Estimating Helicopter Gross Weight Using HUMS
Data
Eric Bechhoefer
eric@gpms-vt.com
CEO/Chief Engineer
GPMS
Cornwall, VT, USA
Abstract—Weight and balance are part of every pilot's
preflight. Gross weight (G.W.) and center-of-balance impacts the
static and dynamics of flight. However, from a condition
monitoring perspective, understanding the G.W. could determine
the accumulated damage to structural component. This, in turn,
allows for the calculation of components remaining useful life and
improved retirement time of structural components. As life limits
for a critical component are based on the worst-case assumption
of usage, an actual estimate of G.W. allows for a more accurate
assessment of loads, thus providing a more precise usage
spectrum. This then provides a path toward extending the time
between overhaul or extending the maintenance interval. This
paper solves for G.W. using Health and Usage Monitoring System
(HUMS) parameter data to solve an inverse performance
problem.
Keywords—momentum theory, HUMS, usage credit
I. INTRODUCTION
While the calculation of weight and balance is part of every
preflight, accurate and automated weight measurement would
facilitate the measurement of aircraft loads. Weight coupled
with flight regime would allow for improved structural fatigue
life calculations. Knowing the actual loads imposed on the
aircraft can facilitate safely extending life-limited components.
For future vertical lift aircraft, designing in the calculation of
weight could be used to improve the aircraft's performance.
Weight and balance affect the static and dynamic characteristics
of the helicopter. The known weight would be an enabling
technology for advanced automatic flight control systems and
supporting condition-based maintenance. The known weight
could also be used to validate the usage spectrum of the aircraft.
An actual usage spectrum would use the existing calculations of
time for life-limited components, based on the actual spectrum
of usage, to allow for a credit or extension of an overhaul or
inspection.
This paper approaches the calculation of inferred weight as
an inverse of the performance problem. Generally, performance
calculations are used to calculate the power needed in hover and
forward flight. However, these calculations are made using
numerical methods. In this paper, the inverse problem solves
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Thomas Wells
wells103@purdue.edu
M.S. Aerospace Engineer
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN, USA
that for a given power (thrust), airspeed, and vertical weight,
what would the aircraft's weight be?.
II. GROSS WEIGHT METHODOLOGIES
Traditionally, G.W. can be taken by weighing the aircraft,
but this is generally impactable for daily missions. Additionally,
this does not work for helicopters with sling loads, nor does it
account for fuel consumed during the mission. It should be
noted, the need for calculating weight automatically has
generated a number of both innovative and novel attempts to
derive this information. Thus far, the goal is mostly unattained,
with no commercial systems automatically providing G.W.
estimation from aircraft-mounted sensors.
This need for G.W. to define damage was first reported by
Daniell and Molnar [1]. Daniell was concerned with the loads
imposed on the rotating components such as the rotor shaft, pitch
control horn, and rotor head spindle. These parts experience
stress, which varies due to aircraft weight and other factors.
Daniell notes that tracking these stresses over time aids in
determining the useful life of these components. Further, due to
the rotating frame, these parts cannot be measured with strain
gauges (this work was done before low-cost, wireless
communication devices). Instead, Daniell et al. measured the
blade conning angle in a steady-state using laser diodes. The
conning angle is a function of blade load, thus proportional to
weight.
Moffett [2] was motivated by the requirements of the
Structural Integrity Recording System (SIRS). This study was
developed in 1978 to acquire operational usage data from the
AH-1G helicopter. Their need was to use flight parameter data
such as engine torque, pressure altitude, temperature, and gross
weight to differentiate between damaging and non-damaging
flights. Moffett's approach was an inverse lookup of the hover
performance chart. Using pressure altitude, temperature, and
torque, go "backward" through the hover chart to estimate the
weight. This solution was limited to in-ground effect hover, and
as such, is limited in its application.
In "Helicopter Structural Life Modeling: Flight Regime and
Gross Weight Estimation" [3], Grabill et al. were interested in
enhancing usage measurements to support of on-condition
maintenance. This would be coupled with the improved
structural fatigue life calculation afford by a G.W. estimation,
allowing for safely extending the time between overhauls of life-
limited parts. This life extension would reduce helicopter
operational and support costs. Grabill et al. used a multi-layer
perception (MLP) neural network. While this process was
shown to be feasible, no life extensions have been granted at this
date.
Researchers J. Isom et al. [4] wanted to calculate G.W. and
center of gravity to support health and usage monitoring,
improved control authority via inputs to automated flight
controls, and improve mission planning systems. Their solution
to G.W. involves wireless sensors on the main rotor (rotating
frame) to measure loads, then using a multivariate linear
regression model to represent the aircraft states, such as G.W.
Here, the method uses fundamental helicopter aerodynamics
and measured flight data management (FDM) parameters from
a health and usage monitoring system (HUMS) to calculate
G.W. This new methodology calculates induced, parasitic,
profile drag. The power required by these sources of drag is
summed and compared against the power measured by the
HUMS. The difference is used to calculate the G.W. of the
aircraft from the thrust required for flight at a given airspeed,
density altitude, and maneuver. This process uses the tools
developed for helicopter performance calculations based on
momentum theory.
III. USE OF MOMENTUM THEORY FOR GROSS WEIGHT
ESTIMATION
In this paper, results were derived from real-world data
acquired on the Bell 407. Initially, flight data was taken from
four different aircraft with known gross weight and fuel loads.
An important input into the calculation of weight is determining
the rate of weight change due to fuel combustion. The amount
of fuel burned is a function of air density and the power
delivered by the engine to the rotor. Power is relatively easy to
calculate as the product of torque and RPM. Thus, the
helicopter's known weight both before and after the flight, along
with cumulative power produced and air density (both derived
for the HUMS), allows for calculating the specific fuel
consumption.
A. Specific Fuel Consumption
Usually, fuel consumption is calculated to determine the fuel
needed to complete a mission. The is done by using the product
of the specific fuel consumption and power. In this problem, the
fuel burned is used to determine the rate of change of the
helicopter rate due to power. The fuel flow for a given power is
linear when normalized by a factor [6]:
𝛿√𝜃 (1)
Here, d is the pressure ratio and q is the temperature ratio
relative to ISA atmospheric conditions. From eq 1. The
normalized specific fuel consumption can then be calculated as
a linear regression (eq 2)
𝑊!
% = 𝐴" + 𝐵" *𝑃, - (2)
𝛿√𝜃 𝛿√𝜃
Wf is the specific fuel consumption normalized by the pressure
ratio and temperature ratio, where P is power (a product of
torque and RPM), A.E. is the fuel flow intercept, and B.E. is the
derivative of fuel flow as a function of normalized power. A.E.
and B.E. were calculational from data acquired on four aircraft
flying several missions using different density altitudes.
B. Power Required
In this paper, the lifting force on the helicopter is derived
from a change in momentum of incompressible air entering a
stream tube passing through the rotor disc (that is, based on
momentum theory). This flow enters the disk and is accelerated,
resulting in a force (thrust) T, see [7] for more discussion on
Momentum Theory.
𝑇 = 𝜌𝐴𝑉# 𝑉$ (3)
Vi is the induced velocity, V2 is the velocity after acceleration,
A is disc area, and r is density. With a change in variables, it
can be shown that V2 = 2Vi, or that the induced velocity is
doubled as the air forms in the wake far downstream of the
rotor. That allows for:
𝑉# = 1𝑇,2𝜌𝐴 (4)
Eq 4 provides the relationship between disc loading and
induced velocity. This tells us that the force provided by thrust
works on the medium passing through it as the induced velocity.
Hence, the rotor is expending power as the product of thrust and
induced velocity:
𝑃# = 𝑇 × 𝑉# (5)
Based on this concept, the solution strategy is to measure the
total power required to maintain equilibrium as the power
required to overcome parasitic drag, profile drag, and induced
drag. Induced drag is used then use to determine the weight from
the generated thrust.
C. Profile Drag
Profile drag is the result of the movement of the blades
through the air. It is assumed that this value does not change
significantly with the blade angle of attack.
As a generalized solution for profile drag, the system
requires configuration data. When the aircraft is at idle and not
generating lift, it is possible to calculate the blade coefficient of
drag. Configuration data are easily measured, derived from the
blade cord, the radius of the blades, the main rotor RPM, and the
number of blades. The blade coefficient of drag was calculated
while the aircraft was at 55% idle. As it is assumed that as the
blades generate little to no lift [6] at idle, the power (percent
torque x max engine torque x RPM/9.5488) is used to calculate
Cd:
 𝐶% = 𝑃8,𝜌 × 𝐴 × 𝑉𝑡 & × (1 + 𝐾) (7)
Here, r is the air density, A is the area of the blades, Vt is the
rotor trip velocity, K is the Glauert expression for induced
velocity (a value of 4.65 was used, [6]), and V is the aircraft
velocity (for Cd calculation, V has a value of zero at flight idle).
This leaves the real-time calculation of profile power as:
𝐶%, & $
𝑃'()!#*+ = 8 × 𝜌 × 𝐴 × 𝑉𝑡 × (1 + 𝐾 × (𝑉⁄𝑉𝑡) ) (8)
D. Parasitic Drag
Parasitic drag is the drag associated with the non-lifting
portion of the aircraft. The parasitic power is calculated as:
The total power is the sum of equations 8, 9, 11, and 12.
Further, the thrust terms are presented in 12 does not have a
closed-form expression. Hence the solution for gross weight is
derived as an optimization problem.
IV. RESULTS
Data were collected from several missions' flown on the Bell
407GX, where an estimate of G.W. was made from the fuel load
pre-and post-flight. This was used to build a configuration for
the blade coefficient of drag, flat plate area, and specific fuel
consumptions. Using this configuration data and HUMS data
from other flights, the profile, induced, and parasitic drag was
calculated as a function of airspeed. Examples of the Induced,
Parasitic, Profile and total power required are in Figure 1. Note
that this is specific for a G.W. and density altitude.

𝑃',(,-#.#/ = 1,2 𝜌𝑉 & 𝑓 (9)

After calculating the blade Cd, and the change in weight due
to fuel burn (eq 2), the equivalent flat plan area, f, was calculated
by least-square fit. The data for this estimate was derived from
test flights where the initial and post-flight weight was known
and where the aircraft was flown from 40 to 140 knots. Note that
the V3 term in the parasitic drag equation will tend to dominate
at higher speeds.
E. Induced Drag
This is the drag incurred as a result of lift and is affected by
the helicopter weight. The induced velocity and its associated
drag are calculated from:

Figure 1 Power Requires for a Given Airspeed

𝑉#$ = − 1,2 𝑉 $ + 1,2 ?[𝑉 0 + 4 (𝑇⁄2𝜌𝐴)$ ]
From this, the induced power required can be calculated
(from eq 6). However, allowances are added for: tail rotor
power, main gearbox losses, and other miscellaneous loses. This
is collected in the empirical term ki, of 1.15:
(10)
Once the configuration was generated, the total power,
profile, parasitic, induced, and power required as a result of
climb/dive can be calculated vs. flight time for an operation
(Figure 2). The label dP is the power for climb and dive. Note:
It is generally acknowledged that Momentum Theory fails
during descent, but the results suggest that the error is small.

𝑃# = 𝑘# × 𝑇 × 𝑉# (11) This example mission included a short fifteen-minute transit

Note that the thrust, T, is calculated from the weight, which
is solved via optimization. First, the weight is decremented by
the product of specific fuel consumption (eq 2) and power (from
the flight data monitoring function of the HUMS). The weight
then decreases by the amount of fuel burned over the flight.
F. Climb/Dive Power
Finally, one needs to account for the power associated with
the vertical rate of the aircraft. Using vertical rate date (Vrate)
from the inertial measurement unit, the power required for a
change in altitude can be calculated as:
on to station to where power line inspections were performed
(for approximately 30 minutes), followed by a 1:45 hr. transit. It
can be seen that where the inspection occurred, the power
required was about 300KW (Figure 4).
Give flight data parameters and equations 8 through 12, a
least-squares error solution for weight was solved. Since only
induced power requires thrust, and hence, G.W., the power
remaining after profile and parasitic losses are easily accounted
for by density altitude and airspeed, can be plotted against the
estimate of induced power, give a time series for a given mission
weight (Figure 5).

𝑃!" = 𝑘# 𝑇 %1(2 𝑉"$%& + 1(2 +𝑉"$%&

'
+ 2𝑇⁄(𝜌𝐴) − 3𝑇((2𝜌𝐴)4 (12)

As noted, ki is the empirical expression for profile power.

Figure 2 Power Associated by Different Profile, Parasitic and Induced Drag
Figure 3 is the track of the aircraft. Note that the helicopter icon is at the start
of the inspection, about 18 minutes into the mission.
Observe that there is a small amount of error after
maneuvers. This may be due to the band-limited nature of the
parameter data, such as torque and airspeed, relative to vertical
climb/dive. The weight and rate of change of weight are plotted
in Figure 5. The aircraft weight was tested as 2177 kg, while the
estimated weight (at the start of the flight) was 2170 kg.
V. DISCUSSION
This estimated weight as derived was relatively accurate,
given the small computational effort required to solve the
optimization. On average, the error was less than 1% for the
mission that was flown (power line inspection). However, it's
likely the error would be more significant when the modeling
assumptions are not met.
For sling loads, unless an improved flat plate area is
calculated for parasitic drag, the weight will be overestimated.
There may be strategies to address this where if the model
"increases" weight in forward flight, it is assumed the flat plate
area needs an update. However, this does add some complexity
as to when/how to update coefficient values. This is an active
area of research.
Figure 3 Power Unaccounted vs. Estimate of Induced Power for a Weight
Figure 4 Calculated Weight and Rate of Change of Weight
The G.W. analysis assumes that specific fuel consumption is
accurate. This solution strategy does not expect/use an interface
with the fuel quantity sensor, so the rate of change of weight is
an open-loop calculation. Hence, the analysis is depending on
some context on engine performance. For example, if the engine
margin drops due to needing a compressor wash, the weight
calculation error will increase. Or, for instance, on the Bell 407,
bleed air is used for cabin heat. Bleed air "on" affects the engine
margin by 5 to 6 percent. Consider that there is no indication in
the Bell 407 that bleed air is on. Hence, it is difficult to determine
when to apply a correction factor for Bleed Air on in an
automated way.
This engine performance error would correspond to an
increase in weight estimation error of maybe a 1% change in fuel
weight. However, this fuel weight error is relatively small
compared to vehicle weight. That said, if part of the standard
operating procedure were to perform a hover, the HUMS could
perform an automated engine performance check to account for
engine margin or bleed air on errors.
Despite some potential for minor errors in the weight
calculation using this method, having an idea of actual vehicle
weight and maneuvers will reduce the uncertainty of the vehicle
usage spectrum. In the worst case, the G.W. is corrected by 1.01 standards district office (FSDO) to enable the extension, as per
to account for worst case. This would allow for a revised time [7].
between overhaul (TBO) or inspection interval for life-limited
parts on the aircraft. Even at the design assurance level (DAL)
E (No Safety Effect), a process can be implemented as a [1]
mitigation.
[2]
Consider integrating the HUMS data that is downloaded
autonomously with a maintenance management system (MSS,
such as Camp Systems). At the end of the flight, the operational [3]
data/usage and loads data are associated with an aircraft
operation. At the end of the flight, the pilot records their flight
time/landing for that flight on the MMS application. This [4]
application pairs the HUMS data with the pilot entered data,
[5]
allowing for a person-in-the-loop (e.g., a mitigation) to validate
the HUMS data was collected for that flight. If data was
[6]
collected and accepted as valid, load data is accrued on the life-
limited parts. If no HUMS data is found, then the usage is [7]
accrued as flight time (which is the worst case). This simple
procedure would allow, at the very least, data for a local flight
REFERENCES
Daniell, J., Molnar, G., "Helicopter Weight Measurement," U.S. PN
5,229,956, Jul 20, 1993.
Moffatt, J. G., "Helicopter Gross Weight Determination from Monitored
Parameters," Technical Report USAAT- COM TR 96-D-5, U.S. Army
Aviation and Troop Command, Fort Eustis, VA, 1996.
Grabill, P., Brotherton, T., and Keller, J., "Helicopter Structural Life
Modeling: Flight Regime and Gross Weight Estimation," IEEE Aero
Conf., 2007.
Isom, J., Fang, A., Wong, J., "Estimation of Gross Weight and Center of
Gravity," U.S. 2015/0276538 A1, 2015
Gessow A., Myers, G., Aerodynamics of the Helicopter, Frederick Ungar
Co, New York, 1978
Seddon J., Newman, S., Basic Helicopter Aerodynamics, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, 2011
AIR6334, A Guide to Extending Times Between Overhaul for Rotorcraft
Power Train Transmission Using Monitoring Data, 2020-60.