measurements were calibrated for
accurate repeatability. Drive system RPM and motor
temperature were also streamed.
All the parameters were aggregated using a standard
laptop and Python to a common data file for post
processing. Dynamic collective and cyclic inputs were
input with joystick inputs on an XBOX controller, while
the shoulder buttons adjusted the preset collective
measurements. The system proved repeatable and
moderately reliable, though cumbersome in ensuring all
components of the system worked in concert. The Rigol
data collection proved to be accurate, yet the least reliable
and slowest in the system.
In operation, the test stand maintained proper
clearances and safety where appropriate. Lexan guards
were used for safety. The rotor was kept to a minimum of
one rotor diameter from the guards or walls. Data was
taken at multiple heights to calibrate for ground effect,
though height had only a 5% impact for the data shown in
this paper.
TEST RESULTS
Testing began with an articulated 4-bladed rotor,
based on the RCAS results above. As testing progressed,
vibration issues tied to an unknown source of instability
were encountered. Elastomers were added in the fixed
system to add additional damping to the system. The
addition did not do much to reduce the instability, but the
modification was retained as it significantly reduced the
noise of the resonant aluminum attachment plate.
Due to the lack of instrumentation to pinpoint the
source of instability and availability of alternate rotors,
testing resumed with a rigid 2-bladed rotor to avoid any
ground resonance issues or issues from lack of damping
in the rotor system. Issues persisted on the simplified
system, but at a higher operating speed. It was found later

Profile Power (Watts)

to be a result of a drive train instability from
misconfiguration of control gains.

Testing resumed with the 2-bladed rotor to collect Test

initial data, but as discussed above, the reported power RCAS

from the drive train proved to be inconsistent across

envelope expansion runs. The SL261 current probe was
added to the system to record accurate power draw of the
rotor and drive system.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Data for bare head runs were collected in this setup to Rotor Speed (% NR)
calibrate the stand for drive train losses and focus on rotor
performance. While not detailed here, the efficiencies of Figure 11: Hover Test Profile Power Data (2-bladed)
the drive train were found to be roughly 10% higher than
These results indicate that the profile power
expected at these low power draws. This was a promising
calculations are very close to those predicted. In a gross
finding, given that it will be used throughout the flight
sense, the thrust to power ratios for the rotor also
envelope and not just hover.
generally follow predictions. They are therefore enough
Once the bare head runs were collected, several runs for design purposes. In these, the rotor stall test points are
were conducted up to 63% NR on the rotor. The test data not depicted in the charts in the interest of clarity.
compared against the previous RCAS results at equivalent
When progressing to figure of merit (Figure 12) which
conditions is given in Figures 10 and 12. The figure of
compiles both profile and induced power, a significant
merit of the test data was calculated based upon test day
reduction in efficiency is seen at the higher operation
temperature conditions. Using the bare head run data, the
points. This is a non-trivial, but manageable loss of
power draw of the rotor was further split into induced
performance in hover.
power and profile power, Figure 10 and Figure 11
respectively. 0.70

0.60
RCAS - 63% NR
RCAS - 56% NR
0.50 RCAS - 50% NR
RCAS - 63% NR RCAS - 44% NR
RCAS - 56% NR 0.40 RCAS - 38% NR
RCAS - 50% NR RCAS - 31% NR
FM

RCAS - 44% NR
Thrust (lbs)

Test - 31% NR
RCAS - 38% NR 0.30
RCAS - 31% NR Test - 38% NR
RCAS - 25% NR Test - 44% NR
Test - 25% NR 0.20 Test - 50% NR
Test - 31% NR
Test - 56% NR
Test - 38% NR
Test - 44% NR 0.10
Test - 63% NR
Test - 50% NR
Test - 56% NR
Test - 63% NR 0.00
Thrust (lbs)

Induced Rotor Power (Watts)

Figure 12: Hover Test Efficiency Data (2-bladed)
Figure 10: Hover Test Induced Performance Data (2- To tease out a cause, the data was converted to
bladed) dimensionless form. Figure 13 re-depicts the previous
data in dimensionless form and accentuates the issue.
Both the test data and simulation results are depicted up to

8
the same collective setting. The figure of merit
differences can be attributed to an apparent
RCAS - 63% NR
underprediction of induced power. RCAS - 56% NR
RCAS - 50% NR
RCAS - 44% NR
RCAS - 38% NR

Thrust (lbs)
RCAS - 63% NR RCAS - 31% NR
RCAS - 56% NR RCAS - 25% NR
RCAS - 50% NR Test - 25% NR
RCAS - 44% NR
Test - 31% NR
RCAS - 38% NR
RCAS - 31% NR Test - 38% NR
Test - 44% NR
CT/σ

RCAS - 25% NR
Test - 25% NR Test - 50% NR
Test - 31% NR Test - 56% NR
Test - 38% NR
Test - 63% NR
Test - 44% NR
Test - 50% NR
Test - 56% NR
Test - 63% NR Induced Rotor Power (Watts)

Figure 14: Hover Test Induced Performance Data (4-

Induced Cp/σ bladed)

Figure 13: Hover Test Non-Dimensional Induced

0.70
Performance Data (2-bladed)
After the 2-bladed data was collected, another attempt 0.60

at 4-blade data was undertaken. Initial testing resulted in RCAS - 63% NR

encountering the same instability as before with the 0.50 RCAS - 56% NR
RCAS - 50% NR
articulated rotor. The instability was not tied to rotor RCAS - 44% NR
0.40
speed, ruling out ground resonance. It also improved with RCAS - 38% NR
FM

RCAS - 31% NR
collective, which would typically rule out flap-lag Test - 31% NR
0.30
instabilities in rigid rotors. The lack of instrumentation Test - 38% NR
Test - 44% NR
drove a modification to remove flap-lag degrees of 0.20 Test - 50% NR
freedom from the articulation. This resulted in successful Test - 56% NR
data collection, see subsequent figures, yet was stopped Test - 63% NR
0.10

due to the failure of the modification, which prompted a

resurgence of the unknown instability. 0.00
Thrust (lbs)
Given the consistent rotor speed incidence of the
instability, irrespective of minor modifications, it may be Figure 15: Hover Test Efficiency Data (4-bladed)
related to low lead-lag damping or an aerodynamic root
cause.

9

Profile Power (Watts)
0% 20% 40% 60%
Rotor Speed (% NR)
Figure 16: Hover Test Profile Power Data (4-bladed)
CT/σ
Induced Cp/σ
Figure 17: Hover Test Non-Dimensional Induced
Performance Data (4-bladed)
Results for the 4-bladed version are similar, if not
more accentuated from the 2-bladed. The major
differences seem tied to the higher induced velocity and
likely due to flawed inflow predictions. The
underprediction of induced power gets progressively
worse with thrust. This is a common area of hover
performance work, where free-wake and CFD codes are
used in higher fidelity predictions [6]. Further work
would be needed to pinpoint the cause of the discrepancy
for more accurate results.
While this is work of interest, of higher priority will
be progression to forward flight to validate speed and
range for this design where much work remains. First
flight is planned for 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
The test data collected agreed well enough with the
analytical solutions for this rotor. The results, though not
perfect, are enough to inform future design efforts. The
major item to correct is the figure of merit, for which the
Test analysis was overly optimistic.
RCAS
Unexpectedly, at the low thrust values tested, the drive
train efficiency was higher than expected. This more than
compensates for the lower figure of merit in the power
budget.
80% 100%
Further work needs to be performed for forward flight
to ensure controllability at speed, as well as drag
performance. The results, thus far, have been validated to
be within 10% of projected values.
RCAS - 63% NR ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
RCAS - 56% NR
RCAS - 50% NR
RCAS - 44% NR The author would like to thank the many people in
RCAS - 38% NR
RCAS - 31% NR
industry, government, academia and at home for their
RCAS - 25% NR contributions in establishing a strong foundation which
Test - 25% NR
aided the writing of this paper.
Test - 31% NR
Test - 38% NR
Test - 44% NR
Test - 50% NR
Test - 56% NR
Test - 63% NR REFERENCES
1. Leishman, G. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics.
New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006.
2. Kitaplioglu, C. Analysis of Small-Scale Rotor Hover
Performance Data. Moffett Field : NASA TM 102271,
March 1990.
3. Young, W. and Budynas, R. Roark's Formulas for
Stress and Strain. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2002.
4. Harris, F. Autogyros, Helicopters and Other V/STOL
Aircraft: Volume I. Moffett Field : National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, 2011.
5. Drela, M. XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for
Low Reynolds Number Airfoils. Cambridge : MIT, 1989.
6. How Dynamic Inflow Survives in the Competitive
World of Rotorcraft Aerodynamics. Peters, D. s.l. :
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 2008, Vol.
54.
10