Measurements Comparing Hover Performance of Single,

Coaxial, Tandem, and Tilt-Rotor Configurations

Manikandan Ramasamy∗
University Affiliated Research Center
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035

Abstract CT rotor thrust coefficient, = T /ρAΩ2 R2

CP rotor power coefficient, = P/ρAΩ3 R3
Hover performance characteristics of torque-balanced CP0 profile power coefficient, = σCd0 /8
coaxial, tandem, and tilt-rotor systems were compared d shaft-to-shaft distance
against single-rotor systems with equivalent solidity. To- D rotor diameter
wards this, a series of experiments were conducted on FM figure of merit
two identical, but independent, rotor test rigs that were L lift per unit span
configured to easily change from one system to another Nb number of blades
(i.e., coaxial to tandem etc.). The influence of various pa- P rotor power
rameters, such as the axial separation distance for coax- Q rotor torque
ial rotors or the shaft-to-shaft distance for tandem ro- R radius of the blade
tors, on the overall system performance was measured T rotor thrust
using untwisted (NACA 0012 airfoil) and highly-twisted vl induced velocity of the lower rotor
(xv-15 airfoil) blades. Additionally, performance char- vi hover induced velocity
acteristics of the two individual rotors (upper/lower or vu induced velocity of the upper rotor
front/aft) that comprised the coaxial and tandem rotor sys- z axial separation distance
tems were measured independently while operating in a α angle of attack
torque-balanced condition. The results, when compared θ collective pitch angle
against single-rotors, allowed several aerodynamic inter- κ induced power factor
ference loss factors to be determined. Thrust sharing ratio, κint interference loss factor
hovering efficiency of the rotor system, efficiency of the κov overlap factor
individual rotors, and influence of one rotor on the other κsep separation loss factor
were all measured at various rotor separation distances for κu , κl rotor-on-rotor influence factor
both coaxial and tandem rotor systems. Momentum the- σ rotor solidity
ory was used to compare and contrast the measurements φ inflow angle
against predicted values. Ω rotational speed of the rotor

subscripts:
Nomenclature a aft rotor
f front rotor
A rotor disk area i induced
c blade chord l lower rotor
Cd drag coefficient u upper rotor
Cd0 minimum (profile) drag coefficient
Cl lift coefficient
∗ Research Scientist.
Manikandan.Ramasamy@amrdec.army.mil Introduction
Presented at the AHS 69th Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ,
May 21–23, 2013. This material is declared a work of the U. S. There is an ever increasing demand for helicopters to fly
Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the faster, quieter, carry more payload over a longer range,
United States. and at a cruise efficiency that is similar to fixed-wing
aircrafts. The next generation multi-role rotorcraft are
expected to satisfy all these requirements without com-
promising hover efficiency. Among the current genera-
tion helicopters, both conventional (single main-rotor/tail-
rotor) and multi-rotor configurations (such as tandem or
tilt-rotor aircraft) are unique in what they offer, and have
secured a place both in military and civil applications. The
recent success of Sikorsky’s X2TM Technology Demon-
strator brought coaxial helicopters back in to considera-
tion for potential applications. The basic design for the
next generation rotorcraft, therefore, can come from any
of the existing configurations or from their combinations.
Any leap in terms of performance from the current genera-
tion helicopters to the next clearly depends on developing
comprehensive understanding of rotor performance.
In the early years of helicopter research, developing sci-
entific understanding of rotor performance was achieved
primarily through experiments and analytical solutions.
Knight & Hefner (Ref. 1) conducted a series of exper-
iments to understand the effect of solidity on rotor per-
formance nearly 75 years ago. Blade element momen-
tum theory (BEMT) was used by Gessow (Ref. 2) as
early as 1948 to conduct parametric studies on rotor per-
formance. Lately, with the evolution of computers, more
and more sophisticated computational tools are being de-
veloped to understand and predict rotor performance. To
this end, comprehensive codes (Refs. 3, 4) and high-end
computational simulations (Ref. 5) have reached matu-
rity in predicting the hover performance of conventional
single-rotor systems.
Transforming a predictive tool into a design tool to-
wards developing next generation aircraft require substan-
tial validation, especially using measurements from multi-
rotor systems. Tables 1 and 2 list the majority of the
hover performance measurements conducted on coaxial
and tandem rotor systems, respectively, along with the
complementing single-rotor measurements. Variations to
the coaxial (variable geometry and lift-offset) and tandem
(tilt and side-by-side) configurations are included as well.
Such a long list of experiments may appear comprehen-
sive, however, a careful analysis of their shortcomings
substantiated the necessity for more experiments, not only
to validate simulations but also to provide fundamental
understanding of the flow physics. A brief description of
the coaxial rotor experiments (followed by the tandem ro-
tor experiments), in terms of their relevancy to the present
study is discussed to establish goals for the experiments
conducted in the current work.
Coaxial Rotors: Measurements on coaxial rotor con-
figurations, in the beginning, focussed on determining
the relative performance merits against single-rotor sys-
tems. The measurements were also used to develop an-
alytical methodologies to predict coaxial rotor perfor-
mance (Refs. 6–8). Later experiments were aimed at an-
alyzing more aspects of the coaxial rotor configuration,
such as the influence of one rotor on the other (Ref. 11),
the effect of axial separation on the coaxial system per-
formance (Refs. 11, 12) etc., and to conduct feasibility
studies for potential applications, such as micro-air vehi-
cles (Ref. 13) and ducted coaxial rotor systems (Ref. 14).
Coleman (Ref. 15) reviewed and summarized the status
of coaxial rotor research in1997, using various available
experiments and simulations. Since then, few experiments
have been conducted on coaxial rotors; baseline findings
from such experiments predominantly aligned with Cole-
man’s summary. Nevertheless, consistencies and con-
tradictions are expected from such a long list of experi-
ments. While consistencies in the observation across var-
ious measurements ascertain the fundamental knowledge
developed from the research, contradictions that are unex-
plainable using simple physics are problematic. For exam-
ple, both experiments and simulations consistently sug-
gest that coaxial rotors perform better than a single-rotor
with equivalent solidity (Refs. 6–8, 11, 16–19). How-
ever, the percentage gain in performance varied from 5%
to 11%, which is understandable considering the varia-
tions in the blade planforms, Reynolds numbers, and axial
separation distances at which the experiments/simulations
were conducted.
The necessity for more experiments became apparent
when defining the hover efficiency of the coaxial rotor sys-
tem. Historically, figure of merit (FM) of coaxial rotor has
been defined (Ref. 15) as
3/2 √
Tcoax / 2ρA
FM = (1)
(Pu + Pl )
where Tcoax is the total thrust produced by the coaxial rotor
system (i.e., Tu + Tl ), and A is the rotor disk area. Leish-
man (Ref. 20), towards accurately estimating the perfor-
mance of coaxial rotor systems, showed the deficiencies
of using Eq. 1 that inherently assumes both rotors (upper
and lower) produce an equal share of thrust. Using mo-
mentum theory, two more definitions were suggested to
appropriately reflect various possible experimental con-
ditions. These definitions help in correctly establishing
the momentum theory limits (ideal power), which should
translate into accurate estimation of induced power lost
through aerodynamic interference in coaxial rotor sys-
tems. For a torque-balanced coaxial rotor system (realistic
configuration, however, with unequal thrust sharing), the
ideal power and FM are given by
3/2
Tu +T
3/2
Pideal = √ L (2)
2ρA
and
3/2 3/2 √
(Tu + Tl )/ 2ρA
FM = , (3)
Pu + Pl
Citation Configuration Radius Tip Speeds Nb σ z/D Conditions
ft ft/s
Harrington, 1951 (Ref. 6) single 12.5 540 2 0.027
coaxial 12.5 540, 450, 320 2+2 0.054 0.095 yaw trim
coaxial 12.5 540 2+2 0.054 0.095 no trim
single 12.5 390, 260 2 0.076
coaxial 12.5 390, 260 2+2 0.152 0.08 yaw trim
Dingeldein, 1954 (Ref. 7) single 12.5 500 2 0.027
coaxial 12.5 500 2+2 0.027 0.08 yaw trim
Cheney, 1969 (Ref. 8) single 2 n/a 3 0.082 n/a
coaxial 2 n/a 3+3 0.164 n/a lift offset
Rorke, 1976 (Ref. 9) single 26.5 450, 500 6 0.098
coaxial 26.5 450, 500 3+3 0.098 0.025 variable geometry
Arents, 1977 (Ref. 10) coaxial 18 650 3+3 0.076 0.07 yaw trim
Nagashima et al., 1978 (Ref. 11) single 1.25 400 2, 4 0.2
coaxial 1.25 400 2+2 0.4 0.105, 0.21 Math trim
coaxial 1.25 400 2+2 0.4 0.105 – 0.5 no trim
McAlister, 2006 (Ref. 12) single 2 165 3 .07
coaxial 2 165 3+3 0.14 0.1 – 0.73 yaw trim
Bohorquez, 2007 (Ref. 13) single 0.28 30 – 90 3 0.11
coaxial 0.28 30 – 90 3+3 0.22 0.09–0.31 yaw trim
Lee & Leishman, 2010 (Ref. 14) single 0.58 35–88 3 0.078
coaxial 0.58 35–88 3+3 0.157 0.07 – 0.15 yaw trim

Table 1: Hover performance measurements on coaxial rotor systems

respectively. Equation 2 results in lower ideal power than
the one used in Eq 1. Identifying the limit set by the laws
of physics is important when developing blade/rotor de-
sign strategies aimed at reducing induced power of the
coaxial rotors. To this end, Eq. 3 shows that the individ-
ual thrust produced by the upper and lower rotor must be
known to accurately estimate the efficiency of the coaxial
rotor system. None of the existing measurements listed
in Table 1 provided the individual performance charac-
teristics of the upper and lower rotor when they oper-
ated as part of torque-balanced coaxial rotor system, ex-
cept for Refs. 11 and 12. Even among the two excep-
tions, Nagashima et al. (Ref. 11) achieved torque bal-
ance mathematically, i.e., thrust and power of the up-
per and lower rotors were originally measured on torque-
imbalanced coaxial rotors. Torque balance was achieved
through interpolation and/or curve fit. The procedure is
acceptable, however, the accuracy is dependent on the
accuracy of the curve fit to the measured performance.
McAlister’s (Ref. 12) experiments were aimed at analyz-
ing the effect of axial separation distance (z) on the coaxial
system performance. Therefore, only one measurement
point was made at each z, which may not be sufficient to
conduct rigorous analysis.
The importance of measuring the thrust from individ-
ual rotors is understandable considering the aerodynamic
environment in which the upper and lower rotor operate
are completely different at all axial separation distances.
Characterizing the performance of individual rotors is,
therefore, essential to successfully optimizing the coaxial
rotor, as a system. The above examples clearly suggest the
need for more comprehensive coaxial rotor performance
measurements.
Another aspect of the coaxial rotor system that needs
to be understood is the effect of axial separation dis-
tance, z, on the overall system performance. Again, Ta-
ble 1 shows limited measurements, where the effect of
axial separation was studied at a balanced-torque condi-
tion. The challenges associated with spinning the rotors
in close proximity limited the experiments from measur-
ing the performance less than an axial separation distance
of 0.1D, where D is the diameter of the rotor. With that
constraint, performance measurements made at axial sep-
aration distances greater than 0.1D showed no dependence
on z. (Refs. 11–14). Lee et al. (Ref. 18), and Wachs-
press et al. (Ref. 21) predicted similar independence, as
well. However, using a vortex/Momentum/Blade element
approach, Andrew (Ref. 22) suggested that the perfor-
mance of the coaxial rotor system improves with increas-
ing axial separation distance until 0.05D. Johnson us-
ing CAMRAD II recently predicted that the performance
gain can be achieved until 0.15D (Ref. 17). Unless high-
fidelity measurements are made at small axial separation
distances (< 0.15D), conclusively ascertaining the thresh-
 Citation Configuration Radius Tip speeds Nb σ d/D
ft ft/s
Dingeldein, 1954 (Ref. 7) single 7.5 500 2 0.054
tandem 12.5 500 2+2 0.054 1.03
Heyson, 1959 (Ref. 23) tandem 7.625 500 2+2 0.097 1.016
Sweet, 1960 (Ref. 24) single 7.5 500 2 0.0543
tandem 7.5 500 2+2 0.0543 1.02
single 7.625 500 2 0.097
tandem 7.625 500 2+2 0.097 0.51, 1.02
Stepniewski, 1984 (Ref. 25) single 2 330 – 425 3 0.06
tandem 2 330 – 425 3+3 0.06 0.625 – 1.03
Bender et al., 1984 (Ref. 26) tandem 30 675 3+3 0.085 0.65
Felker et al., 1987 (Ref. 27) single 15.24 590 – 720 3 0.1138
single with 15.24 590 – 720 3 0.1138 1.2
image plane

Table 2: Hover performance measurements on tandem/side-by-side rotor systems

old distance where performance gains diminish is diffi-
cult.
Axial separation distance between the rotors also influ-
ence the thrust sharing ratio between the two rotors. While
Nagashima et al. (Ref. 11) showed that the thrust sharing
strongly depended (50% change in lower rotor thrust over
1D) on the axial separation distance, McAlister showed a
weak dependence (10% change in lower rotor thrust over
1D). The difference in the observation between the two
results can be attributed to many differences between the
two experiments, including the blade planform, Re num-
ber, and the trim condition. Despite the varying depen-
dence (which play an important role in the ideal power
estimation, shown in Eq. 2), the performance of the coax-
ial rotor system in both experiments did not vary much
with the axial separation distance greater than 0.1D. More
comprehensive measurements that can explain the varying
performance characteristics exhibited by the experiments
are needed.
Tandem Rotors: The number of reported experiments
on tandem rotor systems (and related variations) is smaller
than those found for coaxial configurations. Similar to
coaxial rotor configurations, several fundamental ques-
tions prevail. For example, the effect of rotor overlap on
the system performance or the influence of the front rotor
on the aft rotor and vice versa remain unclear. Consis-
tencies and contradictions among measurements are com-
mon, as well. For example, Dingeldein (Ref. 7) measured
a 18% increase in the efficiency of tandem rotor systems
compared with single-rotors, when the shaft-to-shaft dis-
tance was approximately equal to the diameter of the ro-
tor (i.e., at no overlap). However, both Heyson (Ref. 23)
and Sweet (Ref. 24) did not measure any beneficial aero-
dynamic interference between rotors that resulted in net
improvement in the system efficiency.
Towards understanding the effect of shaft-to-shaft dis-
tance between the rotors on the overall system perfor-
mance, Sweet (Ref. 24) conducted hover performance
measurements on a full-scale helicopter at two overlap
distances. A 14% increase in the total power was mea-
sured when the overlap was approximately 50% compared
to no-overlap case. Later, Stepniewski (Ref. 25) con-
ducted a series of experiments on a side-by-side rotor sys-
tem. The experiments were conducted by keeping the col-
lective pitch settings on both rotors unchanged while in-
creasing the overlap. The experiment was repeated at sev-
eral collective pitch settings. Such an experiment requires
developing an analytical method or simulation to under-
stand the effect of shaft-to-shaft distance on the system
performance, as demonstrated by Harris (Ref. 28). Using
BEMT, Harris estimated the increase in induced power as
a function of overlap distance. In general, as overlap in-
creases, local disk loading increases that, in turn, reduces
the efficiency of the tandem rotor system. An engineer-
ing approximation was also developed to relate the shaft-
to-shaft distance between the rotors to the induced power
lost resulting from overlap. Key measurements missing
in all the tandem rotor experiments, again, are the perfor-
mance characteristics of the front and aft rotor, when the
rotors operate as a part of torque-balanced tandem rotor
system. The importance of such measurements increases
when there is an overlap between the rotors, combined
with a finite axial separation distance. Characterizing the
individual rotor performance is necessary to improve the
overall efficiency of the tandem rotor, as a system.
To summarize all the past experiments on multi-rotor
systems, the complex nature of the set up did not al-
low modifications to be made, leaving many questions
unanswered. The objective of the present experiment
was two-fold. First, to develop a versatile, multi-rotor
 (a) Tandem rotor (b) Coaxial rotor

Figure 1: Tandem and coaxial rotor stands

rig that allows simple modifications to be made quickly

and with relative ease, without compromising on the
quality of the measurements. Second, to conduct a se-
ries of high-fidelity hover performance measurements us- Thrust
 sensor
 
ing single, coaxial, and tandem rotor configurations with
configuration-specific goals that are listed below.
Torque
 sensor
  Transmission
 (6:1)
 
• Coaxial rotor: (1) Compare the coaxial rotor system
performance with single-rotor with equivalent solid- Motor
 
Thrust
 bearings
 
ity, and with two isolated single-rotors whose com- Collec:ve
 pitch
 
 
servo
 
bined solidity is the same as coaxial rotors, (2) quan-
tify the effect of axial separation on the system per-
formance at low and high system thrust conditions
with balanced torque, (3) measure the influence of Figure 2: Close up view of the set-up showing various
one rotor on the other at various axial separation dis- components of the rotor system
tances, and (4) compare and analyze the similarities
and differences between the untwisted and highly- Experimental Setup
twisted blade planforms for the four aforementioned
goals. Two identical, but independent, model-scale rotor rigs
were built at the U. S. Army test facility (26- by 24- by
• Tandem rotor: (1) Compare the performance of the 20-ft) located at the NASA Ames Research Center – see
tandem/tilt rotor configurations against two isolated Fig. 1. The rigs can be moved relative to each other, serv-
single-rotor systems whose combined solidity is the ing two purposes: (1) the set up can be converted from
same as the tandem rotor system, (2) measure the single to multi-rotor configurations with relative ease, and
induced power lost because of overlap by gradually (2) within a configuration, changes to the rotor system pa-
moving from tandem configuration to coaxial config- rameters can be made, allowing parametric studies (for
uration, (3) establish and understand the performance e.g., effect of axial separation distance on coaxial rotor
characteristics of the front and aft rotor relative to performance) to be conducted.
a single-rotor system during the transition from tan-
Figure 2 is a close up view of the test stand showing
dem to coaxial rotor configuration, and (4) compare
various components of the rotor system. Two brushed DC
and analyze the similarities and differences between
motors with 1.6-hp drove the rotor system. The rotational
the untwisted and highly-twisted blade planforms for
speed was controlled by adjusting the supplied current.
the three aforementioned goals.
A pair of Hall effect sensors attached to the rotor shafts
All the experiments were conducted at the same facility provided the 1/rev signal and was used to measure the ro-
using the same set of blades, instrumentation, and data tational speed. A pair of accelerometers attached to the
acquisition system. This allowed hover performance of stand measured the system vibration. The rotors were
various rotor configurations ignoring the facility effects. tracked and dynamically balanced using a digital signal

(a)
  (b)
Figure 3: Collective pitch measurement
analyzer. All systems had open loop control, meaning
any required adjustment to the rotor settings was achieved
manually.
A thrust sensor (25-lb range) was mounted along the
axis of each rotor shaft measuring the axial load. A re-
action torque sensor (50 in-lb) was mounted behind each
motor (similar to Harrington in Ref. 6) to measure the
torque exerted by the rotor systems. Thrust, torque, ro-
tational speed, voltage, current, and temperature of the
motor for both systems were acquired using in-house data
acquisition programs written in Labview. The measure-
ments were acquired at 1 kHz for four seconds, which cor-
responded to 80 revolutions at 1200 rpm, and 50 measure-
ments within one revolution (7.2◦ resolution).The data set
was then used to estimate the mean and the standard de-
viation. Both thrust and torque showed slightly less than
1% scatter in the data at all thrust conditions.
The rotor systems were equipped with servo controls
to change the collective pitch on the fly. Collective pitch
angles were measured by taking chordwise images of the
rotor blade using CCD cameras. To prevent introducing
absolute errors in the process, rotors were spun at the re-
quired rotational speed and the pitch was adjusted until the
thrust produced approached zero, at which point chord-
wise images were taken and were used as reference. Sim-
ilar images acquired at various thrust condition were com-
pared against the reference to estimate the collective pitch
of the blades. Representative images of the blade taken
during coaxial rotor measurement are shown in Fig. 3.
Rotor blades: The experiment was conducted using
two sets of blades: (1) untwisted, rectangular blade with
NACA 0012 airfoil throughout the entire span, and (2)
highly twisted xv-15 blade with four different airfoils at
various sections of the blade span. Figure 4 shows the
twist distribution and the associated airfoil details for the
highly twisted blade. Table 3 shows essential geometric
details of both rotor blades.
Transmission Efficiency: Installing a reaction torque
sensor behind the motor to measure the aerodynamic
torque required by the rotor blades is not ideal. The
measured torque not only includes the actual torque re-
Parameter Untwisted Twisted
Number of blades 2 to 6 2 to 4
Radius, ft 2.17 2.15
Chord, in 2.29 2.0
Root cut-out 19.1% 20.1%
Airfoil NACA 0012 see Fig. 4
Re1200 rpm 325,000 275,000
M1200 rpm 0.25 0.25
Table 3: Rotor blade characteristics.
quired to spin the rotor blades, but also the transmission
losses such as frictional losses in the bearings, couplings,
and gears etc. Such losses cannot be removed by sim-
ply subtracting tares. The transmission efficiency changes
with the load (thrust produced by the rotor) and the rota-
tional speed. In the present study, these losses were esti-
mated by applying a known torque at a given rpm using
a dynamometer-based brake at the hub end of the rotor
shaft and measuring the torque behind the motor using
the reaction torque sensor. This procedure was repeated
to cover the entire range of experimental test conditions.
The measured transmission efficiency was approximately
88% and, as expected, changed with load and rpm. All
the reported measurements in the present study were cor-
rected for transmission efficiency. Also, tares were esti-
mated at each rotational speed and were subtracted from
the measurements.
Operating Conditions:
The list of experiments conducted in the present study
along with the associated trim conditions are listed in Ta-
ble 4. All coaxial and tandem rotors measurements were
made at yaw trim, meaning Q1 +Q2 = 0. Collective sweep
was conducted by keeping the separation distance (ax-
ial, in the case of coaxial rotors and shaft-to-shaft in the
case of tandem rotors) constant. When the separation dis-
tance was varied for parametric studies, two trim condi-
tions were applied: (1) yaw trim, and (2) constant total
thrust (Tu + Tl = T f + Ta =constant).
Results
The observations made from the experiments are dis-
cussed in the following order.
1. Single-rotor measurements
2. Coaxial rotor measurements
3. Side-by-side/Tandem/Tilt-rotor measurements
Comparisons with momentum theory predictions of simi-
lar rotor configurations are made wherever possible.
 Figure 4: Details of twisted blade used in the study (from Ref. 12)

Rotor type Planform RPM Nb z/D d/D Trim condition(s)

Untwisted 800 &1200 2 to 6

single-rotor
Twisted 800 to 1400 2 to 4
Untwisted 1200 3+3 0.07 0
Qu + Ql = 0
Twisted 1200 3+3 0.07 0
Coaxial rotor
Untwisted1 800 3+3 0.05 to 1.5 0 Qu + Ql = 0 &
Twisted 800 3+3 0.05 to 0.75 0 Tu + Tl =const.
Side-by-side rotor Untwisted 1200 3+3 0 1.1 Q1 + Q2 = 0
Twisted 1200 3+3 0 1.1 Q1 + Q2 = 0
Untwisted 1200 3+3 0.07 0.9 to 1.02 Q f + Qa = 0 &
Tandem rotor
Twisted 1200 3+3 0.07 0 to 1.0 Tl + T f =const.

Table 4: List of experiments conducted in the present study.

Single-rotor periment was conducted and (2) established the baseline

Performance measurements of a single-rotor system us-
ing both twisted and untwisted blades are analyzed in this
section. Many of the observations made here have been
substantiated in the past using various experiments con-
ducted at different facilities, or through simulations and
analyses. However, these measurements were necessary
and served two purposes: (1) evaluated the limitations of
the rotor system, thereby, identifying the operating condi-
tions (such as the tip speed, thrust etc.) at which the ex-
characteristics of the single-rotor system to compare with
multi-rotor configurations. The latter is particularly im-
portant for model-scale experiments, considering the lim-
ited availability of airfoil tables at low Re numbers. Ac-
curately estimating the profile drag (and, therefore, pro-
file power) is key to understanding the measured induced
power across various rotor configurations (Ref. 19).
Figure 5 shows the thrust and power measured on a 3-
1 Two cases, CT = 0.014, 0.007

Figure 5: Thrust and power measurements of a single-
rotor system using twisted blades.
bladed single-rotor system using twisted blades. Collec-
tive pitch was kept constant during each run and the ro-
tational speed was gradually increased from 800 to 1400
rpm. The runs were repeated to cover a wide range of
collective pitch angles (θtip ) from as low as -6◦ to 10◦ .
The capacity of the motor primarily dictated the maxi-
mum achievable rpm/collective pitch combination during
each run. The rotor system produced positive thrust even
when the tip of the blade was operating at relatively high
negative pitch angle (-6◦ ), a unique characteristic of the
highly-twisted blades. More details of this behavior will
be discussed later.
The effect of Reynolds number on the performance of
the single-rotor system was readily apparent when the
measurements were plotted in terms of hover efficiency
– see Fig. 6. At all thrust conditions, figure of merit (FM)
increased with increasing Re number. For example, a
50% increase in Re number (800 rpm to 1200 rpm), re-
sulted in a 8.5% increase in FM. This is contrary to the
Figure 6: Performance of a single-rotor system using
twisted blades at various rotational speeds.
conventional wisdom gained from various full-scale heli-
copter rotor analyses conducted in the past, where oper-
ating at low tip speeds has shown known to yield perfor-
mance gains among other operational benefits. To under-
stand the difference between full-scale and model-scale,
power must be analyzed in terms of its components: pro-
file power and induced power.
At full-scale, rotor blade tips operate at very high
Reynolds number (of the order of millions). Therefore,
a reduction in the Re number (by reducing the tip speed)
does not change the profile power substantially. How-
ever, the induced power is reduced because power load-
ing (thrust produced for a given power) varies inversely
with the tip speed. Consequently, a reduction in the
rpm increases the overall aerodynamic efficiency. On
the other hand, model-scale experiments are conducted at
low Reynolds numbers (of the order of 2×105 to 3×105 ),
where the gains made in the profile power by operating
at higher tip speeds (and higher Re numbers) significantly
outweigh the additional power lost in the form of induced
power. This results in higher efficiency at higher tip speed,
as seen in Fig. 6. Nevertheless, the baseline measure-
ments showed the influence of tip speed on the rotor per-
formance, and the necessity to conduct (and compare) sin-
gle and multi-rotor measurements at the same Re number.
The baseline measurements also helped identify the ro-
tational speeds at which the rest of the study was con-
ducted. Both 800 and 1200 rpm were chosen, as 1200
rpm represented the highest rotational speed and the high-
est measured FM before stall, and 800 rpm corresponded
to the majority of the flowfield measurements made us-
ing the same set of blades reported by Ramasamy et al.
in Ref. 29. The velocity field measurements were found
useful in explaining the observed performance character-
istics, especially when multi-rotor configurations were an-
alyzed.
Solidity Effect: Comparing the performance of multi-
 (a) Untwisted blades

(b) Twisted blades

Figure 7: Baseline performance of untwisted and twisted blade configurations at Vtip = 55m/s

rotor systems against single-rotor after matching solidity,
as done primarily in the present study, would not necessi-
tate a study on solidity effects. Previous experiments con-
ducted to compare single and multi-rotor performances
were made at unequal solidity, i.e., σsingle = 12 σcoax . In
order to enable comparison with previous experiments,
some of the analysis made in the present study were also
conducted at unequal solidity. Therefore, establishing the
effect of solidity on single-rotor performance before mak-
ing comparison with multi-rotors was essential. In the
present study, solidity was changed only through chang-
ing the number of blades.
In this section, baseline performance characteristics of
single-rotor systems using both the untwisted and twisted
blades were analyzed by varying the number of blades.
Both thrust and power were measured by conducting col-
lective sweeps at 800 and 1200 rpm, while changing the
number of blades from 2 to 6 for untwisted blades, and 2
to 4 for twisted blades. The results for the untwisted blade
configuration at 800 rpm are shown in Fig. 7a. In general,
the measurements exhibited everything that is expected
from the past experiments and simulations/analyses. For
example, fewer number of blades provided better effi-
ciency to produce a given thrust (attributed to the lower
profile power associated with lower solidity).
The shortcomings of using fewer blades was obvious,
as shown in Fig. 7a. The two-bladed rotor system showed
signs of stall when the thrust coefficient was as low as
0.005, and was limited in its capability to produce high
thrust. Increasing the number of blades from two to three
pushed the stall boundary farther, resulting in higher val-
ues of CT . When four or more blades were used, the power
limitation of the motor prevented the rotor from reaching
the stall boundary.
Performance measurements using 2 to 4 twisted blades
are shown in Fig. 7b. Similar to untwisted blades, twisted
blades also exhibited expected fundamental performance
characteristics. These include, but not limited to, higher
performance, and the thrust limitation resulting from stall
when fewer blades were used. However, two key differ-
ences were observed. First, unlike the untwisted blades,
the minimum power required by the twisted blades oc-
curred at a non-zero thrust condition. Second, the relation
between the power required and the thrust produced by the
 (a) CT =0.0
Figure 8: Flow field of single-rotor system using untwisted blades.
(a) CT =0.0
Figure 9: Flow field of single-rotor system using twisted blades.
twisted blades were different from the untwisted blades,
especially at low thrust conditions.
The observed differences are explained using flowfield
measurements and simple analysis tools such as momen-
tum theory. Comprehensive velocity field measurements
made using particle image velocimetry (PIV) on the same
set of untwisted and twisted blades at 800rpm were re-
ported in Ref. 29. Representative time average measure-
ments corresponding to the untwisted blades at two dif-
ferent thrust conditions are shown in Fig. 8. The color
contour represents the downwash velocity. At zero thrust,
no flow in any direction was observed, and was expected
because all the sections of the blade (from root to tip) op-
erated at zero collective pitch. Therefore, the measured
power at zero thrust simply corresponded to the profile
power required to spin the rotor blades. The estimation of
profile power allowed separating the induced power from
the total power at higher thrust conditions, negating the
need for airfoil tables (to estimate the sectional profile
drag) that may not be available at low Re numbers, as in
(b) CT =0.007
(b) CT =0.007
the present experiment.
Representative flow field of the inflow distribution at all
positive thrust conditions (until stall) is shown in Fig. 8b.
Such a clearly defined downwash allowed simple analysis
tools such as momentum theory to be used to establish the
efficiency of the rotor system by comparing the measured
induced power to the minimum power required to produce
the same thrust. Power required by a rotor system, as de-
fined by modified momentum theory, is given by
3/2
C
C p = C p0 + κ √T , (4)
2
where C p0 is the profile power and κ is the induced power
factor. Curve fitting Eq. 4 to the measurements shown in
Fig. 7a yielded the values of C p0 and κ. A similar analysis
for the twisted blades was very challenging.
For the twisted blades to produce zero thrust, the out-
board sections of the blade must produce negative thrust
while the inboard sections produce an equal positive
 (a) Untwisted blades
(b) Twisted blades
Figure 10: Baseline performance of untwisted and twisted blade configurations at Vtip = 85m/s
thrust. This behavior was reflected from the upwash found
near the tip and downwash at the inboard sections of the
blade (see Fig. 9a). Geometrically, the collective pitch
at the tip of the twisted blade must be at a high negative
pitch angle at CT = 0. While the thrust from the inboard
and outboard sections cancelled each other, the associated
induced power added up. Consequently, the measured
power at zero thrust condition included both the profile
power and the induced power resulting from the equal and
opposite thrust. Hence, the measured total power is higher
at the zero thrust condition than the minimum power re-
quired, as seen in Fig. 7b.
Reference 29 showed that when highly-twisted blades
were used on single-rotor systems, the inflow distribu-
tion (from root of the blade to the tip) continuously var-
ied with increasing thrust, especially at low thrust condi-
tions. PIV measurements made at CT = 0.007 are shown in
Fig. 9b. A clearly defined flow pattern emerged only when
CT > 0.004. This behavior suggests that until the collec-
tive pitch angles of the twisted blades are high enough
that all sections of the blade produce non-negative thrust,
the power measurements cannot be expected to follow
the functional dependency given in Eq. 4. As shown in
Fig. 7b, over a range of thrust, the power required varies
3/2
linearly with thrust, as opposed to the CT relation shown
in Eq. 4.
All the multi-rotor experiments using twisted blades
in the present study were conducted at high thrust con-
ditions, where there is no ambiguity in the flow direc-
tion. Establishing the baseline characteristics of single-
rotor systems allows the net change (e.g., ∆κ) in perfor-
mance between the single and multi-rotor configurations
to be analyzed and quantified without needing the absolute
value of profile power. However, there are other alterna-
tives, such as using CFD (Ref. 19) or MSES (Ref. 30) to
accurately estimate the profile power.
Performance measurements of untwisted and twisted
blades at 1200 rpm are shown in Fig. 10. Except for the
effects of Reynolds number discussed earlier, no differ-
ences in performance are observed between the 800 and
1200 rpm cases. The measurements shown in Figs. 7 to
10 established the baseline characteristics of single-rotor
systems. Understanding the similarities and differences
between untwisted and twisted blades, in terms of their
performance and flow field distribution, provided insight
into multi-rotor performance analysis.

Coaxial Rotor
Measurements of a coaxial rotor system are analyzed with
the following specific goals: (1) compare the coaxial rotor
system performance against single-rotor configurations,
(2) quantify the effect of axial separation on the system
performance at low and high system thrust conditions, (3)
measure the influence of one rotor on the other at various
axial separation distances, and (4) compare and analyze (a) Single 6-bladed rotor vs. coaxial rotor (z/D = 0.07)
the similarities and differences between untwisted and
highly-twisted blades for the four aforementioned goals.
Results using untwisted blades are discussed first, fol-
lowed by twisted blades.
Performance Comparison: Two approaches were used
to evaluate coaxial rotor performance. The first approach
compares coaxial rotor performance with a single-rotor
at the same solidity. For the present study, a single
6-bladed rotor was compared against the coaxial rotor
(two 3-bladed rotors). Historically, this has not been the
method of choice because of the hub modifications needed
to accommodate twice as many blades as the coaxial rotor
hubs. Therefore, analytical methodologies (for example,
single-rotor theory (Ref. 6)) were developed to predict the
behavior of single-rotor with equivalent solidity. These (b) Two isolated 3-bladed rotors vs. coaxial rotor (z/D = 0.07)
methods were validated using single-rotor measurements
made on the upper (or lower) rotor that was operated in Figure 11: Performance analysis of coaxial rotors us-
an isolated condition, before comparing against the per- ing untwisted blades
formance of coaxial rotors. The difference between the
obtained after balancing the torque between the two ro-
predictions and the coaxial rotor measurements were at-
tors. Remember, there was no feedback control in any of
tributed to the anomalies found in the coaxial rotor flow
the systems used. So, the pitch angle and and the rpm of
field that were not present in the single-rotor system. The
the both rotors were adjusted manually until torque bal-
accuracy of this approach largely depends on the accuracy
ance was achieved. System thrust (Tcoax ) was obtained by
of the mathematical model, and the accuracy of the profile
adding the thrust from the upper rotor (Tu ) and the lower
drag estimated from the airfoil tables (Ref. 6).
rotor (Tl ). Similarly, system torque (Qcoax ) was obtained
The second approach compares the coaxial rotors by adding the absolute value of the individual torques, i.e.,
against two isolated single-rotors, whose combined so- |Qu | + |Ql |.
lidity is the same as the coaxial rotor. The goal of this Figure 11a shows the system thrust and the system
approach is usually to quantify the power lost/gained be- torque measured on a coaxial rotor system using untwisted
cause of the aerodynamic interference between the two ro- blades; measurements from a single-rotor system with
tors. Both approaches have advantages and provide useful equivalent solidity are also shown. The solid lines rep-
information that are unique to themselves. In the present resent a curve fit to the data using the following equation:
study, both approaches were followed with one key differ-
ence. In the first approach, measurements from six bladed T 3/2
rotors having the same solidity as the coaxial rotor system P = P0 + κ κsep √ (5)
2ρA
were used, instead of the analytical prediction technique
followed in the past. where κsep is given by
The first part of the experiment was conducted by keep-
ing the axial separation distance between the two rotors Pi(coax)
κsep = (6)
constant, i.e., z/D = 0.07. All the measurements were Pi(single)
at the same thrust. For single-rotor systems, κsep =1.
Coaxial rotors required ≈10% less power than an iso-
lated single-rotor with equivalent soldity to produce the
same thrust. The higher performance of the coaxial rotors
was not entirely unexpected, and can be attributed to two
sources: (1) swirl recovery, and (2) axial separation ef-
fects. Swirl recovery has been hinted in the literature as an
important source of power gain and, therefore, improved
performance whenever there is a need to emphasize the
benefits of coaxial rotor. The idea of reduced swirl losses
in coaxial rotor systems is logical considering the viscous
nature of the flow, however, no direct/indirect measure-
ment exists to validate the hypothesis.
The effect of axial separation on the performance of a
coaxial rotor system can be evaluated using momentum
theory, albeit the procedure is not straightforward. For a
single-rotor system producing a thrust of 2T , the hover
induced velocity is given by
s equations:
(2T )
vi = vh = , (7)
2ρA
where T = W /2, and W is the gross weight of the heli-
copter.The associated induced power is
s 2 2ρA
(2T )
Pi(single) = (2T ) (8)
2ρA
Leishman (case 2, Ref. 20), using simple momentum the-
ory, related the induced power lost by the single-rotor to
two isolated rotors producing the same total thrust as
√ was expected, again, based on simple momentum theory
Pi(single) = 2 [2 Pi(isolated) ] (9)
Next, for a torque-balanced coaxial rotor with the lower
rotor operating in the fully contracted wake of the upper
rotor, momentum theory based induced power is given by
Pi(coax) = Pu + Pl = Tu vu + Tl (vu + vl ) (10)
Similar to the single-rotor case, Pi(coax) was related to two
isolated single-rotors producing same total thrust (case 4a,
Ref. 20), as
Pi(coax) = 1.281 [2 Pi(isolated) ] (11)
Therefore
Pi(coax) √ rotor flow field measurements (reported in Ref. 29 using
κsep = = 1.281/ 2 = 0.90, (12)
Pi(single)
which is close to the measured value.
Results using the second approach comparing the per-
formance of the coaxial rotors against two isolated single-
rotors, whose combined solidity is equal to the solidity
of the coaxial rotor is shown in Fig. 11b. The solid lines
Figure 12: Performance of coaxial rotor (z/D = 0.07)
using twisted blades
in Fig. 11b are curve fits to the data using the following
T 3/2
Psingle = P0 + κ √ (13)
2ρA
and
κ (2T )3/2
Pcoax = 2P0 + κint √ √ , (14)
where κint is the interference loss factor, which represents
the increase in the induced power resulting from oper-
ating the two rotors in coaxial configuration rather than
an isolated condition. Coaxial rotors showed nearly a
22% increase in the induced power compared to two iso-
lated single-rotors producing the same thrust. The loss
that predicts 26% increase in the induced power (case
4b, Ref. 20), and is understandable considering one of
the two rotors always operates in the wake of the other.
Figure 12 shows similar performance comparison when
twisted blades were used.
While momentum theory results confirmed the validity
of the present measurements, at least in terms of perfor-
mance gains/losses, the assumptions made in momentum
theory are substantially different from the present exper-
imental conditions. For example, the present measure-
ments were conducted at an axial separation distance of
0.07D, that is, the lower rotor operated much closer to
the upper rotor than where the fully contracted wake from
the upper rotor was expected (0.2D), based on the single-
the same set of blades). Consequently, the lower rotor
may begin to influence the performance of the upper rotor,
which is not accounted for in momentum theory. Further-
more, momentum theory assumes uniform inflow, which
is not realistic.
Rotor-on-Rotor Influence: The next step in the coaxial
rotor analysis is to understand and measure the influence
 (a) Untwisted blade
Figure 13: Coaxial rotor measurements quantifying rotor-rotor influence.
of the lower rotor on the upper, and vice versa. The thrust
and power measurements from the individual rotors (op-
erating in a torque balanced condition), when compared
with the isolated rotor measurements at the same solidity,
provided the necessary information to understand the in-
fluence of one rotor on the other. Figure 13a shows one
such measurement when untwisted blades were used. The
solid lines are curve fits to the equation
3/2
C throughout the experiment. Collective pitch angles were
CQ = CQ0 + κ κu|l √T (15)
2 also measured to understand the exhibited rotor perfor-
where κu and κl are the rotor-on-rotor (ROR) influence
factors that represent the induced power lost by the up-
per rotor because of the influence of the lower rotor and
vice versa, respectively. The induced power factor, κ, es-
timated from isolated rotor measurements was 1.25. Both
the upper and lower rotor performed poorly when com-
pared with the isolated rotor. The upper rotor downwash
is known to degrade the performance of the lower rotor,
and was evident from the estimated κl . The lower rotor
needed about 35% more induced power than the isolated
rotor to produce the same thrust. Also, the results sug-
gested a measurable influence of the lower rotor on the
upper rotor, leading to a 9% increase in the induced power
of the upper rotor.
Similar measurements using twisted blades are shown
in Fig. 13b. The induced power factor, κ, estimated from
isolated rotor measurements was 1.1. Although κ was
much lower compared to the isolated rotor system using
untwisted blades, the overall ROR influence was identical.
A flowfield analysis of the wake geometry may explain
the similarity between the two blade planforms, however,
is beyond the scope of the current work. The inflow dis-
tribution, which is the primary difference between the un-
twisted and highly-twisted blades, did not seem to affect
the ROR influence factors. However, the ROR influence
factors must change with the axial separation distance,
(b) Twisted blade
which is discussed next.
Axial Separation Distance: A series of experiments
were conducted to understand the effect of the axial sepa-
ration distance (z/D) on the coaxial rotor performance, as
well as to measure the resulting power loss factors, such as
κint and κu|l . Thrust and torque of the upper and lower ro-
tors were measured by changing the axial separation dis-
tance from 0.05D to 1.5D. The system thrust (Tu + Tl ) was
kept constant and the torque was balanced (Qu + Ql = 0)
mance characteristics.
Two sets of measurements were made in the case of
untwisted blades that corresponded to system coefficient
of thrust, CTcoax , of 0.014 and 0.007. In the case of
twisted blades, the measurements were limited to one case
CTcoax = 0.014. The coaxial rotor figure of merit was esti-
mated using
3/2 3/2
CTu CT
√ + √l
2 2
FMcoax = (16)
CQu +CQl
As discussed earlier, Ref. 20 explains the importance of
using Eq. 16, which accounts for the thrust sharing be-
tween the rotors, as opposed to using system thrust and
system torque, to evaluate coaxial rotor performance.
Figures 14 and 15 show the hovering efficiencies of
the coaxial rotor system at various axial separation dis-
tances using both untwisted and twisted blades. The as-
sociated interference, and rotor-on-rotor influence factors
are shown in Fig. 16. Independent of the blade planform
or the thrust conditions, performance of the upper rotor
was better than the lower rotor at all measured z/D. The
downwash from the upper rotor deteriorated the perfor-
mance of the lower rotor even when the rotors were far
apart (z/D > 0.75). Measurements of coaxial rotors made
using untwisted blades were analyzed in detail, followed
by the twisted blades.
 (a) FM vs. z/D
Figure 14: Effect of axial separation distance on FM - untwisted blades at CT coax = 0.007 and 0.014.
(a) FM vs. z/D
Figure 15: Effect of axial separation distance on FM - twisted blades at CT coax = 0.014.
Figure 14a compares the hovering efficiency of the
coaxial rotor system using untwisted blades at two dif-
ferent thrust conditions, measured at various axial sepa-
ration distances. Performance measurements of the indi-
vidual rotors (when they operated as part of the coaxial
rotor system) are also shown. Because the measurements
were made at a balanced-torque condition, the difference
in FM between the upper and the lower rotor also reflects
the difference in the thrust produced by the two rotors for
the same power. Observations made at a higher thrust con-
dition (CT coax = 0.014) were analyzed first, before making
comparison with the lower thrust condition case.
Three distinct regions can be identified. Region 1, when
z/D > 0.75, performance of the coaxial rotor was invari-
ant to the changes in the axial separation distance. The in-
dividual rotor characteristics showed indifference, as well.
Region 2, 0.2 < z/D < 0.75, FM of the upper rotor grad-
(b) FM vs. CT
(b) FM vs. CT
ually decreased when z/D decreased. The lower rotor, on
the other hand, showed gradual increase in efficiency. The
overall coaxial rotor performance, therefore, showed no
measurable change. Region 3 corresponds to z/D < 0.2,
where the upper rotor showed accelerated reduction in
performance as z/D decreased. This was accompanied by
an accelerated increase in lower rotor performance. How-
ever, unlike region 2, the overall FM of the coaxial rotor
decreased.
To understand the observed difference between region 2
and 3 more clearly, the effect of varying the axial separa-
tion distance on various rotor parameters was examined.
The exhibited reduction in thrust by the upper rotor and
the associated increase in thrust by the lower rotor when
the rotors came closer (in region 2 and 3) can be explained
using blade element momentum theory. The forces nor-
mal and parallel to the tip path plane of rotor blade per
 (a) Interference power loss factor (b) Rotor-on-Rotor influence factors

Figure 16: Power loss factors

(a) Collective sweep θ (b) Thrust ratio, Tu /Tl

Figure 17: Rotor system parameters and thrust ratio at various z/D

unit span are given by where φ is the ratio of the normal velocity (inflow veloc-
ity) to tangential velocity (Ωr) in hover, when small angle
dFz = dL cos φ − dD sin φ (17) assumptions are made. More details of the blade element
momentum theory are found in Ref. 31.
and When z/D decreases (i.e., when the lower rotor comes
dFx = dL sin φ + dD cos φ (18) closer to the upper rotor) in region 2, the influence of the
respectively. Lift (L) and drag (D) per unit span are given lower rotor on the upper rotor increases. This is under-
by standable from inflow perspective or through Biot-Savart
1 law. As a result, the inflow angle of the upper rotor φu
dL = ρV 2 c Cl dy (19) increases, thereby, causing the angle of attack (αu ) to de-
2
crease for a constant collective pitch. This, in turn, re-
and duces the magnitude of thrust (Fz ) produced by the upper
1
dD = ρV 2 c Cd dy (20) rotor. Also, increasing the inflow angle increases Fx and,
2 therefore, torque. In summary, by moving the lower ro-
where Cl and Cd are lift and drag coefficients, and V is the tor closer to the upper rotor, the thrust produced by the
resultant velocity. The relation between the angle of at- upper rotor is decreased and the torque is increased, pro-
tack, blade collective pitch, and the inflow angle are given vided that the collective pitch was unchanged. Figure 14b
by confirmed the sequence of events, showing a reduction
α = θ−φ (21) in thrust and an associated reduction in performance (be-
cause of increased torque/power). The collective pitch of
the upper rotor remained unchanged in region 2, as shown
in Fig. 17a.
A reduction in the thrust produced by the upper rotor
directly translates in to lower downwash velocity on the
lower rotor. Following the same argument, the reduction
in downwash velocity reduces the inflow angle (φl ) and
increases the angle of attack (αl ), when θl is unchanged.
Consequently, the lower rotor produces more thrust. And,
the torque decreases. However, the experimental trim con-
ditions enforced more changes. Because the two rotors
must operate at the same power (torque balanced condi-
tion), either Ql must be increased to match Qu or Qu must
be reduced to match Ql . The former can be achieved by
increasing the collective of the lower rotor (Tl increases)
and the latter by reducing the collective pitch of the upper
rotor (Tu decreases). The choice depends on the second
experimental trim condition, which forces the total thrust
to remain constant. It is apparent from the measurements
shown in Fig. 17a that the second trim condition forced
the lower rotor to operate at higher collective to match the
torque of the upper rotor. This resulted in more lift pro-
duced by the lower rotor that has the same effect as bring
the lower rotor closer to the upper rotor. The cycle con-
tinues until an equilibrium is reached, at which point, the
lower rotor produced more thrust than it was when the ax-
ial separation distance was higher. The upper rotor, on the
other hand, produced less thrust. The resulting thrust ra-
tio, as the axial separation distance changed is shown in
Fig. 17b.
Region 3 is different from region 2 in that the collec-
tive pitch of both the upper and lower rotor increased with
decreasing z/D. As the lower rotor moved closer to the
upper rotor, the collective pitch of the lower rotor gradu-
ally increased. At z/D = 0.15, the collective pitch of the
lower rotor operated at/near the stall angle θtip = 15◦ -
see Fig. 17a. While the inner portions of the blade expe-
rience downwash from the upper rotor (thereby reducing
the effective angle of attack), the outboard sections of the
blade must operate in a stalled condition or in the non-
linear range of the cl − α curve producing lesser increase
in thrust for ∆α than in the linear range. Also the lower
rotor is very close to the upper rotor in region 3, the inflow
velocity from the lower rotor plays a much bigger role in
increasing the inflow angle of the upper rotor. The loss of
lift by the lower rotor (because of stall), when combined
with the experimental trim requiring constant total thrust,
forces the collective of the upper rotor to be increased.
When the collective for both the upper and the lower ro-
tors increases to produce the same total thrust, induced
power of the system increases. Consequently, the overall
performance of the coaxial rotor decreased quickly.
Dingeldein expected similar results while questioning
the validity of the single-rotor theory proposed by Har-
rington. The argument was based on the occurrence of
lower rotor stall at high thrust conditions, preventing the
applicability of single-rotor theory to explain coaxial ro-
tor characteristics. However, no difference in the mea-
surements were found when Dingeldein repeated the ex-
periment using Harrington rotor (showing no stall effects),
forcing a conclusion that the single-rotor theory was suffi-
cient to predict coaxial rotor performance. Unfortunately,
both his own measurements and Harrington’s measure-
ments were made at one axial separation distance and,
more importantly, at thrust conditions too low to stall the
rotor blades. Unless the thrust conditions are high and
the rotors are placed very close to each other (which may
vary between model-scale and full-scale), stall may not
occur. This was evident from the present measurements
when the rotors were operated at low thrust conditions
(CTcoax = 0.007, similar to Harrington’s measurements).
Coaxial rotors showed no signs of stall and did not show
a reduction in performance even for z/D < 0.15. Never-
theless, the lower rotor blades are expected to stall (invali-
dating the use of single-rotor theories, as intended by Din-
geldein), provided that the coaxial rotor system operate at
high thrust conditions, and at very small axial separation
distance between the upper and lower rotor.
Figure 16a shows the effect of axial separation distance
on the performance of the coaxial rotor system in terms of
κint loss factor. As mentioned earlier, kappaint represents
the additional induced power required by the coaxial ro-
tor system when compared against two isolated 3-bladed
rotor systems. The value of interference loss factor κint ,
for regions 1 and 2 in the case of coaxial rotors using
untwisted blades, remained constant. As z/D decreased
(region 3), κint increased rapidly towards higher values,
approaching 1.41 set by momentum theory.
The effect of axial separation distance on the rotor-on-
rotor influence factors is shown in Fig. 16b. The estima-
tion of κu and κl requires the induced power values of the
individual rotors when operating as a part of a coaxial ro-
tor, as well as in an isolated condition. To estimate the in-
duced power required by the isolated rotor to produce the
same thrust as the upper or lower rotor, momentum the-
ory based curve fits to the measured data on single-rotor
systems were used. The three regions that were used to ex-
plain the changes in FM with the axial separation distance
are consistent with the observation made earlier. Power
loss incurred to the lower rotor predicted using momen-
tum theory is also shown for comparison. Momentum
theory assumes the upper rotor to be independent of the
lower rotor, consequently, κu = 1.
Figure 15 shows performance characteristics of coax-
ial rotors using twisted blades for CT = 0.014. Only two
regions were needed to explain the changes in FM. For
region 1, defined as z/D > 0.2, the upper, the lower and
the coaxial rotor as a system did not show any change in

(a) Untwisted blades
(b) Twisted blades - tilt-rotor
Figure 18: Rotor performances at d/D = 1.1 and
z/D = 0.
FM due to the variations in z/D. Region 3 was reduced
to z/D < 0.2, where the performance of the coaxial ro-
tor system decreased with decreasing axial separation dis-
tance, a behavior that is similar to when untwisted blades
were used.
While the performance characteristics of coaxial rotors
using untwisted blades were relatively simple to under-
stand from the fundamental principles, twisted blade be-
havior was completely different. The upper and lower
rotor collective pitch angles changed very little over the
entire z/D. However, thrust sharing clearly reflected the
absence of region 2 (exhibited by the untwisted blades).
When z/D > 0.2, the ratio of thrust produced by the lower
rotor to the upper rotor changed vert little and was inde-
pendent of the axial separation distance. The values of
κint and κu reflected similar independence over the same
region. The magnitude of κint measured by twisted blades
remained closer to the values predicted by momentum the-
ory (26% loss when rotors were placed farther apart and
approaching 41% loss when the rotors are placed in the
same plane). As mentioned earlier, the twisted blades
more closely reflect the flow field assumptions made in the
momentum theory, such as uniform inflow. For z/D < 0.2,
the collective pitch angles remained unchanged. Yet, the
total performance decreased as shown in Fig. 15, which
is confirmed through the increased interference losses in
Fig. 16a. A comprehensive flow field analysis of coax-
ial rotors using highly twisted blades at various separa-
tion distances is needed to understand the observed per-
formance characteristics.
Tandem and Tilt-rotor
As mentioned earlier, performance measurements from a
tandem/tilt-rotor were analyzed with the following spe-
cific goals: (1) Compare the performance of the tan-
dem/tilt rotor configurations against two isolated single-
rotor systems whose combined solidity is the same as the
tandem rotor system, (2) measure the induced power lost
because of overlap by gradually transitioning from tandem
configuration to coaxial configuration, (3) establish and
understand the performance characteristics of the front
and aft rotor relative to a single-rotor system during the
transition, and (4) compare and analyze the similarities
and differences between the untwisted and highly-twisted
blades for the aforementioned goals.
Nomenclature needs to be established clearly to distin-
guish the various configurations that were analyzed.
• Side-by-side rotor: Rotors operating in the same
plane (z/D = 0) using untwisted and highly twisted
xv-15 blades. When xv-15 blades are used, the con-
figuration resembles tilt-rotors
• Tandem rotor: Rotors operating at an axial separation
distance (z/D) of 0.07. The front rotor operated at a
lower plane when compared with the aft rotor. When
d/D = 0 (i.e., coaxial rotors), the front rotor becomes
the lower rotor, and the aft rotor becomes the upper
rotor.
Rotor Performance: Figure 18 shows the performance
of the side-by-side rotor and the tilt rotor configurations
at a shaft-to-shaft distance (d/D) of 1.1. All the mea-
surements were made after balancing the torque between
the two rotors. Isolated 3-bladed single-rotor measure-
ments were also shown for comparison. Both the rotors
(front and aft), when operating as part of the side-by-
side configuration or as a tilt-rotor, did not deviate from
the isolated single-rotor measurements. At this separa-
tion distance, there was no measurable aerodynamic in-
terference between the two rotor systems that resulted in
any additional loss/gain in the induced power. The ro-
tors essentially operated as isolated single-rotor systems.
Consequently, this means that the side-by-side and tilt ro-
tor configurations perform better than single-rotor systems
(Nb = 6) with equivalent solidity. These observations were
extrapolated to assume that both the front and the aft ro-
tors would continue to operate as single-rotor systems at
higher d/D. However, when d/D is reduced (overlapping
rotors), aerodynamic interaction between the two rotors
increases, garnering more interest from research perspec-
tive.
Effect of Overlap: The rotor systems used in the present
study were unsynchronized, therefore, overlap between
rotors (d/D < 1) operating in the same plane (z/D = 0)
was not possible. To study of the effect of overlap on the
system performance, one of the two rotors was displaced
(a) Performance
axially downward by 0.07D (the same distance at which
coaxial rotor performance measurements were made). All
measurements were made after satisfying two conditions:
(1) balanced torque between the two rotors, and (2) the
total system thrust (CT f +CTa ) was kept constant at 0.014
(same as coaxial rotor measurements). Again, perfor-
mance measurements of the untwisted and the twisted
blades were analyzed. Irrespective of the overlap, the disk
area of the rotor system was assumed as twice the area
of the front (or the aft) rotor. Following the procedure
used throughout this paper, untwisted blades were ana-
lyzed first, followed by twisted blades.
Torque balance between the rotors made the front and
the aft rotors to produce unequal thrust. Therefore, the fig-
ure of merit must be calculated using the same procedure (b) Power lost/gain from overlap
followed in the coaxial rotor analysis, which is given by
3/2 3/2 √ Figure 19: Effect of shaft-to-shaft distance on rotor
(CTa +CT f )/ 2 performance using untwisted blades.
FMTandem = (22)
CQa +CQ f
lost through aerodynamic interference between the two ro-
Results using untwisted blades are shown in Fig. 19a. The tors. Even though the system performance was similar be-
overlap was varied from 0.9 to about 1.025. The coaxial tween the tandem and the side-by-side configurations, the
rotor (when d/D = 0) and isolated 3-bladed single-rotor individual rotors (front and aft) of the two configurations
measurements are also shown to establish the trend and behaved completely differently. In the case of side-by-
to compare the performance of the individual rotors (front side rotor systems, the individual rotors mimicked the per-
and aft), respectively. The induced power loss factor re- formance characteristics of the isolated 3-bladed single-
sulting from overlap κov is given by rotor. However, in the case of tandem rotor systems, the
Pia + Pi f performance of the front (lower) rotor was better than the
κov = (23) aft (upper) rotor, such that the resulting performance of
2 × Pi(single)
the tandem rotor (as a system) equaled the performance of
where Pi(single) is the power required by the single-rotor two isolated single-rotors. More importantly, the perfor-
to produce half the total thrust as the tandem rotor. mance of the front (lower) rotor was better than the iso-
Figure 19b shows the estimated κov at various overlap lated 3-bladed single-rotor. One possible reason could be
distances, along with predictions using momentum the- that the tip vortices from the aft (upper) rotor counteract-
ory. Several interesting observations can be made when ing against the self-induced velocity of the lower rotor tip
Fig. 19a and 19b are analyzed together. vortices, resulting in a lower induced power of the front
The performance of the tandem rotor using untwisted rotor.
blades was at its best when d/D = 1, which matched the Nevertheless, the performance of the tandem rotor sys-
performance of the side-by-side configuration at d/D = tem decreased on either side of d/D = 1. As the shaft-
1.1. This resulted in κov = 1, i.e., no additional power was to-shaft distance increases (for d/D > 1.1), the individual

(a) Performance of tandem rotor
(b) Overlap power factor, κov
Figure 20: Effect of shaft-to-shaft distance on rotor
performance using twisted blades.
rotors should begin performing like isolated rotors with ei-
ther rotor having no influence on each other. This can be
expected based on the κov measurements made at z/D = 0,
shown in Fig. 19b. In the present study, experiments were
limited to d/D < 1.1 to prevent wall effects.
Increasing the overlap, i.e., reducing d/D, presents
even more interesting performance characteristics. The
front (lower) rotor continued to outperform the aft (up-
per) rotor when 0.9 < d/D < 1.02. And, the tandem rotor
system showed a overall reduction in performance. This
is because a reduction in d/D increases the disk loading
(therefore, lower FM) for the same total thrust. The poor
performance was also reflected by the increase in κov as
shown in Fig. 19b. The trend should continue until d/D
reduces to zero (i.e., coaxial rotor). While the induced
power losses associated with overlap were expected based
on momentum theory, the measurements showed higher
losses than the theoretical prediction.
At d/D = 0.9, the measured FM of the upper and lower
rotor were equal. This represents an interesting condition
where the upper rotor appear to perform better than lower
rotor for any further increase in overlap. The crossover
point also correlates well with the location of the slip
stream boundary of the single-rotor (see Ref. 29) for the
z/D used in the present measurements.
Figure 20 shows measurements made using twisted
blades to quantify the effect of overlap on the tandem rotor
performance. Unlike when untwisted blades were used,
the performance of tandem rotor system using twisted
blades at d/D = 1.0 was lower than that of two isolated
single-rotors. Also, none of the individual rotors (front or
aft) performed better than the single-rotor system at any
d/D. However, similar to untwisted blades, the tandem
rotor system using twisted blades showed continuous re-
duction in performance as overlap increased.
The front (lower) rotor performed better than the aft
(upper) rotor over half the overlap distance, i.e., until
d/D = 0.5, which corresponds to the condition where the
shaft of each rotor aligns with the blade tip of the other
rotor. The crossover in the individual rotor performance
occurred at d/D = 0.5, i.e., the aft (upper) rotor began
performing better than the front (lower) rotor. Although
unexpected, the observation is consistent with flow field
measurements shown in Ref. 29, which suggests that the
front (lower) rotor may operate in a relatively clean flow
and not in the downwash of the aft (upper) rotor. The
lower rotor stands to gain from the upwash produced by
the upper rotor tip vortices, counteracting the self-induced
downwash produced by lower rotor tip vortices. While
this explains the higher performance of the front rotor over
the aft rotor when 0.8 < d/D < 1.0, no explanation can
be given for the region 0.5 < d/D < 0.8, where down-
wash from the upper rotor must adversely affect the lower
rotor performance. Only flow field measurements on sim-
ilar rotor configurations can reveal the physics behind the
observed performance.
Even though the performance crossover occurred at
d/D = 0.5, the performance of the aft (upper) rotor ap-
peared uninfluenced by the front (lower) rotor from as
early as d/D = 0.75 until d/D = 0. The reduction in
performance exhibited by the front (lower) rotor reduced
the overall tandem rotor performance, as explained by
the thrust and power ratios of the upper and lower rotors
shown in Fig. 21.
The overlap power factor, κov , shown in Fig. 20b re-
flects the observed performance characteristics. Two mo-
mentum theory solutions were plotted, as well, where the
solid line corresponds to the rotors operating in-plane and
the dashed line corresponds to the front rotor operating at
a large z/D relative to the aft rotor, i.e., at the axial lo-
cation where the wake from the aft rotor contracts fully
to form vena contracta. Performance predicted by Har-
ris (Ref. 28) is plotted as well. All the theoretical so-
lutions underpredicted the measured losses, except when

measurements were compared against single-rotor sys-
tems to quantify various kinds of interference losses, as
well as to measure the rotor-on-rotor influence. The fol-
lowing are the configuration-specific conclusions derived
from the present study.
Figure 21: Thrust and power ratio of the front and aft
rotor for a torque-balanced tandem rotor system
Figure 22: Measurements to determine rotor-on-rotor
influence factor in tandem rotor configuration
d/D is closer to 0, i.e., coaxial rotor condition. Figure 22
compares the hovering efficiencies of the individual rotors
of the tandem rotor system against isolated single-rotor.
Unlike the effect of axial separation distance on the rotor-
on-rotor influence found in coaxial rotors, the effect of
overlap distance on the rotor-on-rotor influence factor in
tandem rotor configuration cannot be ascertained conclu-
sively.
Conclusions
A series of experiments were conducted on an easily con-
figurable rotor stand. Performance measurements were
acquired for various rotor configurations, such as sin-
gle, coaxial, tandem, and tilt-rotors using untwisted and
highly-twisted blades. Within a configuration, rotor sys-
tem parameters were varied to conduct parametric stud-
ies. single-rotor measurements were used to establish the
physical operating limits of the rotor stands, as well as
to provide the baseline rotor characteristics. Multi-rotor
1. Coaxial rotors were found to perform better than a
single-rotor with equivalent solidity. Nearly 9% im-
provement in FM was achieved using coaxial ro-
tors. However, when compared against two isolated
single-rotors whose combined solidity is equal to the
solidity of the coaxial rotors, aerodynamic interfer-
ence between the rotors resulted in approximately a
20% increase in the induced power for coaxial rotors.
The latter result is independent of the blade planform
used. Momentum theory results suggests 10% and
26% for the two similar comparisons, respectively.
2. The upper rotor influenced the performance of the
lower rotor even when the axial separation distance
was large. The lower rotor required nearly 60% more
induced power than an isolated single-rotor of equal
solidity, when the rotors were 1.5D apart, to produce
the same thrust. The increase in the induced power
required by the lower rotor reduced with decreas-
ing axial separation distance. At 0.05D, lower rotor
needed only 37% more induced power than an iso-
lated single rotor of equivalent solidity.. The result
was similar for both blade planforms.
3. The adverse influence of the lower rotor on the upper
was measurable when the axial separation distance
was less than 0.75D. The effect increased with the re-
duction in the axial separation distance, as expected.
At 0.05D, the lower rotor caused the upper rotor to
consume 23% more induced power to produce the
same thrust.
4. Rotor axial separation distance had a different effect
on different performance parameters. The overall
performance of the coaxial rotor was independent of
the axial separation distance when z/D > 0.15. For
decreasing z/D, the performance of the coaxial rotor
started decreasing at higher thrust conditions because
of stall experienced by the lower rotor blades. At low
thrust conditions, no stall was observed and so, no
performance penalty was encountered even when the
rotors were as close as 0.05D. This behavior was also
reflected in the interference power factor, which was
constant until 0.15D. When z/D was reduced further,
the induced power started approaching higher values
set by momentum theory.
5. Thrust sharing between the two rotors changed with
axial separation distance, and with the blade plan-
 form. The lower rotor produced only 70% of the
upper rotor thrust when z/D was higher. However,
as z/D decreased, the lower rotor produced more
and more thrust, approaching 95% at 0.05D. While
twisted and untwisted blades behaved similarly at
small and large z/D, the difference occurred for
0.3 < z/D < 0.75, where the changes to the thrust
sharing was more gradual in the case of untwisted
blades compared with the twisted blades.
6. Side-by-side rotors and tilt-rotors showed no addi-
tional loss/gain from aerodynamic interference be-
tween the rotors when the shaft-to-shaft distance
(d/D) was more than 1.1. The front and aft rotors
performed very similar to isolated rotors.
7. Independent of the blade planform, the perfor-
mance of tandem rotors decreased with increasing
overlap, resulting from increasing local disk load-
ing. At d/D = 1, tandem rotors using untwisted
blades showed no reduction in hover efficiency,
however, twisted blades showed a 3% reduction.
In general, when the measured losses were com-
pared against momentum theory predictions, mea-
surements showed more induced power than the pre-
dicted values.
8. Overlap distance had a different effect on the front
and aft rotor. Surprisingly, the front rotor (which
is lower relative to the aft rotor in terms of axial
position), operated at higher efficiency than the aft
rotor when overlap increased. However, this be-
havior changed beyond a threshold distance, which
was different for the two different planforms used
in the present study. Untwisted blades showed the
crossover in performance occurring at 0.9D; the
crossover for twisted blades was at 0.5D. The
crossover corresponds to the location where the up-
per rotor begins performing better than the lower ro-
tor for further increase in overlap. Only a flowfield
analysis can explain the observed performance char-
acteristics.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the discussions with
Drs. Wayne Johnson, Gloria Yamauchi, Hyeonsoo Yeo,
Mahendra Bhagwat, Joon Lim, and Mark Potsdam that
were helpful throughout the work. The support of Mr.
Perry Kavros in setting up the experiment and keeping the
rotors operational through several months of rigorous test-
ing was greatly appreciated.
References
1 Knight, M., and Hefner, R. A., “Static Thrust Analysis
of the Lifting Airscrew,” NACA TN 626, December 1937.
2 Gessow, A., “Effect of Rotor-Blade Twist And Plan-
Form Taper on Helicopter Performance,” NACA TN
1542, February 1948.
3 Johnson, W., “Technology Drivers in the Development
of CAMRAD II, American Helicopter Society Aerome-
chanics Specialists Conference, San Francisco, CA, Jan-
uary 19–21, 1994.
4 Datta, A., and Chopra, I., “Validation and Understand-
ing of UH-60 Vibratory Loads in Steady Level Flight,”
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 49,
No. 3, July 2004, pp. 271–287.
5 Wissink, A.M., Sankaran, V., Jayaraman, B., Datta,
A., Sitaraman, J., Potsdam, M., Kamkar, S., Mavriplis,
D., Yang, Z., Jain, R., Lim, J., and Strawn, R. C., “Ca-
pability Enhancements in Version 3 of the Helios High-
Fidelity Rotorcraft Simulation Code,” AIAA-2012-0713,
50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Nashville, TN, January 2012.
6 Harrington, R. D., “Full-Scale Tunnel Investigation of
the Static-Thrust Performance of a Coaxial Helicopter Ro-
tor,” NACA 2318, March 1951.
7 Dingeldein,R. C., “Wind Tunnel Studies of the Per-
formance of Multirotor Configurations,” NACA TN 3236,
August 1954.
8 Cheney Jr.,
M. C., “The ABC Helicopter,” AIAA/AHS
VTOL Research, Design and Operations Meeting, At-
lanta, GA, February 17–19 1969.
9 Rorke, J. B., “Hover Performance Tests of Full Scale
Variable Geometry Rotors,” United Technologies Corpor-
tation 2713, Washington, D. C., August 1976.
10 Arents, D. N.,
“An Assesment of the Hover Performace
of the XH-59A Advancing Blade Concept Demonstration
Helicopter,” USAAMRDL TN-25, May 1977.
11 Nagashima, T., O. H., and Sasaki, F., “Optimum Per-
formance and Load Sharing of Coaxial Rotor in Hover,”
Journal of Japan Society for Aeronautics & Space Sci-
ences, Vol. 26, No. 293, June 1978, pp. 325–333.
12 McAlister, K. W., Tung, C., Rand, O., Khromov, V.,
and Wilson, J. S., “Experimental and Numerical Study of
a Model Coaxial Rotor,” Proceedings of the American He-
licopter Society 62nd Annual National Forum, Phoenix,
AZ, May 9–11 2006.
 13 Bohorquez, F., “Rotor Hover Performance And System 26 Bender, G. L., Sullivan, P. J., Yamakawa, G. M., Rob-

Design Of An Efficient Coaxial Rotary Wing Micro Air bins, R. D., Herbst, M. K., and Williams, R. A., “Airwor-
Vehicle,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College thiness And Flight Characteristics Test of the CH-47D He-
Park, MD, 2007. licopter,” UAAAEFA AD-A151 280, Edwards Airforce
Base, CA, February 1984.
14 Lee, T. E., and Leishman, J. G., “Design and Perfor-
27 Felker, F. F., Signor, D. B., Young, L. A., and Betz-
mance of a Ducted Coaxial Rotor in Hover and Forward
Flight,” M. S. Thesis, Univeristy of Maryland, College ina, M. D., “Performance and Loads Data From a Hover
Park, MD, October 2010. Test of a 0.658-Scale V-22 Rotor and Wing,” NASA TM
89419, April 1987.
15 Coleman, C. P., “A Survey of Theoretical and Exper-
28 Harris,F. D., “Twin Rotor Hover Performance,” Jour-
imental Coaxial Rotor Aerodynamic Research,” NACA
TN 3675, Moffett Field, CA, March 1997. nal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan-
uary 1999, pp. 34–37.
16 Bourtsev, B. N., Kvokov, V. N., Vainstein, I. M., and 29 Ramasamy, M., Gold, N. P., and Bhagwat, M. J.,
Petrosian, E. A. “Phenomenaon of a Coaxial Helicopter
High Figure of Merit at Hover,” Twenty Third European “Flowfield Measurements to Understand Effects of Wake
Rotorcraft Forum, Dresden, Germany, September 1997. Behavior on Rotor Performance,” AIAA 2010-4237, 28th
AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Chicago, IL,
17 Johnson, W., “Influence of Lift Offset on Rotor Per- June 28–July 1 2010, AIAA.
formance,” Proceedings of the AHS Technical Specialists 30 Lim, J. W., McAlister. K. W., and Johnson, W., “Hover
Meeting on Aeromechanics, San Francisco, CA, January
Performance Correlation for Full-Scale and Model-Scale
23–25 2008.
Coaxial Rotors,” Journal of the American Helicopter So-
18 Lee, J., Chae, S., Oh, S., and Yee, K., “Paramet- ciety, Vol. 54, No. 3, July 2009, pp. 032005–1–032005–
ric Study for Hovering Performance of a Coaxial Rotor 14.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, 31 Leishman,J. G., Principles of Helicopter Aerodynam-
No. 5, September 2010, pp. 1517–1530.
ics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000.
19 Kim, H. W., and Brown, R., “A Comparison of Coax-
ial and Conventional Rotor Performance,” Journal of
the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 55, No. 1, January
2010, pp. 012004–1–012004–20.
20 Leishman, J. G., and Syal, M., “Figure of Merit Defi-
nition for Coaxial Rotors,” Journal of the American Heli-
copter Society, Vol. 53, No. 3, July 2008, pp. 290–300.
21 Wachspress, D. A., and Quackenbush, T. R., “Impact
of Rotor Design on Coaxial Rotor Performance,” Proceed-
ings of the American Helicopter Society 62nd Annual Na-
tional Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 9–11, 2006.
22 Andrew, M. J., “Coaxial Rotor Aerodynamics in
Hover,” Vertica, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1981, pp. 163–172.
23 Heyson, H. H., “An Evaluation of Linearlized Vortex

Theory As Applied To Single And Multiple Rotors Hov-

ering In And Out Of Ground Effect,” NASA TN D-43,
September 1959.
24 Sweet,G. E., “Hovering Measurements For Twin-
Rotor Configurations with and without overlap,” NASA
TN D-534, Langley Field, VA, November 1960.
25 Stepniewski,W. Z., and Keys, C. N., Rotary-Wing
Aerodynamics, Dover, New York, NY, 1984.