DESIGN OF THE ULTRALICHT ‘TWO PLACE GYROPLANE BY MARTIN HOLLMANN B.S., California State University at San Jose THESTS Submitted in partial fulfiliment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering in the Graduate Studies Program of Florida Technological University Orlando, Florida 19744a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to I. D. Keiter from the McCauley Corporation for making available the Hamilton Standard Method of Propeller Performance Calculation’ and R. J. Moore of Teledyne Continental Motors for sending the engine specifications used in CAGROS. I am especially thankful to Dr. Henry A. Hagedoorn, my thesis advisor, for his encouragement, patience, and assistance during the preparation of this thesis.TABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS y 6. LIST OF TABLES... ss LIST OF FIGUEES. 6... chapter I. INTRODUCTION... TE, SWMURY. 6. TIT. PARAMETRIC STUDY , CAGRAS Calculations and Assumptions OF CONTENTS Rotor performance. . - « Engine thrust Power-off rate of sink Airframe drag. Weight-break-down « Results and Discussion - + IV. ROTOR STRUCTURAL DESTGN ANALYSTS Blade Load Conditions. + - Blade Loads, Load Case 2 - Blade Loads, Load Case 3 « Blade Loads, Load Case 4 « Stress Analysis. . . Fatigue Check on Extrusion Rotor Resonance aad it 10 15 ay uv 20 a1 45 46 a7 48 48 58 62Chapter Ve CONCLUSION py actuate rere ereee APPENDICES Appendix Ki Symbol coe jg ee ee eR RHE IT, CAGROS Output, ,, 6. eee eee III, A Simplified Matrix Method for Calculating Root Bending Moment for a Cantilevered or Teetering Rotor Blade for Steady Airloads Iv. Modified Matrix Equations for Determining the Bending Moments and Deflections for Rotor Blades in Forward Flight... ... v. Adrload Equations ++ eee eee eee VI, Material Properties, ., 4. +++ eres VII. Stress Calculations. 6. ++ eee ee LIST OF REFERENCES, vey tye eet trees BIBLIOGRAPEY, sa vw ce ER eee RTE iv 65 67 72 73 7 93 94 96 102 104Table LIST OF TABLES Airfoil Characteristics. 4s yee CAGROS Enginess see ee ee ee Combined Bending and Tensile Stress in the Extrusion at Bolt]... y+. +s Stress Summary of HA~27 Rotor Blade . . Page aL 37 6010. i. 2, 13. i. LIST OF FIGURES CAGROS Flow Chart... Variation of Static Thrust Coefficient with Effective Power Coefficient, (Fig. 27 of the Hamilton Standard Method 6)... + + Variation of Propeller Thrust with Airplane Speed, (Fig. 33 of the Hamilton Standard Method 6) se ee ee Power Curves for 2 1000 Various Disc Loadings . Power Curves for a 1500 Various Disc Loadings - Power Curves for a 1000 Various Power Loadings « Power Curves for a 1500 Various Power Loadings + Rate of Climb of a 1000 Various Disc Loadings . Rate of Climb of a 1500 Various Disc Loadings . Rate of Climb of a 1000 Various Power Loadings . Rate of Climb of a 1500 Various Power Loadings . Power Curves for a 1000 Various Solidity Ratios 1b. Gyroplane Ib. Gyroplane 1b. Gyroplane 1b. Gyroplane 1b. Gyroplane 1b. Gyroplane 1b. Gyroplane Ib. Gyroplane 1b. Gyroplane with with with with Rate of Climb at Various Solidity Ratios. . Power-Off Rate of Sink for Various Solidity Ratios . . . « vi Page 13 15 21 a. 22 22 23 23 26 26 25 26 26Figure 15. Power Curves for a 1000 1b. Gyroplane with Various Blade Piteh Settings, ,.. 4.45 16. Rate of Climb at Various Blade Pitch Settings 17. Power-Off Rate of Sink for Various Blade Patch AMglCS, Vv ee ee ee 18. Power Curves for a 1000 1b. Gyroplane with an Effective Blade Pitch of Two Degrees and Varying Blade Twist... .... 1 ee 19. Rate of Climb for Varying Blade Twist . . 20. Power-Off Rate of Sink for Varying Blade Twist, 21. Power Curves for a 1000 1b. Gyroplane with Different Airfoils, . 6. yee er eee 22, Rate of Climb for Various Airfoils. .... 23. Power-Off Rate of Sink for Various Airfoils 24. Power Curves for the HA-2 Sportster . . «+ 25. Rate of Clinb of the HA-2 Sportster»... 26. Drag and Thrust for the HA-2 Sportster. . « 27. Specifications for the HA-2 Sportster . . . 28. HA-27 Rotor Blade Design»... sy eee 29. Blade Bending Monents for Vertical Autorotationy vy eer eee ee eee 30. Blade Deflections for Power-off Vertical Aurordeatiaey sa sy sae 6 8 eS 31, Blade Bending Moments in Forward Flight, Limit Load = 3.5 x 1050 lbs... ee sy 32. Blade Bending Moments Components at“W = 270°. Forward Flight. seer eee renee 33. Airload versus Azimuth Position in Forward WAGs oF maa ea Mie ae CO vit Page 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 32 37 38 38 39 4h 49 49 50 51 52Figure 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. a. 1a. 2A. Airload versus Blade Station in Forward lighters epee eearaenege Total Blade Airload versus Azimuth Position in Forward Flight 6 yy eee nee Blade Bending Moments in Forward Flight, Limit Load = 1050 Ibs-,....... 5 Centrifugal Force for Forward Flight, Linit Load = 3.5 x 1050 Ibs... . Centrifugal Force for Forward Flight, Limit Load = 1050 Ibs. » 1+ eee Blade Root Fitting Loads,,,,,.,. Goodman Diagram for Blade Extrusion . . HA-27 Rotor Resonance Characteristics for Various Harmonics + ss eee ee es ‘A Cantilevered Blade Divided into Four Elements Rib Load ss teas ee et eee viii Page 52 53 54 55 55 59 62 64 73 100CHAPTER T INTRODUCTION It is the intent of this thesis to denonstrate the utilization of existing aerodynamic and structural analysis for establishing general and specific design guidelines to be used for the rapid selection of ultra-light tvo-place gyroplane parameters. A Computer Aided Gyroplane Synthesis, CAGROS, program is set up and utilized in a parametric evaluation to determine the performance characteristics of a 1000 pound and a 1500 pound gross weight gyroplane. The 1000 pound gyroplane is considered representative of a stripped (no starter, generator, rotor prespin, radio, etc.) ultra-light two-place gyroplane. whereas, the 1500 pound gyroplane is considered to be a fully equipped aircraft. CAGRES 1s also utilized to evaluate the performance characteristics of a specific 1050 pound gross weight gyroplane for which a detetled rotor blade system has been designed. Named the HA~27 rotor system, this rotor is analyzed in detatl using a modified matrix method for obtaining spanwise moments and deflections similar to the method presented by Mayo.! The method of Mayo is modified to include precone angle. This method is accepted as giving good results; see Mayo.” Although the method requires a computer with appropriate subroutines capable of manipulating conplex variable matrices and considerable time is needed for programming and making computer runs, considerable time issaved in comparison to tabular methods which have been used extensively in rotor blade analysis. A simplified matrix method similar to the method described by Mayo, except that a reduced number of blade stations are used, is presented in Appendix 3. This method can be used for calculating a steady airload structural root bending moment and the calculations can be carried out by hand and used for preliminary rotor blade sizing. The results thus obtained are compared with those using ten blade stations as presented in Appendix 4,CHAPTER IT SUMMARY It is shown that a combination of low disc loading (large rotor diameter) and low power loading (powerful engine) are required in the design of gyroplanes if good performance is to be expected. Low power loading is required for high speed, while a low disc loading is necessary for low forvard speed. It is also shown that blade pitch setting and selection of a NACA 8-H-12 airfoil with 2 smooth blade contour will significantly affect performance. (A smooth blade contour is one having accurate leading-edge contours and smooth, rigid surfaces. A rough contour is one having deformable surfaces such as those on poorly built fabric covered blades with ribs insufficient to prevent blade surface distortion.) Changes in solidity ratio and blade twist were found to be less significant parameters. A light-weight rotor which was designed by the author for a 1050 pound gross weight gyroplane and which is analyzed in detail in this thesis will meet the requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 27.3 It is shown that the blade stresses in this rotor are governed primarily by the centrifugal force and that bending moment stresses are small. However, if no built-in precone angle is used, the magnitude of the root bending moments may increase considerably.‘A Goodman diagram established for the HA-27 rotor extrusion and a blade resonance check shows that no fatigue or resonance problems are to be expected within the operating range of the rotor. Should the blade be operated within resonance conditions large blade deflections and large alternating stresses can be expected which may be catastrophic to the functioning of the aircraft. ‘A simplified matrix method, as outlined in Appendix 3, can be used to approximate the root bending moment of a rigid or teetering rotor. However, for a detailed determination of the bending moments along the span of a blade or for the bending moment calculations of an articulated rotor blade, the method of Appendix 4 must be utilized. Several claims are made by the author for which no verifying published data exists. It should be pointed out that these claims are based on the author's six years of experience in designing, analyzing, building, and flying gyroplanes.CHAPTER IIL PARAMETRIC STUDY To facilitate the parametric study a computer program titled CAGROS , Gomputer Aided Gyroplane Synthesis, is set up. The input to CAGRAS constitutes a specific gyroplane design for which the design parameters must be known. No attempt to optimize the design is made. Instead, the performance characteristics are calculated for various design combinations and a discussion of how the variations of the input data affect performance is made. As shown in Fig. 1, the input data for a epecific gyroplane design consists oft ° ° Gross weights from 1000 to 1500 pounds Power loading; gross weight/maximum installed horsepower, pounds per horsepower Disc loading; gross welght/rotor disc area, pounds per square feet Solidity; rotor blade area/rotor disc area Blade pitch; angle between zero lift of blade section at hub and plane perpendicular to axis of no feathering, radians Blade twist; difference between hub and tip pitch angles; positive when tip angle is larger, radians Lift slope; slope of curve of section lift coefficient against section angle of attack, per radian© Drag coefficient; coefficients in power series expressing the section profile drag coefficient, c, , as a function of blade lo 2 elenent angle of attack, a, (cg, = 6, + 6a + 6,0°, where Sg2 Sj and 6, are the drag coefficients). The Lift slope and drag coefficients are calculated for three airfoils per Bailey" and tabulated below. TABLE 1 AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS Airfoil |_Hift Slope S& | & | & NAGA 23012 (smooth) 5.73 0.0087 | ~0.0216 | 0.400 NACA 8-H-12(smooth) 6.418 0.0087 | -0.0353 | 0.700 NAGA 8-H-12 (rough) 6.418 0.014 0.0353 | 0.700 © Data cards for rotor performance; a simplified method in which the theoretical expressions for thrust coefficient, flapping coefficient, torque coefficient, and the profile drag-life ratio were reduced to simple functions of the inflow factor, blade pitch angles, and the tip-speed ratio as determined by Gessow and Myers > is used for determining the rotor performance. The coefficients of the inflow ratio and blade pitch terms are expressed as functions of the tip-speed ratio, the blade mass constant, and the tip-loss factor and tabulated for a mass constant equal to 15 and a tip-loss factor equal to 0.97 for a seriesof specific values of tip-speed ratio. These tabulated coefficients are read in by CAGRJS and the rotor performance calculated. Departure from a mass constant of 15 and a tip- loss factor of 0.97 has negligible effect on the values of the coefficients and the tabulated values may be used for calculating the aerodynamic characteristics of any conventional rotor according to Gessow and Myers. In addition to CAGROS output as shown in Fig. 1, the minimum airspeed, the maximum speed, the speed for best range, the speed for best endurance, and the speed for best rate of climb can be determined from the power available and power required versus airspeed curves as shown later. GAGROS Calculations and Assumptions From Fig. 1 it can be seen that the calculations are separated into five basic independent groups; the rotor performance, engine thrust, vertical power-off rate of sink, airframe drag, and a weight- break-down, These calculations are now discussed. Rotor Performance A detailed discussion of rotor performance calculations is made by Gessow and Myers” and Bailey’ and will not be given here. However, the basic assumptions are sumarized below. Although all calculations were made for a blade mass constent of 15 and a tip-loss factor of 0.97, negligible errors will result foreocccnc00e INPUT Gross weight Power loading Disc loading Solidity Blade pitch Blade twist Lift slope Drag coefficients Read in data card for rotor er formance CALCULATIONS Rotor performance Engine thrust Power-off rate of sink Airframe drag Weight-break-down ourpur As a function of forward speed; Power available Power required Rate of clinb Power-off rate of sink Rotor speed Rotor drag Airframe drag Total drag Rotor dimensions Airframe weight-break-down For power-off vertical autorotation; Rotor speed Rate of sink Fig. 1. CAGROS Flow Chartother rotor systems. All blades are assumed to have a constant chord with linear or no twist. The series used to approximate the blade drag coefficient of the blade elements will seriously underestimate the drag coefficient at angles of attack near or beyond stall or at blade tip speeds approaching the speed of sound. However, for moderate values of thrust and tip-speed ratio, high values of the angle of attack at which stall occurs are either confined to parts of the rotor dise in which the square of the velocity of the air relative to the blade element is quite low or to very small areas. According to Gessow and Myers under such conditions the total contribution of these blade elements to the rotor thrust and torque is very small and the error in their estimation is negligible. It will be demonstrated later that, for a moderate tip-speed ratio of a typical gyroplane, the advancing blade tip-speed is below shock compressibility speed. An investigation of tip-speed ratio limits for blade compressibility effects was not made. Lt should be noted that no change in tip-loss factor for various number of blades has been accounted for. This may be justified when noting in Fig. 4-4 in Gessow and Myers® that for low thrust coefficients, typically equal to 0.002 for gyroplanes, the tip loss factor differs only slightly with the number of blades. The number of blades will not effect the performance calculations in that the solidity ratio is specified as an independent variable and used in the performance calcula~ tions.10 Engine Thrust CAGRGS utilizes four commercially available power plants ranging from 100 to 210 horsepower as shown in Table 2. Engine selection is made by determining the desired power from the power loading and gross weight and selecting an engine with the next highest power rating with the corresponding propeller speed, propeller diameter, nunber of propeller blades, propeller weight, fuel weight, and accessories weight. Engine thrust as a function of forvard speed is calculated by the Hamilton Standard Method®, This method uses basic airserew theory in conjunction with empirical curves to correct for propeller parameters. The manner in which the Hamilton Standard Method is used and the assumptions made in CACR#S are now sumarized in the following equations. ‘The power coefficient is given ast @ where, HP = maximum installed horsepower N = maximum propeller speed, revolutions per minute D = propeller diameter, feet Fe = air density ratio, equal to one for sea level‘TABLE 2 CAGROS ENGINES cae Engine Continental | Franklin | Continental | Continental 0-200-a Sports 43 | 10-346 102360 Maximum installed 100 130 140 210 horsepower pastas 2750 2800 2700 2800 lspeed, rpm Engine erght, wos.f 220 260 300 350 Propeller lweight, Ibs. “8 aE od o lPropelier diameter, 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 et. hiunber of |propeller 2 a 3 3 lades ee R R 120 180 libs. Accessories freight, Ibs. 35 n 20 7”12 The propeller activity factor is: Lo _ 100,000 b 3 ar, = 200,000 [0° 8 sax @ 0.2 ets, b = chord width of propeller, ft. x =r/R r = radius to propeller element, ft. R = D/2 It 4s assumed that all propellers have an activity factor equivalent to the activity factor of a constant five inch chord propeller with a diameter of 5.5 £t. such that from Eq. (2), ALF. = 118. From Fig. 23 of the Hamilton Standard Method® for A.F. = 118, Py, = 0.70. And from Fig. 24 of the same reference for a blade thickness ratio of 0.1, typical for wood propellers, B, = 0.95. Now, for a two-bladed propeller, Sy + Pap + 1p 7 04665 @ And for a three-bladed propeller, o, = 0, + Pap + Ry 1 0-7 = 6, + 0.466 @ The static thrust coefficient for a tip-speed of 900 feet per ¢ second, (2 ggg, as 2 function of G,* ds given for a Clark-y airfoil Ph for different numbers of blades in Fig. 27 of the Hamilton Standard C, 6 Method®. this relationship between ( 7! )goq and C,' is simulated by © 900 *** Sp determining an approximate-fit-quadratic equation from three datum points from Fig. 27 of the Hamilton Standard Method®, ‘The three points were selected to fit between the two and three blade curves as shown3B in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2, 900 = 265.42 (¢,))? ~ 56.99 0," + 3.875 ©) 2 —(.02, 2.85) - 2 BLADES (.04, 2.00) Kee +05, 1.70) © 0.02 0.04 0.06 0,08 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.16 P Variation of Static Thrust Coefficient with Effective Power Coefficient. (Fig. 27 of the Hamilton Standard Method®) For a tip-speed of 800 to 925 feet per second, S, = 1.00 and for 'T an essuned body to propeller diaueter ratio of 0.65, 5, = 0.9. See Figures 29 and 31 respectively of the Hamilton Standard Method®,wu The static thrust coefficient for the previously assumed tip-speed range and body configuration is, “, ¢, i , 70-9 Pegg (6) P P The static thrust, T,, is calculated from, ¢ 'T , EP + 33,000 ow o a = The thrust for forward flight is determined by calculating c P Where J is equal to, aay vo = (8) where V is the forward speed of the aircraft in miles per hour. @ From Equations (1) and (8), we ) ah = 124.457 2 Vo, ili P ‘The forward flight to static thrust ratio is given as a function of in Fig. 33 of the Hamilton Standard Method®. Again, an approximate es ve fit-quadratic curve is calculated for selected blade pitch angles (less ‘The than 14 degrees) from three coordinate points as shown in Fig. 3. thrust ratio is calculated as, iy? J = 0.00625 (> )* - 0.1525 (=) +1.0 10) Ce ) OF d qo) > P ap The flight thrust is computed as,15 (, 1.009 1.00 0.60 o 1 25 3 4 vce Fig. 3. Variation of Propeller Thrust with Airplane Speed (Fig. 33 of the Hamilton Standard Method®’ » Power-Off Rate of Sink ‘The equations used for calculating the vertical power-off rate of sink are taken from Nikolsky’ and ere summarized below. A constant inflow distribution and sea level air density are assumed and an effective blade pitch angle, 0,, at 75 percent tip radius is calculated from the blade root pitch setting, 0,, and blade twist, ©), as, 8, = 0,'+ 0.75 O, a2) 267.76 oie (3) aR’ 2 , = 0.25 (6, + 8, 0, + 8) 0,”) aay16 as) (16) ay where, GWT = gross weight, Ibs. © = solidity ratio R= tip radius, ft. The rotor speed is, [6,1(0.333 0, + 0.50 0 as) And the rate of sink is, GuT (2 F + 2) z as) 0.015 F R’ a For the power-off rate of sink in forward flight, Eq. (19) is used. However, instead of using Eqs. (13) thru (18) for determining ) and 2, these parameters are calculated from the forward flight condition.7 Mrfrene Drag Without wind tumel data it is extrenely difficult to predict an accurate drag coefficient, Cy, for e specific airframe. The Literature shows that drag coefficients for standard shapes have been established. For example, an estimated drag coefficient of 0.5 can be expected for a sphere at the anticipated flight conditions according to Doumasch, Sherby, and Connolly? The rather blunt and nonstreanlined airfrane of a 1000 pound gyroplane "resembles" the shape of a sphere and a drag coefficient of 0.55 was assumed for this airframe. The total airframe drag for all airframes is based on the frontel area, A. It is assumed that a heavier gyroplane's larger frontal area is offset by the ability to streamline its airfrane such that the drag coefficient is reduced and the product of area and drag coefficient remains constant regardless of the size of the gyroplane. A frontal area of 18.3 square feet is calculated for a 1000 pound gyroplane, and, together with an assumed drag coefficient of 0.55 and sea level air density, p,, the total airframe drag is, 1, a z p=30, Vc, A= 0.012 V (20) ‘The total drag is the sum of the rotor and airframe drag. Weight-Break-Down The gross weight of a gyroplane is divided into the following weights: o Airframe 0 Engine © Accessories © Rotor18 © Propeller © Fuel © Pilot and passenger © oi1 An empirical quadratic equation is selected to fit two coordinate points such that the airframe weight can be expressed as a function of the gross weight. The two data points are: an airfrane weight of 270 pounds (corresponding to a gross weight of 1000 pounds); and an airframe weight of 480 pounds (corresponding to a gross weight of 2000 pounds). The airframe weight thus determined is, AFWE = 0.30 GT - 0.00003 Gwr* ay The engine, accessories, propeller, and fuel weight are determined from the engine selection. The rotor weight is calculated from Eq. (22). Bq. (22) 1s determined for any nonspecified rotor by summing the moments generated by the centrifugal force and the aerodynamic lift acting on a constant chord uniform mass blade about the blade flapping hinge. A natural precone angle of two degrees is assumed. ar = 2685 oT (0.15 BY + 0.7) 23 RY where, RWT = rotor weight, Ibs. BN = nunber of blades Q = rotor speed, radians per second R = rotor radius, ft. This method for determining rotor weight is suggested by Young”19 For the engines listed in CAGRSS, approximately 5.5 quarts of oil are needed. At 7.5 pounds per gallon for standard U.S. lubricating ofl, the of1 weight is 10.3 pounds. It should be noted that this weight is an approximation only. The quantity of oil in the ofl cooler will vary from aircraft to aircraft and will not be included here. ‘The allowable weight for pilot and passenger is determined by subtracting all component and oil and fuel weights from the gross weight. Finally, the pover available is calculated from Eq. (23) and the power required is calculated from Eq. (24). The rate of climb 4s determined from the thrust available for climb, TAFC, which is equal to the difference between the flight thrust, FLTT, and total drag, TDRAG. All calculations are made for standard air at sea level for which the air density is 0.002378 slugs per cubic foot. ‘The power available is, PAV = FLIT - “59 (23) where, VEWD = airspeed, feet per second The power required is, PREQ = TDRAG + “SEQ (24) And the rate of climb is, roc = 60 + AEE. vey (25) aT20 Results and Discussion The two most important design variables affecting gyroplane perfor mance are disc loading and power loading. The effects of these variables on the maximum and minimum speed, speed for best range, speed for best endurance, and rate of clin are investigated for a gyroplane weighing 1000 pounds and one weighing 1500 pounds in Figs. 4 thru 11. From these figures 1¢ is immediately recognized that the minimum speed (at the first intersection of the power available and power required curves) is primarily controlled by dise loading. Whereas the maximum speed (the last intersection of the power curves) is predominantly effected by power loading. - Decreasing the disc loading for the 1000 pounds aircraft shown in Fig. 4 from 2.4 to 1.0 gives a weight penalty of 47 pounds due to the increased rotor size and a 54 pound weight penalty accompanies the decrease in power loading from 10.0 to 7.69 due to a larger engine, Low dise loading gives lower power-off rates of sink but also - decreases the best endurance speed as represented in Fig. 24 by a line drawn thru the origin and tangent to the power required curve. Significant increases in maximum rates of climb are obtained by decreasing disc loading and power loading as shown in Fig. 8 thru 11 for 1000 and 1500 pound gyroplanes: It is the author's opinion that to achieve good performance, such as high rates of climb, it is first essential to select a low disc loading and secondly, a low power loading. The lesser design parameters affecting performance are solidity vatio, blade pitch, blade twist, and airfoil selection. The power curves, =2 4p Power Available sn | Dek. = 2.40 60 }-— be Z Db. = 1.80 7 ZSfPrower Required 50 4 £ | p.t. = 1.00 e i Power Loading oa 10 Ibs /hp g NACA 8-H-12 Airfoil 8 Blade Pitch 2° i Solidity 0.035 o ; ‘ ov—70 40 60 80 00 Airspeed, mph Fig. 4. Power Curves For a 1000 1b. Gyroplane With Various Disc Loadings rl 2 Power Aratlable———z.___] 200}— D.L. = 2.40, fo tower, : Require agt- Dele = 1.80 oo Ke e Deb. = 1s Power Loading 7 9.09 Ibs/ap F NACA 8-H-12 3 Airfoil Bg Blade Pitch 2° Solidity 0.035 1 Ly 20 70 60 80 100 Airspeed, mph Fig. 5. Power Curves For a 1500 1b. Dise Loadings Gyroplane With Various109} Dise Loading 1.8 lbs/sq.ft. NACA 8-H-12 Airfoil Solidity 0.035 Blade Pitch 2° Power Available. P.L. = 7.69 0 Fig. 6. ~Pow jer Required = a 0 Airspeed, mph Various Power Loadings 70 Power Curves for a 1000 1b. Gyroplane with 209" Power Avatlable 164— P.L.s 9.09 ca Disc Loading P.L. = 7.14 1.8 Ibs. /sq.ft NAGA 8-H-12 Airfoil solidity 0.035 80 Blade Pitch 2° ae {| as | |_4 40 60 80 700 120 Airspeed, mph Fig. 7. Various Power Loadings Power Curves for a 1500 1b. Gyroplane With 22Rate of Clinb, £pm Rate of Clinb, fpm 600 D.L. = 1.80 ~ Airfoil 23 i Power Loading 10 1bs/np NACA 8-H-12 Blade Pitch 2° Solidity 0.035 400 Dib. = 2.404 200 8 a9 40 60 80 Airspeed, mph 100 Fig. 8. Rate of Clinb of a 1000 1b. Gyroplane At Various Dise Loadings rt T 200 Power Loading Airfoil é Blade Pitch 2' 9.09 Ibs/np NACA 8-H-12 600 olidity 0.035 300 1 CA +L. = 1,00 D.L. Pe p oO 20 40 DL. = 1.807 DL. = 2.407 ni 1 a) 80 Airspeed, mph 100 Fig. 9. Rate of Climb of a 1500 1b. Gyroplane At Various Disc LoadingsRate of Climb, fpm Rate of Climb, fpm 24 im 1 Disc Loading 600| 7 1.80 Ibs/aq.ft. ee NACA 8-H-12 rfoil Blade Pitch 2° Solidity 0.035 40 cod P.L. = 10,00 ol 0 0 60 #0 700 Airspeed, mph Fig. 10. Rate of Climb of a 1000 1b.-Gyroplane at Various Power Loadings 1600 -—\—]— Pil. = 7142 /'yise Loading 1200 1,80 Ibs/sq.£t. WACA'8-H-12 Airfoil Blade Pitch 2° Solidity 0.035 800 |-——| 400 PL. = 9.09% ° o 40 60 80 100 120 Airspeed, mph Fig. 11. Rate of Climb of a 1500 1b. Gyroplane at Various Power Loadings25 soyary AaPFTOS snoyIeA YaTH suETdoréD “qT ODOT F Jog SaAIND 19M0g ydm ‘poadexty 06 08 ot 09 0: iS oy of *ar *8ta TTOSITV ZT-H-8 VON of 3d SPeTE ASTAL @PETE ON éu/sqt oT 8urpeoT tem0g taybs/sqT g°T SurpeoT Osta “SqT OOOT I4BTeN ss075 paapnbay xamog’ a oT & Tue 4 / syoro Suxp¥t0s seo'o Sa7prtos / 9s0°0 Aa5P Tos STQET TRAY rang of or os 09 of dy ‘xen0gRate of Climb, fpm Rate of Sink, fpm 26 500 Gross Weight 1000 Ibs. Disc Loading 400 1.8 lbs/sq.ft, Blade Pitch 2° 300 0.056 0.045 200 Solidity 0.035 100 f ° ob 40 60 80 00 Airspeed, mph Fig, 13. Rate of Climb at Various Solidity Ratios p> T T 1900 Solidity 0.035 11800 yross Weight 000 1bs isc Loading 1.8 Ibs/sq.ft. | ‘lade Pitch 2° 1700 | 4 g Fig. 1a. 30 60 70 80 Airspeed, mph Power Off Rate of Sink for Various Solidity Ratios a27 oor 06 s8up339g YOIFA PETE snoFIeA YITM eUETdOAMy “qT OOOT B Jog SOaIng TMOG 08 og ydm ‘peadsaty 09 os ov of “St *8ta 1 paxynbay, senod <= los ol Wara pers Cerqerreay reno sco*o Aap Tt0s SEAL @PETE ON (wjooms) TTO32FY ZT-H-8 VOVN dq/sqt OT BuTpeoT zem0q sagrbs/sqt 9° SuFpeoT Vera *8qT ‘000T WBTEN S605 f& dy ‘remoRate of Clinb, fpm Rate of Sink, fpm 28 1.8 Ibs/sq.ft. 90 600 -\— Gross Weight Blade Pitch $000 Ibe, isc Loading Soliaity 0.03: 400 5 7° 200 ° 0! 30 60 Airspeed, mph Fig. 16. Rate of Climb at Various Blade Pitch Angles a ees 2000 Gross Weight 1000 lbs. Dise Loading 1.8 lbs/sq.ft. ee 1800 3 .—_[ pT Blade Pitch 4° 1600 lary Fig. 17. 60 80 Airspeed, mph Power Off Rate of Sink for Various Blade Pitch Angles29 OWL JO YDIFd PETE eaTIDeIz— 06 og. OL. SEAL epee BuyAaea pue svox¥oq ue us7N sueTdors9 “qT QOOT ® 20g seAing roM0g ydm ‘paadszpy 09 os ov 3 “ST *8ta oo $£0°0 APTOS THOJATY 7T-B-B VOWN of IFA PETE waTaD05;T du/sqr or SurpeoT r9M0g say‘bs/sqt g°t Burpeot asta ST OOOT 348TeH SsoID ofl PUP B= ‘ISEML epera—S 0? yy ea 0” a peatnbey zen0g ——fos 09 oo >, zis Lh ~eTqeTHeay xan0g ou dy ‘rangRate of Clinb, fpm Rate of Sink, £pm 400 300 200 100 2000 1909 Gross weight 1000 Ibs. Dise Loading 1.8 1bs/ sq.ft. Power Loading 10 Ibs. /hp [Blade Pitch 2° Solidity 0.035 1 L 40 50 60 70 80 Airspeed, mph Fig. 19. Rate of Climb for Various Blade Twist os SS Gross Weight 1000 Ibs. isc Loading 1.8 Ibs. /sq.ft. Power Loading 10 Ibs. /np Blade Pitch 2° jolidity 0.035 Blade Twist -8° and - 12° Airspeed, mph Pig. 20, Power Off Rate of Sink for Various Blade Twist31 STFOSAFY JuaAeZZTC YATM oUETEoAs “aT OOOT F TOG searng TEMG “TZ “BTA du ‘paedsiry 0 i 09 os o os Dy v T ergetreay zom0a}—> $€0°0 Ar7PTIOS » of PIF OPETE Setar epeta ON i du/sqt oT Buppeoy AaKog / tagtbs/sqr g°T Surpeoy asta *8qT ooNt ae Fea #5039 ma ~ pargnbay sonoa 09 ~~ y8ned ZT-H-8 VOWN waoous ZT0EZ VON ~ y300us ZT-H-8 YOVN on l ay ‘zenogRate of Clinb, fpm Rate of Sink, fpm Gross Weight 300 _ 1000 1bs Bladg Pitch Disc Loading 1.8 Ibs./eq.ft. Power Loading ica wae 10 1bs/hp Seooth 20 NACA 23012 NACA 8-H-12 ‘Snooth aN r | ot 0 40 60 80 Airspeed, mph Fig. 22, Rate of Climb for Various Airfoils Gross Weight 1000 ibs Dise Loading 1.8 1bs/sq.ft. Power Loading 10 1bs/hp 2000 Blade pitch 2° NACA 8-H-12 Rough 1900 7 NAGA 23012 Smooth a NACA 8-H-12 Smooth 1800 |. 4 a Fig. 23, 4 pt 40 60 80 100 Airspeed, mph Power Off Rate of Sink for Various Airfoils 3233 rate of climb, and power-off rate of sink curves for variations in these parameters are also calculated by CAGROS and evaluated from Figs. 12 thru 23 for a 1000 pound gyroplane with a disc loading of 1.8 pounds per square foot and a power loading of 10 pounds per horsepower. It was determined by the author that the trends demonstrated by the 1000 pound gyroplane also apply to the 1500 pound aireraft. Therefore, curves for the 1500 pound aircraft are not shown here. The solidity ratio may be altered by either changing the number of blades or by increasing or decreasing the blade chord length. Whichever method is selected, the performance calculations of CAGRSS are not affected since the tip-loss factor is assumed constant. The effects of the solidity ratio on performance are shown in Figs. 12 thru 14. From these figures it is recognized that, for an increasing solidity ratio of 0.035 to 0.045, a decrease in minimum speed, an increase in maximum speed, and lower power-off rates of sink are realized. The weight penalty for increasing the chord length would be less than the 22.3 pounds calculated by CAGR#S for the 1000 pound gyroplane and the increase in performance may be worth the increase in rotor weight. Most ultra-light gyroplane utilize hand starting of the rotor which requires that the blade pitch be set at a small angle. At larger pitch angles (3 to 4 degrees), the low rotor speed obtained by hand starting is insufficient to allow autorotation. Figs. 15 thru 17 show considerable performance gains by increasing blade pitch settings fron one to three degrees. From practical experience in testing autorotating rotors the author has found that most rotors with blade pitch set at two degrees are easily started by hand and that many blades set three degrees cannot34 be started by hand, It is, therefore, recommended that the highest pitch angle that will allow starting by hand be used for hand started rotors. If a prerotator is utilized, a blade pitch setting of three to four degrees can be used. At excessively high pitch angles the rotor will not autorotate.? Now considering blade twist, for which a negative angle of twist indicates that the pitch of the blade at the tip is such as to decrease the angle of attack. All comparative data showing the effects of blade twist in Figs. 18 thru 20 are made for an effective blade pitch of two degrees. Figs. 18 thru 20 show that, just as in helicopter rotor blades, only a small advantage can be gained by twisting the blades into the airstream at the tip. Degraded performance can be expected for twisting the blades out of the airstrean at the tip. If the blade twist can be readily built into the blade, a ten percent increase in maximum rate of climb can be expected. If twisting of the blades complicates their fabrication such as in standard metal blades, twisting of the blades cannot be justified. ‘An investigation of blade section and airfoil roughness is made in Figs. 21 thru 23. It is shown that a 147 percent increase in rate of climb can be expected for a smooth NACA 8-H-12 airfoil over the sane rough airfoil. It 1s also seen that a 23 percent increase in rate of clinb can be realized if a NACA 8-H-12 airfoil 4s utilized instead of a NACA 23012 airfoil. Also, for vertical power-off rate of sink the NACA 8-H-12 airfoil shows a slightly lower rate of sink. The results obtained from the airfoil roughness study clearly stress the importance of and the gains that can be achieved by the use of a smooth airfoil.35 ‘The utilization of CAGRIS to a specific detail design is now made. Before defining the detail design a word should be said about the rotor system and power plant selection for this aircraft which has been named, the "HA-2 Sportster." Prior to this investigation, a rotor system, the HA-27 rotor, and an engine, a Franklin Sports 4B, had been selected. The WA-27 rotor had been designed earlier and several sets have been built and flown on a variety of aircraft including the Boomerang, built and flown in San Diego, and the Cougar, built by Campbell Aircraft, Ltd., in England, To the author's knowledge, both aircraft are still flying at the time of this thesis. The Boomerang has logged over 20 hours, while the Cougar has logged over 40 hours with the HA=27 rotor. The engine had been purchased and installed in the HA~2 Sportster witich will be flown by the author, Either justification for the selected design or improvenents for the HA~2 Sportster are suggested herein. For good performance, that is, a high forward speed, low minimum speed, good rate of climb, and comfortable power-off rate of sink a conbination of low power loading and low disc loading are needed. For the HA-2 Sportster the combination of a 8.08 pounds per horsepower power loading and a 1,8 pounds per square foot disc loading assures this aircraft 2 maximum speed of 95 miles per hour, a minimum speed of 36 niles per hour, and a 65 miles per hour speed for best range, according to Fig. 24. A moderate maximum rate of climb of 610 feet per minute can be achieved at 63 miles per hour as shown in Fig. 25. Rates of clinb of less than 500 feet per minute are not recommended for small aircraft. Te 4s shown in Fig. 26 that low speed performance is primarily determined by rotor drag and high speed performance is governed by ait~36 frame drag. If higher maximum speeds are desired for the HA-2 Sportster, the airframe drag would have to be reduced by streamlining. In the present design little attention is paid to streamlining. ‘A positive two degree blade pitch was selected for easy hand starting, A larger blade pitch angle, as seen in Fig. 16 for a 1000 pound aircraft, will increase performance, Therefore, a prerotator which will allow higher blade pitch angles is very desirable. For the sake of simplicity a prerotator has not been installed on the HA-2 Sportster at this time. ANACA 8-H-12 smooth airfoil was selected. The blades were not twisted to facilitate the fabrication of the all metal HA~27 rotor blades. Appendix 2 shows the CAGRSS output for the HA-2 Sportster and its perfornance characteristics are summarized in Fig. 72. A check on the advancing blade tip speed is made to assure against danger of loss in efficiency due to compressibility on the advancing blade tip. The analysis used in CAGRJS assumes no compressibility affects. Compressibility shock usually forms at 75 percent the speed of sound which, for standard air at sea level is 762 mph. The tip speed should, therefore, not exceed 572 mph. For the HA~2 Sportster flying at a maximum speed of 95 mph and with a corresponding rotor speed of 432 rpm, the advancing blade tip is traveling at 305 mph which is well below the critical speed. A 27 foot diameter rotor was selected for the HA-? Sportster to give a low disc loading and a 9.00 inch chord was selected to give a solidity ratio of 0.035. From Fig. 13 it is realized that a higher rate of climb can be achieved with a higher solidity ratio. A computer run with CAGROS37 xeaszi0ds Z-VH 22 40g seaznp zona “y7 “STE udu ‘poodexty i 96 96. of 99 os 7 9 on of Ira aPeTE fa] * ISTAL OPETE ON ~ ~~, ov ious TFO3FV ZT-H-8 VOW =. saybs/eqt g°T 3U7pEO) 25 7a 1 du/sqr_g0°g SuppeoT zoM0q \ \ seq OSOT WBTeN 8802) 7 \ 5 =e VA ‘ ‘Bury asoq 203 paods \ ponds ora seoro 28Fq 20304 30) oe MOT OUPTa ae ee asara oor looz o ule AD a, 0st t pavatog 4 eres quamoy Surpueg Tea0n, Move 000*z- ‘000‘T- ooo't looo'z ooo o00'y aTeog ‘*sqt-"uT ‘auemoy SurpuagAirload, 1bs/in. Airload, Ibs/in. 12 10 2 10 Limit Load 1050 Ibs. Forward Speed 105.4 mph Rotor Speed 432.3 rp B= 0.25 52 180 Forwarad 6 ° 270 90 Plane Vi of Rotor Disef~y, ie x=0.95 0 t a X= 0.85 rm ja] fd X = 0.65 X= 0.45 |_ [~[x = 0.25 |—| 0 45 90 «135 1802250270 315360 Azimuth Angle, Degrees Fig. 33. Airload vs Azimuth Position in Forward Flight Limit Load 1050 Ibs. Rotor Speed 432.3 rpm y= 0.25 Forward Speed 105.4 mph we 4 we °F] L 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1,00 Blade Station X Fig. 34, Airload vs Blade Station in Forward Flight53 woTaTseg YINUTZy eA PEOTITY apETa TeIOL “se “STE seeafeq ‘m oTSuy WINUTZy e_s o s7z a ¢ 0 f ims 4 t t oor stto= nt losy udit ¢*ZEp peeds 1030y ydw y*cor pesds premtog “SqT OSOT PEOT 3TUTT JOOS y A loss o ae Dsyq z030% 30 soTA oueTa 009 7 06: Le tee Joso ‘sqq ‘PeOTITY TeIOL354 s szto"d s790'0} ‘qr SOT = PeOT 3TUTT “augFLa paeaxog uy squsmoy Supueg opeTs “96 “StH seer8eq ‘a, eTSuy uanupzy DS \ 06 9 285 20208 roy yo nota ou Ta oLz o08t { presiog seo = mdz ¢*z¢y poads 1020g udm y*¢oT paads paemrog $ 00z- oor- oot 002 oor oos teqi-"ur ‘quauoa SupaCentrifugal Force, Kips Centrifugal Force, Kips 30 20 10 10 55 Forward Speed 117.2 mph Rotor Speed 795.2 rpm w= 0.15 0 0.20 0.40 0-60 0.380 T-00 Blade Station X Fig. 37. Centrifugal Force For Forward Flight, r= Forward Speed 105.4 mph Rotor Speed 432.3 rpm —L_ 20 0.40 0.60 0-80 7.00 Blade Station X Fig. 38. Centrifugal Force For Forward Flight, Limit Load = 1050 Ibs.56 calculated as the maximum combined stress from the bending moment and centrifugal force for each case and is determined by, Po OMY 8 oy: (29) a tensile stress, psi centrifugal force, Ibs. cross section area of blade less bolt holes, in.” structural bending moment, in.-Ibs. distance from centroid to outer fibers of blade section, in. moment of inertia of cross section of extrusion less bolt holes, in.4 The maximum stress at Bolt 1 for each load case is calculated from Bq. (29) and recorded in Table 3. From Table 3 it ts seen that Load Case 3 generates the largest stress at Bolt 1 and the root attachment is analyzed for this load. The combined stress is used only in analyzing the stress in the extrusion at Bolt 1. For the load distribution throughout the attach fitting only the centrifugal force is considered and equal strain is assumed. That is, the strains in all the components located in one bay are assumed equal. However, the strain will vary from one bay to the next. The strain in any one bay for any one of the fitting components is given as, (30)37 T*LS00T L086 y° 9016 orszz 004" OT ” 9° y69°TE esr £869 OE ovose 000" 9¢ € 9°T8S"0z zreTs*z yeoetez, 0°49 zz9°ze z "99° 9% zr 9e9'9e 0 9°S69°7 0 T Isd 4 o isa, | 5 18d, i" paurquoy "3 aw woxs *s | Pa woag 73 | ssat-rur “WH | csat Ca | aseopeoT T ¥10G IV NOISMUIXE ZHL NI SSAMIS TIISNAL NY ONIGNAE GaNTAOO € aava58 where, load, lbs. L = length of bay, inches A = mean cross section area of component, in.? 4 = number of component being investigated From Eq. (30) and with the equilibrium conditions the load in each component is determined and recorded in Fig. 39. The equilibrium con dition states that the sum of the loads in all components in one bay is equal te the total load transmitted by the bay. Tne detailed stress calculations of the HA-27 rotor blade are made in Appendix 7 using the material properties given in Appendix 6. A summary of the critical margins of safety is given in Table 4. Fatigue Check on Extrusion There are many unknowa factors governing fatigue and most critical aircraft structures are fatigue tested to failure to determine the nunber of cycles and the magnitude of the applied steady and alternating loads required for failure. Such testing 1s quite expensive and will not be done on the HA-27 rotor. Instead, a generally accepted Goodman diagram as suggested by Roark! gor aluminum is constructed to determine if the critically stressed area at Bolts 3 in the extrusion will sustain one Limit £light loads at maximum forvard speed without failing in fatigue. In the Goodnan diagram the mean stress, £,, is plotted on the abscissa and the alternating stress, £,, is plotted on the ordinate axis in a rectangular coordinate system such that a relationship between these varisbles may be investigated. According to Roark, the endurance limit59 Tension Strap Relief Strap Blade Extrusion 0) D@QOOHS) @ a P = 36,000 _ D = 36,000 ub ; Relief St! 1 oie eRe 10,326 1 54g 7889 | 6,249 °* gS 5 | * — 562 3,948 Load in 452 5622 2,089 Hub/Relief Strap H S57 —1_36 000 yo) 132,052 136 ' r f4 16,75 324 ! 20,146 Soo ' toa 10,475"? ' Load in {4 4 4 4+ 4 Blade) 26,000 ttt | 18,000° 19,605 : 7282000 {22605 154303 999 19,070 fee al al | feel 13,3799) load in ght Py i | ! c= T 1 Tension Strapg 36 rat p vat 8,909 Bolt shear) | 3,771, 444709 tension straps! | | 2 8 3 9 ‘and Blade Tomas) \ : Lag! da 6,378 | Relief Strap £ ° -202 734 18,000 18,000 Bolt Shear! | NOTE: All Loads in Pounds Tension Straps! | and Hub Fig. 39, Blade Root Fitting Loads60 Qri uF aeaRr tov PaemEITA 6E° OF zeous yavoznOtSH 39a RL ‘9aeWFATA OL" OF avays 6 s310g 901 ‘93e8F9TN 90°0- xeous 8 siTog . 93eTITN OT" OF xB0US € siTog s3Tog oa ‘23e0FITN 62" 0+ y satog W sdezag PTETA 60°O+ at rsuaz woTIDeg IN wopsuay a ‘9aeUFITN TS*O+ @-1 fog PIOFR L2*O+ ar rsuey, UF uoTa0es deaag 3oTT9U ‘eaeWEITA 6TO"O + re PT®FA S00°O + Bupreag 310g € aT°m worsnzaxg aova | Algavs 40 NTOWWW SSHYLS 40 adAL NOLLVOOT rave SSMULS TWOLLTUD dqVId WOLOM L2-VH 40 RIVKNNS SSRLLS y WIeVE61 of aluminum ig usually taken as one third the ultimate tensile strength. The endurance limit, that is, the maximum stress level which can be reversed an indefinitely large number of times without producing fracture, is marked on the ordinate axis and the ultimate tensile stress is measured along the abscissa as shown for the HA-27 extrusion in Fig. 40. According to the Goodman theory, the region above and to the right of the area of a straight line connecting the endurance limit and ultimate tensile stress represents the region of failure. Whereas, the region below and to the left of the line represents the area in which the part will not fail for an indefinite number of cycles. ‘The alternating bending moments at Bolts 3, X = 0.097, are found by interpolating between X = 0.0625 and X = 0.15 in Fig. 36. The maximum alternating bending moments are -90 and 225 in.-Ibs. The centrifugal force is a steady load found from Fig. 38 as 10,700 lbs. ‘The total stress in the extrusion is found from Eq. (29). The maximum stress will be generated by a positive moment. Therefore, the bottom outermost fibers which are in tension in the extrusion are investigated for fatigue. The stresses are calculated as, fae 7 99744 psi = 8,975 psi 1 F nax + fain? = 9360 pst =, e = a 72 nag ~ fqtn)®2 7 769 Pet For a conservative analysis a stress concentration factor of two was assumed for the alternating stress. The endurance strength of the extrusion is 21,333 psi. The Goodman diagram is now constructed as shown62 in Fig. 40 and dt can be seen that the maximum alternating stress lies well within the no-fail zone. Region of Failure (93603769) od #yrKST oe Fig. 40. Goodman Diagram for the Blade Extrusion Rotor Resonance For the safe operation of the HA-27 rotor system is is imperative that the rotor will be flown out of rotor resonance conditions. Rotor resonance occurs when a rotor speed harmonic coincides with one of the natural bending frequencies of the rotor. Under such conditions the blades may experience large deflections which may cause the blade to strike the rudder or propeller and large bending stress may predominate. Rotor resonance can be catastrophic. The rotor's first unsymmetric and first symmetric bending modes are calculated and compared with the harmonics of rotor speed to assure that no resonance conditions prevail. The method by Anierson’> is used to calculate the stopped natural frequencies. The actual natural frequencies were determined by placing accelerometers on the rotor and forcing the blade to vibrate. As can be seen in Fig. 41, the calculated and measured frequencies are in close63 agreement. The method presented by Yntema” is used to determine the rotating blade frequencies. The results are plotted as solid lines and the rotor harmonics are plotted as dashed lines in Fig. 41. Resonance occurs where the solid lines intersect the rotor haruonies and it is shown that no resonance problems are to be expected for the HA+27 rotor. A total of nore than 60 hours of actual flight time on the HA~27 rotor have also indicated that no resonance probleus exist.64 soyuouzeY snoyIvA Jog SIFISTIEIDeIeYD eoUEUOSEY ePETE 10I0% LZ-VH “Ty “SHE ad ‘pads 10204 00€ 02 = Is a - 2 A oTajemXsun 3ST oT Supzez01u0y pemseay y —ST 7 peeds 2030y Jo soyuomreH ~~~ 4 2 Pe Y suorzerie, poods peremnote9 t oz xB 7 oy ‘gu ‘kouanbazg Surpusg65 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ‘The Parametric Study clearly shows that a combination of low disc and low power loading are required if a good performing gyroplane is desired, ‘The low power loading with moderate streamlining assures an aircraft of high maximum speed and the low disc loading assures a low minimum speed and a low power-off rate of sink. A combination low disc and low power loading assures moderate rates of climb. Furthermore it is shown that: © Changes in solidity ratio have a moderate effect on minimum and maximum speed and rate of clinb. © Large blade pitch settings increase overall gyroplane performance significantly as shown in Pigs. 15 thru 17. © Only moderate increase in performance can be achieved in twisting the blades such that the blade tip element is operating at a lower angle of pitch. Whereas, increasing blade pitch at the tip shows a degradation of performance over non-twisted blades. o Figs. 21 thru 23 show that considerable increase in gyroplane performance can be achieved by selecting the Proper airfoil and designing a smooth blade. From the Rotor Structural Design Analysis it is seen that the HA-27 rotor (a low weight, 62.5 pounds, rotor designed for a 1050 pound gross weight gyroplane) is designed to meet the Federal Aviation Regulations,66 Part a, An approximate method for calculating a structural root bending monent as given in Appendix 3 can be used for preliminary structural sizing. It is also shown that the stresses due to the bending moments are low in comparison to the stresses generated by the centri- fugal force, This is especially true if a built-in precone angle is utilized such as in the HA-27 rotor. Fatigue and resonance are not expected to be a problen. A total of more than 60 hours of trouble free flight with the HA-27 rotor have substantiated this claim.67 APPENDIX I SYMBOLS For Chapter IIT, Parametric Study flat-plate area of airframe, ft? propeller activity factor airframe weight, Ibs. rotor blade; slope of section lift coefficient against section angle of attack, per radian number of rotor blades propeller chord width, ft. Computer Aided Gyroplane Synthesis program airframe drag coefficient rotor blade section profile drag coefficient propeller power coefficient propeller power coefficient with standard values of A.F., thickness ratio, and number of blades. propeller static thrust coefficient with given condition of tip-speed and body interference. propeller static thrust coefficient with standard value of tip-speed of 900 feet per second and body interference propeller diameter, ft. disc loading, pounds per square foot rotor thrust coefficient flight thrust, Ibs.wr Pile ROC RW TAF DRA 68 gross weight of aircraft, Ibs. maximum installed horsepower aay xD propeller speed at maximum rated horsepower, rpm correction to propeller power coefficient due to activity factor power required, HP correction to propeller power coefficient due to thickness ratio power loading, pounds per horsepower propeller or rotor tip radius, ft. rate of climb, feet per seconds radius to propeller or rotor blade element, ft. rotor weight, Ibs. correction to static thrust coefficient due to body interference correction to static thrust coefficient due to tip-speed propeller thrust in forward flight, Ibs. thrust available for climb, Ibs. total aircraft drag, lbs. static propeller thrust, lbs. rotor inflow velocity, feet per second forward speed of aircraft, mph forward speed of aircraft, feet per second rate of sink, feet per second r/R69 x = blade element angle of attack, radians S9»5,S) "coefficients in a power series expressing the section profile drag coefficient as a function of blade element angle of attack = effective rotor blade pitch angle, radians 8 = rotor blade root pitch, radians 6. = rotor blade twist; positive when tip angle is larger, radians a = rotor blade inflow ratio ¥ = rotor blade tip-speed ratio p = air density, slugs per cubic foot = sea level air density, slugs per cubic foot ° = rotor solidity ratio a = rotor speed, radians per second For Chapter IV, Rotor Structural Design Analysis A = mean cross section area of components, in.” A = blade cross section area less bolt holes, in.2 B tip loss factor b = blade width, ft. ce blade chord, ft. = blade element pitching moment coefficient, per radian E tensile modulus F = strength, ped Fy ultimate tensile strength, psi Py = yield tensile strength, pst F, = ultimate shear strength, psi70 ultimate bearing strength, pet yield bearing strength, psi stress, psi alternating stress, psi mean stress, pei maximum stress in fatique analysis, pel minimum stress in fatique analysis, pel tensile stress, pei shear stress, psi bearing stress, psi shearing moulus of elasticity, psi one gravitational acceleration blade section moment of inertia about neutral horizontal axis, in. extrustion moment of inertia about neutral horizontal axis, in. 2 mn”, blade moment of inertia, slugs-ft 3 structural bending moment, in.-1bs. margin of safety rotor tip radius, ft. radial distance to blade element, ft. load, Ibs. ultimate single shear strength, Ibs. airload, Ibs. centrifugal force, Ibs.n torsional load, ft.—Ibs. r/R vertical distance from blade section neutral axis to outer fibers, inches weight, Ibs. . coning angle, radians co ak” , blade mass constant a blade pitch angle, radians inflow ratio tip-epeed ratio nase density of air, slugs per cubic foot blade solidity ratio blade structural twist due to torsion, radians per inch blade asimuth angle measured in direction of blade rotating from downwind position, radians rotor speed, radians per secondw LeLIOe_svany ayeh— FVoaha SerbE NTA tri a Shea ans Seed 93308 ans Swawegee MOT. aytavey 2sio sso. a i oatee pakanvild S52 gaortl on ver an ears __eorosoy an asruus ore) 2768 OTE og Ne Bran ggrsove aes sytons SiS ease ate Gelavey sancs eve ay siuvas Nlivas ONIONS naino spuovo 1 xTawaaav73 APPENDIX IIT ‘A SIMPLIFIED MATRIX METHOD FOR CALCULATING ROOT BENDING MOMENT FOR A CANTTLEVERED OR TEETERING ROTOR BLADE FOR STEADY AIRLOADS The following method is derived by Mayo! . The method is modified to include built in precone angle. A cantilevered rotor blade as shown in Fig. Al 1s divided into four equal segments along its span and the airload, 1, and the centrifugal force o°F_ acting upon a blade elenent are assumed to be acting at the center of each blade element- 0.375 2, %o.625 i ' 0.125 2.375 ! ¥o.325' Fig. Al. A cantilevered blade divided into four elements The structural moment at each of the inboard three blade stations can be expressed as the sum of the moments outboard of the station being investigated. The structural moment at station X =0.G25TH is, 2. = 07°F, @ Zp. go5) Fath 80.625 (0.875 ‘0.875 ~ 70.625 0.875 The structural moment at station X = 0.375 is, 2, % 373) ~ ™ Fo.625 2, 27, @ - 2, @ - 85 475 0.875 “70.875 0.625 %9.375) * 2At1y 975 * Ato 625 ay Tne structural moment at station X = 0.125 is, 2, 2, Mey a5 7 7 Fo.8750.875 ~ 40.125) ~ * Fo.625 “0.625 ~ 125) ~ °F .375 0.375 ~ Zo.125) * 38*%p,975 + 2p. 605 * Arhg 375 where, or -F = deflection at X= n Equation (Al) can be written in matrix notation as, On) = - Apri) + RL) (a2) iM, 0.625 (u,) 7 50.375 y5 o 0 ’ -F, 0 ns3 & “IF, n ned For which PF, is equal to the product of the mass of the blade element n and the distance from the axis of rotation to where the load F_ is acting. r 2 20.875 20,625 {2} = 20.375 70.125 TR] = "0.875 L tay = | 70-625 %0.375 9,125 ar 0 2dr br 3dr hr ec ° Fron engineering mechanics the deflection {Z} can be expressed in terms of the structural moment {M_} and rigid blade displacement {#} as,76 {2} = [2m] (4,} + {8} (a3) where, For a rotor with a constant stiffness distribution, 2 3 1 2 (2m) = ox” Fi H aoa 1 ® 8. EI = blade bending stiffness, 1b-in.” *0.875 tp) =p go 0-625 ¥o.375) 0.125 x, 7 tadial distance to the center of elenent x =n Now substituting Eq. (A3) into Bq. (A2) and multiplying ve have, on) = - 9? Clam on) + fete) - 9? [FI an Rearranging terms it is readily seen that, om} = UtL.og +9? prea ret )-0" ID @s) Using Eq. (A5) a relatively quick conservative approximation of the structural moment at station X can be made.7 APPENDIX 1V MODIFIED MATRIX EQUATIONS FOR DETERMINING THE BENDING MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS FOR ROTOR BLADES IN FORWARD FLIGHT ‘The structural damping for metal rotor blades is extremely small and can, according to Mayo’, be neglected for: most practical purposes. The structural damping is not included in the equations presented herein. However, should the structural damping be desired, the reader is referred to Mayo” which includes structural damping. For Rigid Rotor Blades Including the Effects of Built in Precone Angle The method for determining the matrix equations is the same as outlined in Appendix ITT. However, the blade 1s divided into twelve elements along the span and the airload matrix is replaced by the total vertical loads which includes airodynamic damping and vertical inertia loads. From Mayo (the total vertical load is expressed as: (1) = (1, + dnote) (2) + [mz] (2) (as) where,0.95 To.85 0.75 *0.65 1y.55 L a= ¥ %0.45 19.35 %9.25 To.15 *0.0625 *0.05 Xo .0125, i-{-r ay = angular rotor speed, radians/sec. u = angular frequency, radians/sec. for steady loads, w = 0 for 1st harmonic, u = 9 for 2nd harmonic, w = 22talek {2} = 0 Gx, coo 0.95 0.85 0.75 0-65 0.55 0.45 70.35 0.25 ‘0-15 20625 20.05 20,0125 o 0 o o o 0 o 0 cote O 0 Gyr, o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 coo Oo ost3 7980 HE *O % wet Swere “Reeve Guero Swat Yeerz Snegse 4, 0 w wz Sue nz = (mi Skee» neers Sacer9 Sauce Suey ness Suse9 ny 4ys SoH Sno Sug Say Sucre “hues Sues Tues Su ee Sao he Suc To Say THs See ly Se Tre Sy Tye oO OE au81 a K=- 5 pair = mean chord of blade element, in. = anse denstey of ate, Bases? in. a= blade element lift slope, per radian ar = 0.20%, tn. 2 sass of blade etenent, H=8#6=" in. Substituting Eq. (A6) into Eq. (A4) and utilizing Eq. (A3) to x remove {2} we have, 4M) = (R] (L,} - [8] [2M] 4) - [x] (8) (a7) where, [x] = a?[F] -u? [wz] - 4.9» TR] fal (as)82 oo 0 LEO coo LET rc) “ee 1a°T Lee 18°% = fal Ley 18°e Le°s 18°97 1e°9 £8°s Leth 18°9, Lee 18°L 166 1a°8 wbr’ [2M] = So a, i, aS a, a H a fd. i, H, a HH oa =, 0 oO 0 o 0 0 oO oO 0 o O 0 3 7 49 Hy Ter, far, 17 er, 5 SEI, 5 1B H, Wl, i, 4 15 i i, Te Her 3 9 EI, 4EI, SEI, 2 we gt H, 7, Er a 6 5 7, mr, 0 oO 0 0 1 SEL, 0 o 8384 teu ‘ag or yaa 0 age ot or, or, or, or,8 8) = 8 ¥o.0625, Fo.050 x, -0125 Eq. (A7) 48 solved for {M,} to give, () = (01.09 + x) fang] iRI 1,3 - 00 £8) (as) For the steady airloads Eq. (A9) reduces to, (4) = (11.0) + 7 EF) Lan} {TR}, - 97 EF]C81) (10) where {L.,} 1s the steady airload. The deflection due to the steady airload is, (23 = (ain,} + (6) (cmb) Now for all harmonic loads Eq. (A9) reduces to, {Mj} = [1-0] + [x] [2M] ]((R](L,} + tnw[R] fal (s}) (al2) where {L,)are the harmonic airloads for i= 1,2,. . The blade deflections for the harmonic loads are calculated from, (2) = (ad 0,3 (ais)86 The total bending moments are determined by using Eq. (A10) to calculate the steady load bending moments and Eq. (A12) to compute the harmonic load bending moments and summing the bending moments thus obtained. The total deflections are found in the same manner using Eq. (All) and (A12). For an Articulated Rotor Blade For a hinged rotor blade the equations and matrices are the sane as those of Mayo’. For the sake of completeness, these equations and matrices are repeated in this report. The structural bending moment is given as, {Mg} [2.031 {0} c'8sty = he "010 J+ DX) [(2M1 feb) RL} (aia) where, {L,} are the steady and harmonic airloads for i= 0,1, 2,.. Notice that 8 entere the left hand, the solution side of Eq. (A14) and that unlike the built in precone angle of Eq. (A8), 8 is the natural precone angle. All matrices are the same as defined in Eq. (A8) except for the following altered matrices.«fs}) = 0.3588 a) fq 94 zen ° o “a % && °a or feu 0 a) “a fa °x or wet 9 o a) ° ag- a or 0 o 0 0 o %4 wg ° o 0 o ° ° ax 8a . or it ° a) o ° ° 0 aa ot ° o 0 ° ° ° o ° ° ar) ° 0 o o o ° o 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 o = (alar? 2ar® aie” gar® Sar” oar? zax” gar? 274r” 190? EIy) Ely Elg EI, #1, El, EI, #1, 481, 81, a 2ax® 3ax% aor® Sar? 60x? rar® 240r? 17ax” EI, EI, EI, EI, BI, “El, 4"1, Ber, oo AR 2he® ane? sar” Sar” bar? arr? 15x? EI, EI, EI, EI, E1, 1, 41, SET, 2 oo 9 fe Ber 5 18h EL, El, EI, El, EI, “EI, S51, 0 0 oo BEL 2te® ate? tar? 1502” auae” EI, EI, EI, EI, 4EI, 8E1, 0 0 0 oo BE ate” sar” 12x” gar” EI, EL, EL, 421, SEI; 0 0 0 0 oo Be phe? oar? 24x? EI, EL, 421, 8Er, 2 gat sat ar? 6ar® Sar’ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL, 4EI, Ser, 2 2 3ar* 34x o 9 9 9 0 6 0 8 ar aE, ae dor? 5hr eo ico Se ro 32ET, 3281 1 2 br 9 0 9 0 9 9 6 6 6 See 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oe L 3261, where, h [f2¥)|{r-h}] = M9 95 (9,95 (W975 Chg 65 Eo 55 W945 Ag 95 9,25 9.15 Po 0625 (eh) 9 95 ©) 9.0125 89 perpendicular distance from axis of rotation to flapping hinge, in.90 Gt wert Seo 0 fase were Sae't w a sre Tyee wee-e we = (a) WSS LES 8" Sto HLE "9 HLS WSL Saeere L8"9 9 nS or, Wee or, OT yg Oey hg ys ey Tre Oty uh wee ay91 sto Le"0 ST LET 1a°0 0 sz Ste “ee Lee Wet 18't T z 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = [a] sy ery tare € ss Les tary ® € s9 46°9 L8°s s Fe werk “e'9 9 se os “es Le Wee 18 # 8 9 B a992 The blade deflections are given by Eq. (A13) and the total blade bending moments for a hinged rotor blade are found by calcu~ lating the moments for the steady loads and each harmonic load using Eq. (Al4) and superimposing these moments. The total deflections are found in the same manner. For a Teetering Rotor Systen Blade bending moments for the teetering rotor system are determined by utilizing Bq. (A10) and (A12) to calculate the steady load bending moments and the even harmonic load bending moments respectively and by using Eq. (Al4) to calculate the odd harmonic load bending moments, The bending moments thus obtained are again superimposed to determine the total blade bending moments. Eq. (A11) is used to calculate the steady load blade deflections and Eq. (A13) is used to calculate all harmonic blade deflections. Again, the total deflections are determined by summing the deflections obtained from the steady load and for each harmonic.93 APPENDIX V ATRLOAD EQUATIONS All airloads equations are taken from Young’. The steady load airloads are, $ pac Pa?ar(ax? + ax + HE (ais) where, @ = blade pitch, radians blade station,E x = radial distance to blade station X, in. R = radius of rotor disc, in, = inflow ratio a,= flapping coefficients in the expression for B ‘y= blade azimuth angle measured from the downwind position in direction of rotation, radians u = tip speed ratio Ar= length of blade element, in. The first harmonic airloads are, 1 292, Fac PR ar [ (-ay) siny + oe = wax ee - w+ cosy] (ale) ‘The second harmonic airloads are, 22 2 $ pac wor [(-2a,x' ybyX = 2, (20X* + wax - 42) cos 20] (al7)94 APPENDIX VI MATERIAL PROPERTIES ALL properties are A values per MIL-HDBK 5! and Bruhn’”, For the 2024-18511 aluminum extrusion: Fy 7 64 KST E = 10,8 MST Fy 7 56 KSr FL, = 35 KSI eu Fyey 7 123 KSI Foy 7 99 EST For the 2024-1351 aluminum bar: Fy 7 62 KSE E = 10.5 MST tu Fy 7 40 KSI B= 37 KST ‘au Fyey 7 118 KST Fygy 7 64 KSE For the 2024-13 Alclad: Fey 7 60 KSI B= 10.5 MSI Fy = 45 KSI F,, = 38 KST ou Fey 7 114 KSI Bury 7 73 KSI95 ANS Bolt 3,680 Ibs. ANS Bolt 5,750 Ibs. £ ANLO Bolt P, = 23,000 ibs. MS20426AD4 Rivet in 0.040 thick sheet, Py = 386 Ibs. ¥S20470AD3 Rivet in 0.025 thick sheet, P, = 211 Ibs. Where, = ultimate tensile strength = yield tensile strength F,, 7 ultimate shear strength F, jot ultimate bearing strength Fy py7 Yield bearing strength E = tensile modulus P, * ultimate single shear strength96 APPENDIX VII STRESS CALCULATIONS Stress Check on Extrusion Net Section at Bolt 1: From Load Case 3, £, 7 31,694.6 pot For yielding a fitting factor of 1.15 is used per Federal Aviation Regulations, Part ar, in the following equation to find the margin of safety. F, 6 ae M.S. Tse 1 (als) Substituting the appropriate values into Eq. (A18) for yield, 56,000 MS." TIS + 31,694.6 - 1 = 40.53 yield For ultimate loads a safety factor of 1.5 is used instead of a fitting factor such that, MS. (alg) Substituting the appropriate values into Eq. (419), 64,000 = 642900 __ MS. - THES - 1 = 40.34 ultimate Net Section at Bolts 3: From Figure 39, 32,052 f= tt” T110 28,876 psi97 From Eq. (Al8), 56,000 ‘ MoS. = TET gg eT 71> 10-68 yield 7 From Eq. (A19), 64,000 64:00 7 is ws. = se aT 40.47 ultimate ‘The bolt in bearing margins of safety in the extrusion are calculated using Eq. (A18) and (A19) with FL, replaced by H,,.. FL, replaced by Fy pus ond f, replaced by f,,, f,, 18 the applied bearing stress. Bearing at Bolt 1: = 2,089 for = 02065 32,139 psi Bearing at Bolts 3: fgg = He2EL = 00,058 pst Bearing at Bolts 8: 7 = 20,146 _ fe 7 GT = 53,400 pot ‘The maximum bearing stress occurs at Bolts 3 and from Eq. (A18) and (A19) the margins of safety are, - 93,000 agen M.S. = Tyg 2 go 4SE ~ 17 40.005 yield 123,000 = 223,000 2 40.019 4S. 975 me ot -019 ultimate Stress Check on Relief Strap Grose Section at Bay 1 From Figure 39, 2,089 fe * 0.0765 = 27,307 psi Cross Section at Bay 2-3: 3,948 = 2048 _ i? Gass 25,804 psi.98 Net Section at Bolts 3: 10,326. | £, - PRE - 24,882 pot ‘The margins of safety for the maximum stress occurring in the cross section at Bay 1-2 are from Eq. (A18) and (A19) respectively, 40 ,000 a as i MS. = 775+ 27,507 ~ 1 = 10-27 yield Ms. = _ 02000 — 1 = 40.51 ultimate 15 + 27,307 Stress Check in Tension Straps Net Section at Bolts 3: From Figure 38, 29,697 psi Net Section at Bolts 4: £, <2 - 31,055 pot Net Section at Bolts 5: 15,303 _ : £, 7 RP - 18,093 pst Net Section at Bolts 6: 19,074 _ ri f= gg = 20,292 psi Net Section at Bolts 7: £, =< BS ra,ese pot Net Section at Bolts 8: = 36,000 _ fe “Tar = 19,210 psi Net Section at Bolt 9: 262000 . 18,948 psi f. = “Ti90From Eq. (A18) and (A19) respectively the margins of safety for the maximun stress in the net section at Bolts 4 are, 40,000 Mos. = 7 Hgs000 ay - 1 = 40.09 yield M8. = 622000 ~ 1 = 40.29 ultimate 62,000 __ 1.5 * 31,855 ‘The maximun bearing stresses are now calculated as follows. At Bolts 3: £,_ = $1909 < 49,495 ped br” 0.18 At Bolts 16,395, = 16,395 _ 3. fye ~ “97626 ~ 26-190 pst At Bolt 9: 18,000 i 18,000, 5. £,, = ABOy = 28,800 pai 99 From Eq. (418) and (A19) the margins of safety for the maximum bearing stress are, 64,000 Mos. = yet gs ~ bo 10.12 yield ws, = 228.008 ~ 1 = 40.59 ultimate = 8,000. 7 TS + 49,05 Bolt Shear Check Eq. (A19) is used to calculate the margins of safety for ultimate bolt shearing loads only. In Bq. (A19), £, 4s replaced by p and FL, is replaced by P,. From Fig. 39 it is seen that the maximum shear for the AN4 bolts occur from Bolts 3, Therefore, p= 2902 < 2,227 ahs, 3,680 3 aay ~ 1 = 40-10 wleimate M.S. = af Te100 For the ANS bolts, Bolts 8: p= 18395 4,099 un, ultimate For the AN1O bolt, Bolt 9: p = 12:000 ~ 9,000 abs. 23,000 = 0 40.70 ultimate M.S. It should be noted that the negative margine of safety for the ANS bolts does not necessarily mean that the bolts will fail above the ultimate load in a multi-fasterner fitting. Instead, it is acceptable to say that the bolts will yield and deform at P, = 5,750 lbs. such that the adjacent bolts, Bolts 7, will pick up the additional load, Check on Rib Attachment to Extrusion The ribs are designed to transfer the airload on the trailing edge to the Leading edge extrusion. A triangular airload distribution is assumed as shown in Fig. A2 and the airload is reacted as a couple of the MS20426AD4 rivets attaching the ribs to the extrusion. —— Airload distribution P, = trailing edge load, Ibs. — MS20426AD4 rivets rib spacing = 6.9 in. Fig. A2. Rib Load101 The maximum airload occurs for Load Case 3, at y= 0, and at X = 0.85 and is calculated as 20 * 6.9 = 138 Ibs. ‘The airload over the trailing edge is calculated by multiplying the total - airload by the ratio of the areas under the airload distribution. 138 + 6.25? 9 = 666 ibs. 666 + 08 0.750 pe = 184.6 Ibs. Using Eq. (A19) the margin of safety is, 386 MS. * 75+ 184.6 = 1 = 40.39 ultimate102 LIST OF REFERENCES Jalton P. Mayo, "Matrix Method for Obtaining Spanwise Moments and Deflections of Torsionally Rigid Rotor Blades with Arbitrary Loadings," NAGA TN 4304 (Washington, D. C.: National Advisory Conmittee for Aeronautics, 1958), p. 205. ?alton P. Mayo, "Couparison of Measured Flapwise Structural Bending Moments on a Teetering Rotor Blade with Results Calculated from the Measured Pressure Distribution," NASA Memorandum 2-28-59 (Washington, D. C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1959), p. 4. 3. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Agency, Part 27, Airvorthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Giashinton, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1965), p- 63+ 4g, J. Bailey, Jr., "A Simplified Theoretical Method of Determining the Characteristics of a Lifting Rotor in Forward Flight," NACA Report No. 716 (Washington, D. C.: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1941), p. 108, S,afred Cessow and Gary C. Myers, Jr., Aerodynamics of the Helicopter (New York: The Maciti1lan Company, 1952), pp. 36-107. Siamt1ton. Standard Method of Propeller Performance Calculation (fast Hartford, Connecticut: Hamilton Standard Division of United Alreraft Corporation, 1941), p. 89. Thtexander A. Nikolsky, Helicopter Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951), p. 45. Sraymond A. Young, Helicopter Engineering (New York: Ronald Press, 108) gp as, Spaniel 0. Dommasch, Sydney S. Sherby, and Thomas F. Connelly, Airplane Aerodynamics (New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967), P39 10, aymond F. Schaefer and Hamilton A. Smith, "Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 8-H-12 Airfoil Section at Six Reynolds Numbers Fron 1,8 x 10° to 12.0 x 10®," NACA IN 1998 (Washington, D. C.: National Advisory Comittee for Aeronautics, 1949). p. 153.103 Upavid J. Peery, Aireraft Structures (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950), p. 78-135. raymond J. Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965). p. 36. Vyoger A. Anderson, Fundamentals of Vibrations (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1969), p. 56. Maobert T. Yntema, "Simplified Procedures and Charts for the Rapid Estimation of Bending Frequencies of Rotating Beans,” NAGA TN 3459 (Washington, D. C.: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1955), p. 16. 15y, 5. pepartment of Defense, MIL-HDRK-5B, Metalic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, 2 Volumes (Washington, D. C.t Goverment Printing Office, 1971) pp. 86-175. +65imar F. Bruhn, Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures (Cincinnati, Ohio: Tri-State Offset Company, 1965), p. 77-104 ‘BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Roger A. Fundamentals of Vibrations, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1969, Bailey, F. J., Jr. "A Simplified Theoretical Method of Determining the Characteristics of a Lifting Rotor in Forward Flight." NACA Report No. 716, Washington, D. C.: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1941, Bruhn, Elmar F. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures. Gineinnati, Ohio: Tri-State Offset Company, 1965. Dommasch, Daniel 0.; Sherby, Sydney $.; and Connelly, Thomas F. Airplane Aerodynamics. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967, Gessow, Alfred, and Myers, Gary C., Jr. Aerodynamics of the Helicopter New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952. Hamilton Standard Method of Propeller Performance Calculation, East Hartford, Connecticut: Hamilton Standard Division of United Aircraft Corporation, 1941. Mayo, Alton P, "Comparison of Measured Flapwise Structural Bending ‘Moments on a Teetering Rotor Blade with Results Calculated from the Measured Pressure Distribution." NASA Memorandum 2-28-59 Washington, D. C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1959, Mayo, Alton P, "Matrix Method for Obtaining Spanwise Moments and Deflections of Torsionally Rigid Rotor Blades with Arbitrary Loadings." NACA TN 4304, Washington, D. C.: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1958. Nikolsky, Alexander A. Helicopter Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951. Peery, David J. Aircraft Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950. Roark, Raymond J. Formulas for Stress and Strain. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Comapny, 1965.105 Schaefer, Raymond F., and Smith, Hamilton A, "Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA S-ii-12 Airfoil Section at Six Reynolds Numbers From 1,8 x 106 to 11,0 x 106," NACA TN 1998, Washington, D, C.: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1949, U, S, Department of Defense, MIL+HDBK-5B, Metalic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, 2 vols, Washington, D. C Government Printing Office, 197%. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Agency. Part 27, Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing, 1965. Yntema, Robert T. "Simplified Procedures and Charts for the Rapid Estimation of Bending Frequencies of Rotating Beams." NACA TN 345% Washington, D. C.t National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1955. Young, Raymond A, Helicopter Engineering. New York: Ronald Press, 1949,