INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA

Aeronaves de Ala Rotatoria

IA0160

Philippe White
Lecture 05
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA

Deriving Vertical Flight with Momentum Theory

• Different Vertical Flight flow patterns

• Defining Climb and Descent flight cases
• Building the induced velocity curve
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Rotor Flow patterns in different Vertical Flight Regimes
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA

Climb (Normal Working State)

Uniform Speed (No vertical acceleration)

+ (positive) - (negative)
𝑉
𝑉+𝑣
𝑉 + 2𝑣

All velocities are in the same direction.

 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Vortex Ring State
𝑉 + 2𝑣
V +2𝑣 is just Uniform Speed (No vertical
a label taken acceleration)
over from
momentum + (positive) - (negative)
theory in 𝑉
𝑉+𝑣
hover. It’s 𝑉 + 2𝑣

𝑉 true value
will be
𝑉+𝑣 discussed Just starting to descend at this
later. stage. Weight of the helicopter
is still supported.

At the rotor disk, air is being

𝑉 pushed down, at lower far
field, the air is coming back up.

V + 𝑣 is considered positive as
the TOTAL airflow direction is
still down (𝑣 > 𝑉 )
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Autorotation
Uniform Speed (No vertical
acceleration)

𝑃 = 𝑃𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 + 𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 + 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔

𝑃 = 𝑇𝑉𝑐 + 𝑇𝑣 + 𝑃𝑃𝐷

𝑃 = 𝑇(𝑉𝑐 + 𝑣)

When 𝑉 + 𝑣 = 0

𝑃=0

Potential Energy is converted into Kinetic energy

Autorotation is a design requirement

 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Turbulent Wake State
Uniform Speed (No vertical
𝑉 + 2𝑣 acceleration)
V +2v is just
a label. It’s + (positive) - (negative)
true value 𝑉
𝑉+𝑣
will be 𝑉 + 2𝑣
discussed
later

𝑉+𝑣 𝑉
Circulation is above the rotors.
Vibration not as high in this
state as vortex ring state.
𝑉
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Windmill Brake State
Uniform Speed (No vertical
acceleration)
+2𝑣

+ (positive) - (negative)
𝑉
𝑉+𝑣
𝑉 + 2𝑣

Here the movement of the

air is driving the rotor and
the engine is supplying no
power.
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Climb and Descent Flow patterns

+2𝑣

MOMENTUM THEORY ONLY “VALID” FOR CLIMB AND WINDMILL BRAKE CASE.

THESE CASES HAVE ALL FLOWS IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Climb Case (V ↓ is +ve)
Mass Flow Rate at disk:
𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴(𝑉 + 𝑣)

Conservation of Momentum:

𝑇 = 𝑚 𝑉 + 𝑤 − 𝑚𝑉

𝑇 = 𝑚𝑤

Change in Kinetic energy:

1 2
1
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚 𝑉+𝑤 − 𝑚𝑉 2
2 2
1
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚(2𝑉𝑤 + 𝑤 2 ) 1
2 𝑚 2𝑉𝑤 + 𝑤 2 = 𝑚𝑤(𝑉 + 𝑣)
2
Power at Rotor:
𝑤 = 2𝑣
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝑇 𝑉 + 𝑣
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚𝑤(𝑉 + 𝑣) So in climb 𝑇 = 𝜌𝐴 𝑉 + 𝑣 . 2𝑣
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Climb Case (V ↓ is +ve)
Rotor supports same weight in hover or climb

In hover 𝑇 = 2𝜌𝐴𝑣𝐻 2 (PP02 - 25/32)

Where, 𝑣𝐻 ⇒ Inflow at Hover

In climb 𝑇 = 𝜌𝐴 𝑉 + 𝑣 . 2𝑣

So… 𝜌𝐴 𝑉 + 𝑣 . 2𝑣 = 2𝜌𝐴𝑣𝐻 2

𝑣 2 + 𝑉𝑣 = 𝑣𝐻 2
(÷ 𝑣𝐻 2 )
𝑣
2 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟
𝑣 𝑉 𝑣 𝑣𝐻
+ −1=0
𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 −𝑏 ± 𝑏2 − 4𝑎𝑐
=
2𝑎
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Climb Case (V ↓ is +ve)
2
𝑉 𝑉 Must use positive root to
−𝑣 ± +4
𝑣 𝐻 𝑣𝐻 keep inflow flowing
= downwards
𝑣𝐻 2

2
𝑣 𝑉 𝑉
=− + +1 ①
𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻

2
𝑉 𝑉+𝑣 𝑉 𝑉
(① + ) = + +1
𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻

2
(① x 2, +
𝑉
) 𝑉 + 2𝑣 𝑉
𝑣𝐻 =+ +4
𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Descent Case (V ↑ is +ve)
Mass Flow Rate at disk:
-2𝑣
𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴(𝑉 − 𝑣)

Conservation of Momentum:

−𝑇 = 𝑚 𝑉 − 𝑤 − 𝑚𝑉

−𝑇 = −𝑚𝑤
-
Change in Kinetic energy:

1 2
1
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚 𝑉−𝑤 − 𝑚𝑉 2
2 2
1
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚(−2𝑉𝑤 + 𝑤 2 ) 1
2 𝑚 −2𝑉𝑤 + 𝑤 2 = −𝑚𝑤(𝑉 − 𝑣)
2
Power at Rotor:
𝑤 = 2𝑣
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = −𝑇 𝑉 − 𝑣
𝑃𝐼𝑛𝑑 = −𝑚𝑤(𝑉 − 𝑣) So in climb 𝑇 = 𝜌𝐴 𝑉 − 𝑣 . 2𝑣
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Descent Case (V ↑ is +ve)
In climb 𝑇 = 𝜌𝐴 𝑉 − 𝑣 . 2𝑣
-𝑤

Rotor supports same weight in hover or descent

In hover 𝑇 = 2𝜌𝐴𝑣𝐻 2 (PP02 - 25/32)

-
Where, 𝑣𝐻 ⇒ Inflow at Hover

−𝑣 2 + 𝑉𝑣 = 𝑣𝐻 2

(÷ 𝑣𝐻 2 )

2 2
𝑣 𝑉 𝑣 𝑣 𝑉 𝑣
− + −1=0 or − +1=0
𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Descent Case (V ↑ is +ve)
2 𝑉 < 2𝑣𝐻 can only be an
𝑉 𝑉 imaginary value. Forces
𝑣𝐻 ± −4
𝑣 𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 to be higher than 𝑉,
=
𝑣𝐻 2 confirming that we are in
descent

2
𝑣 𝑉 𝑉 -
= ± −1
𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻

2
𝑉−𝑣 𝑉 𝑉
= ± −1
𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻
-

2
𝑉 − 2𝑣 𝑉
=± −4
𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Descent Case (V ↓ is +ve)

I convert to a system where V↓ is always positive to keep the sign conventions the same:

Descent (V ↑ is +ve) Descent (V ↓ is +ve)

2 2
𝑣 𝑉 𝑉 𝑣 𝑉 𝑉
= ± −1 =− ± −1
𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻

2 2
𝑉−𝑣 𝑉 𝑉 𝑣+𝑉 𝑉 𝑉
=− ± −1 = ± −1
𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻

2 2
𝑉 − 2𝑣 𝑉 2𝑣 − 𝑉 𝑉
=± −4 =± −4
𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻
 With changed 2 2
𝑣 𝑉 𝑉 𝑣 𝑉 𝑉
sign (respect =− ± −1 =− + +1
single axis) 𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻 2𝑣𝐻

𝑉+𝑣 =0
Vortex Ring State Autorotation State
𝑉 + 2𝑣 = 0
(Derived experimentally)
Turbulent Wake
Normal Working
State
State

𝑣 =𝑣𝐻 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟
Windmill Brake
State

This area cannot exist

physically 𝑉 < 2𝑣
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Universal Inflow Curve

Universal inflow curve validity

compared to experimental:

Momentum theory under

estimates the amount of inflow
required for “NWS” and “VRS” but
at least appears to respect the
general form of the experimental
data.

Very slow speed “VRS” values

might be comparable but most of
the “VRS” and “TWS” curves are
invalid. “WBS” behaves identically
to the model but it should be
noted that no pilot would
realistically want to fly in the
“WBS” region (and certainly not for
extended periods).
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA
Universal Inflow Curve

Extra note:

“The over-simplified picture of the

nature of the outflow below the
rotor for momentum theory, fails
to reveal a power benefit in climb
which has been shown to be
significant on some helicopters.
The position of the tip vortex from
a blade when the next blade passes
by is found to be lower in climb
than in hover. This changes the
upwash at the blade tips in such a
way that for small rates of climb,
the power required is actuall less
than for the hover.”
J. Seddon – Helicopter Aerodynamics
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA

We have another Excel Lab in two weeks but if you would like to get
started early…
 INGENIERIA AERONAUTICA

Thank you and see you next week!