Fluid reaction surfaces (i.e. – impellers) – Method of operation
Reexamination Certificate
2001-10-24
2003-11-04
Nguyen, Ninh H. (Department: 3745)
Fluid reaction surfaces (i.e., impellers)
Method of operation
C416S131000, C416S24100B, C416S044000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06641365
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to tilt rotor helicopters and specifically to helicopters having variable speed tilt rotors for achieving substantial increases in endurance, range, altitude and speed and reductions in noise levels and fuel consumption.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The efficiency of an aircraft, whether fixed wing or rotorcraft, as expressed by the fuel consumption required to achieve a specific performance as for example, cruise, climb, or maximum speed, is directly proportional to the power required to achieve such performance. The power required is inversely proportional to the ratio of the aircraft lift to the drag (L/D). In order to increase an aircraft efficiency designers strive to increase the lift to drag ratio by minimizing the aircraft drag at lift levels required to counter the aircraft weight and to allow for aircraft maneuvering.
The lift and drag of an aircraft are determined by the following formulas, respectively:
L=
½
&rgr;V
2
SC
L
(1)
D=
½
&rgr;V
2
SC
D
(2)
Where &rgr; is the air density, V is the air velocity (airspeed), S is the reference area of the lifting surface (wing or rotor blade), C
L
and C
D
are non-dimensional lift and drag coefficients. The lift to drag ratio L/D is equal to coefficient of lift to the coefficient of drag ratio, C
L
/C
D
. Thus, the ratio of the coefficient of lift to the coefficient of drag, C
L
/C
D
, has a direct effect on performance. The C
L
/C
D
is a function of C
L
as can be seen by the C
L
V. C
L
/C
D
graph depicted in
FIG. 1
for a typical airfoil. For best cruise efficiency, the coefficient of lift of the lifting airfoil should be maintained at levels of maximum C
L
/C
D
.
In a helicopter the lift and drag of the rotor blades conform to the same lift formula L=½&rgr;V
2
SC
L
where V is the local airspeed on the blade which, in a hovering helicopter is a result of the blade angular velocity in revolutions per minute (RPM). For convenience, “RPM” as used herein refers to rotor angular velocity. Moreover, the term “helicopter” as used herein encompasses all types of rotorcraft.
In a hovering helicopter, the speed of the rotor blade increases radially outward. At any given radial distance from the rotor center, the speed of the blade is given by the equation:
vr
=
2
π
r
(
RPM
)
60
(
3
)
where, v
r
is the rotational speed and r is the radial distance measured from the rotor center.
A helicopter in a substantial forward speed (e.g., 100-200 mph) experiences problems of control, vibration and limitations in performance resulting from the asymmetry in the speeds of the advancing and retreating blades. When traveling in a forward direction
8
, the advancing blade
10
has a speed equal the rotational speed of the blade plus the forward speed of the helicopter, whereas the retreating blade
12
has a speed equal the rotational speed of the blade minus the forward speed of the helicopter. The speeds along the length of the blades when traveling forward are shown in FIG.
2
. As a result, the advancing blade has more lift than the retreating blade. To avoid helicopter roll over due the airspeed asymmetry, the lift on the retreating blade has to be increased while the speed on the advancing blade has to be decreased. Because, lift is inversely proportional to the velocity (i.e., speed) of the blade squared (V
2
) a substantial increase in the coefficient of lift (C
L
) of the retreating blade is required. The available lift coefficient for a given blade is limited as shown FIG.
1
. Consequently, the asymmetry in speeds between the advancing and retreating blades has to be limited thereby limiting the forward speed of the helicopter.
Increasing the RPM of the rotor reduces the relative asymmetry of the airspeed distribution, thus reducing the effects of forward speed on roll control limits. But such RPM increase is constrained by the maximum allowable rotor tip speed. The maximum allowable tip speed is typically lower than the speed of sound (i.e., Mach 1) so as to avoid the substantial increases in drag, vibration and noise encountered when the tip speed approaches Mach 1.
Current helicopter rotors turn at a constant RPM throughout the flight because of the complex and severe rotor dynamics problems. Generally, helicopter designers are content if they succeed in the development of a single speed rotor, which can go from zero to design RPM when not loaded on the ground during start and stop without encountering vibration loads which overstress the helicopter and rotor structure. When the blades of a conventional rotor are producing lift, a significant change of the rotor blade RPM from the design RPM may yield catastrophic results.
Conventional helicopter rotors are designed to achieve blade flap, lag and torsional natural oscillation frequencies, at the operating RPM, which are adequately separated from the rotor excitation frequencies occurring at the rates of 1 per revolution, 2 per revolution, 3 per revolution and so forth. For example, for a rotor operating at 360 RPM, the frequency corresponding to the occurrence of a rotor excitation frequency of 1 per revolution is 6 Hz (360 RPM is 6 cycles per second), 2 per revolution is 12 Hz, and so forth. As the rotor RPM is changed so are the excitation frequencies. For convenience, the frequencies which give rise to these excitation frequencies are referred to herein by the excitation frequency occurrence rates. For example a frequency that gives rise to an excitation frequency that occurs at a rate of 2 per revolution is referred to herein as the “2 per revolution” frequency. For good dynamic behavior, considering both blade loads and helicopter vibration, conventional rotors with any number of blades are designed to avoid the frequencies of 1 per revolution, 2 per revolution, 3 per revolution and so forth. Conventional rotor blades are designed to operate at 100% of design RPM with the fundamental flap mode at a frequency above the 1 per revolution frequency, the fundamental lag mode usually below the 1 per revolution frequency and sometimes between the 1 per revolution and the 2 per revolution frequencies, and the blade dynamics tuned so that higher flap, lag torsion modes avoid the 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . n per revolution frequencies. The conventional blade design modes (i.e., modal frequencies) must be kept separated from the 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . n per revolution frequencies to avoid the generation of vibration loads which may be catastrophic. As a minimum, such vibration loads will make the helicopter unacceptable for the pilot and passengers and detrimental to the reliability of its mechanisms and equipment. To avoid such vibration loads, the rotor angular velocity is limited to a narrow range around 100% of design RPM, except for start-up and shut-down at low or no rotor load and low wind speed.
The RPM of helicopter rotors is normally set for a maximum forward speed at a maximum weight at a certain critical altitude. The RPM of the rotor is such that at maximum forward speed, the tip of the advancing blade is traveling at speeds near but below Mach 1, to avoid the substantial increases in drag, vibration and noise encountered at speeds approaching Mach 1. At any other flight conditions, the rotor RPM and thus, the power required to turn the rotor are substantially higher than that required for efficient operation.
Some research helicopters such as the Lockheed XH-51A compound helicopter have experimented with rotor RPM reduction at certain flight conditions by incorporating a wing for producing most of the required lift and a jet or a propeller driving engine for producing the required forward thrust. The use of the wings and engine relieve the rotor of its duty to produce lift and thrust, thus allowing the unloaded rotor to operate at reduced RPM. In this regard, a helicopter can fly at higher speeds before the tip of the advancing blade approaches the speed of sound and encounters the increased levels of vibration and noise as well as drag.
Other
Christie Parker & Hale LLP
Nguyen Ninh H.
LandOfFree
Optimum speed tilt rotor does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Optimum speed tilt rotor, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Optimum speed tilt rotor will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3179271