Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................................v
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1
Section 6 – Systems............................................................................................................................22
6.1 – Fuel System Design...............................................................................................................22
6.2 – Oil System Design.................................................................................................................23
6.3 – Cockpit Control Panel ...........................................................................................................24
6.4 – Crashworthy Seats.................................................................................................................24
6.5 – Flight Control System ...........................................................................................................24
6.6 – Active Tail Buffet Damping..................................................................................................25
6.7 – Landing Gear Systems ..........................................................................................................25
6.8 – Available Upgrades ...............................................................................................................25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: GW versus Payload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1.2: Power versus GW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2.2: Drive System Layout Iteration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Figure 3.1: PSU250 Section View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Figure 3.2: PSU250 Exploded View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3.3: PSU250 – SFC versus SHP and Altitude, ISA, Jet-A fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3.4: PSU250 – SFC versus SHP and Altitude, ISA+20C, Jet-A fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.5: Maximum SHP versus Altitude, 1300K max cycle temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.6: Power to weight versus SFC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.7: SFC versus SHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.8: Engine Cost Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 4.1: Static Mast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4.2: Drive System Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 5.1: Required Power for Hovering versus MRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 5.2: Relative Performance Improvement versus MRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 5.3: Cd/Cl^(3/2) for Checked Airfoils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
LIST OF TABLES
Sy – Yield Strength
T – Rotor Thrust
TIT – Turbine Inlet Temperature
TR – Tail Rotor
TRD – Tail Rotor Diameter
Vd – Rate of Descent
Vi – Induced Velocity
Φf – Body Roll Angle
λ - Dimensionless Inflow
Θf – Body Pitch Angle
Special Thanks
Mr. Avi Attias MATA factory
Abdul H. Aziz The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Robert Bill The Pennsylvania State University
Ms. Lynn Byers The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Cengiz Camci The Pennsylvania State University
Peter Cipollo The Pennsylvania State University
Ms. Camala Daly Alumnus, The Pennsylvania State University
Mr. Chen Friedman Technion IIT
Mr. Jason Girven Alumnus, The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Boris Glezer Solar Turbines/Optimized Turbine Solutions
Dr. Joe Horn The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Gil Iosilevskii Technion IIT
Dr. Jun-Sik Kim The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Vladimir Khromov Technion IIT
William Kong The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. George Lesieutre The Pennsylvania State University
Mr. Chuck Nearhoof Innodyn Turbines
Mr. Edmond Pope Innodyn Turbines
Prof. Omri Rand Technion IIT
Dr. Daniella Raveh Technion IIT
Prof. Aviv Rosen Technion IIT
Zihni Saribay The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Edward Smith The Pennsylvania State University
Michael Smith Bell Helicopters
Mr. Ian Stock Schweizer Aircraft Corp
Joseph Szefi The Pennsylvania State University
Mr. Matthew Tarascio Sikorski Aircraft Corp
x
Introduction
This report is the result of a successful collaboration between undergraduate students from two
Aerospace Facilities: one from The Pennsylvania State University, and the other from The Technion-Israel
Institute of Technology. The GrassChopper, presented here, is a two seat trainer helicopter powered by an
innovative turbine engine design, in response to the 2006 annual AHS student design competition. This
collaboration benefited the students by increasing the participants’ academic knowledge and design aspect as
well as their ability to work in teams coordinated far apart, which is becoming typical in today’s networking
environment.
Some of the main requirements are two hours HOGE capability at 6,000ft altitude on an ISA+20o
day, and maintaining a low cost design using innovative manufacturing processes. A new turbine engine
design and a comprehensive cost analysis was completed by the Penn-State team, while rotor design, outer
shape, and performance analysis were made by the Technion team, along with the cockpit internal layout.
Airframe design and manufacturing details was a combined effort.
Special attention was devoted to keeping the cost of the GrassChopper as low as possible while
maintaining standards of safety, reliability, and performance. Since this is a trainer helicopter,
crashworthiness was a central design criterion. The helicopter features a conventional tail rotor anti-torque
system, a new, cost-effective 250 hp turboshaft engine design, and a two bladed high efficiency main rotor in
a simple seesaw configuration. Performance analysis yielded a top velocity of 115 Knots, 290 miles
maximum range, and almost four hours (230 minutes) of endurance at a forward flight speed of 60 knots.
The final design is competitive with existing piston helicopters at a cost that is well under $300 thousand
dollars.
*Dimensions in feet
3
NO. Description
Structural Layout
17 Firewalls
18 Overhead I-Beams
19 Engine Deck
20 Side Supports
21 Structural Floor
22 Foam Subfloor
23 Lift Frames
24 Tail Boom Support Struts
25 Extruded Aluminum Tail Boom
26 Tail Rotor Drive Shaft Cover
27 Engine Mount
28 Rear Bulkhead
29 Landing Skids
NO. Description
1 Main Rotor Blades
2 Main Rotor Swash Plate Arrangement
Systems Layout
3 Static Mast
4 Static Mast Support
5 Gear Box
6 Crashworthy Seats
7 Control Stick
8 Control Panel
9 Pedals
10 Collective Stick
11 Fuel Tank
12 Tail Rotor Drive Shaft
13 Horizontal Stabilizer
14 Tail Rotor
15 Landing Gear Dampers
16 Engine
4
Gross Weight[lb]
3000
The only dictated design parameter was a payload 2500
weight of 440 lb (200 kg). Figure 1.1 presents GW vs. PL for 2000
1500
lightweight helicopters of which an initial estimation of Hellicopter Data
1000 Linear Fitting
GW=1540 lb (700 kg) was derived. Helicopters with higher PL Quadratic Fitting
500
200 400 600 800 1000
and a much lower GW are not capable of two hours HOGE due Payload[lb]
Figure 1.1: GW versus Payload
to smaller fuel capacities.
1.2 – RP estimation
Estimated GW yields a CP estimate of 170 hp (126.8 kW) (Figure 1.2).
length, balance, cost and ease of storage. From trend analysis an 300
2.2 – Material
Materials for the Grass Chopper were chosen strictly from the manufacturing point-of-view to
maximize cost savings. The choices made are generally based on minimizing production time, part count,
and complexity and therefore will be discussed in more detail in the manufacturing section of the report.
Note that the main structural members of the Grass Chopper are made of graphite-epoxy or glass-epoxy
composite materials unless otherwise noted in the following sections.
beams and intersection elements riveted together [Bisa02]. The second design consisted of five sections
made of Rohacell 31-IG foam and is based on a design from the 55th American Helicopter Society Annual
Forum and Technology Display [Jack99]. Although both designs are effective, the foam subfloor design was
selected because it is twice as light, made of inexpensive material, and is easier to manufacture than the
aluminum design. It weighs approximately 7.3 lb (3.3 kg) and requires less manufacturing time by
eliminating the need for over 400 rivets. Also, testing of a 1/5 scale fuselage model showed the foam design
exhibited excellent energy absorbing capabilities [Jack99].
These conditions are considered when designing the landing gear so that failure does not occur and injury is
avoided. A skid landing gear design was selected over a wheeled design because of its simplicity, lower cost,
and compatibility with the mission. The design of the landing gear was based on both the Schweizer 300Cbi
and the MBB BO 105 helicopters. Two separate skids are used for a small weight reduction compared to a
single piece design. Pivot attachments are located near structural members in the airframe, so that the landing
loads would be distributed to the structure. Oleo dampers around the pivot points provide a smoother
transition during takeoff and absorb impact energy.
flight envelope, the maximum Reynolds number of the tail boom is around 86,000; therefore the tail boom
will encounter fully laminar flow and will not experience sudden changes in Cd during flight.
The tail boom is attached to the airframe with a cantilevered mount and two support struts attached
1/3 of the way up the tail boom. The purpose of the support struts is to contribute additional support and
provide a location for active tail buffet damping actuators (discussed in section 6.6).
The preliminary design (Figure 2.2a) was based on trends identified from observations of current
turbine helicopters. Although turbine engines are commonly attached to the top of the airframe, the engine
and gearbox mounted above occupants creates a hazard during crash scenarios. This design was modified by
placing the engine inside the airframe (Figure 2.2b) where there was unused space. The layout created a
lower CG location and better crashworthy performance by keeping large mass items low, but required a
complex structure to support the engine. The design was to keep the engine horizontal to simplify the
structure while still keeping the engine low for favorable crashworthiness performance (Figure 2.2c). This,
however, left little room for a storage and lead to a need for a complicated gearbox and long drive shafts
leading to driveshaft fatigue. Lastly, the final design has the engine higher then the previous design and aft of
the occupants for shorter drive shafts while maintaining a favorable crashworthiness design at some expense
of raising the CG (Figure 2.2d).
2.10 – Bulkheads
The Grass Chopper’s bulkheads shape the fuselage, transfers exterior loads to the structural floor and
maintains the airframe’s structural integrity during rollover. Three major bulkheads used are two lift frames
and a rear engine bulkhead. The bulkhead’s circular shape attains favorable crash resistance characteristics at
the expense of some useable interior space, and have box beam cross-sections in order to provide high
compressive and bending strength [USAR89]. The rear engine bulkhead protects the engine during rollover
and allows a firewall attachment location between the engine and the tail boom.
2.12 – Firewalls
FAA regulations, on rotorcraft 7,000 lb (3182 kg) and less dictate that occupants, all parts crucial to
a controlled landing, and baggage compartments are protected in the case of a fire [Fede05]. The firewalls in
the Grass Chopper isolate the cockpit, fuel tank location, baggage compartment, main gearbox, and engine.
Material design of the firewalls is described in the manufacturing section.
9
Output to Overrunning
MR gearbox clutch
Planetary Assembly
Compressor
Turbine
Inlet guide vane
Engine mounts
3.6 - Compressor
The PSU250 has a single stage centrifugal compressor, axial inflow and radial outflow. Detailed
design of the impeller will produce a constant 28.6 ft3/sec (0.81 m3/sec) volume flow rate into the combustor
when rotating at 60,000 RPM. The compressor has a compression ratio of 3.5, which is moderately low for
advanced compressor design in the past decades. A higher compression ratio would increase overall fuel
efficiency, but this would also increase the scale and power output beyond what the mission requires. The
efficiency of the compressor is 0.72 [Benini03]. Because the compressor is similar to the Solar T62
compressor, the manufacturing process is well defined and relatively inexpensive, and the research and
development process costs less than experimenting with higher efficiency compressors.
The impeller is made out of a dual-alloy titanium. The airfoil section is made out of a high
temperature, creep-resistant alloy while the hub assembly is made out of a high-strength, fatigue resistant
alloy. The cost of manufacturing these impellers will be no more than the current impeller costs in the T62
[Gayda98]. The diffuser housing is structurally capable of supporting the weight of the engine. The top and
12
bottom engine mounts are bolted directly to a flange running the circumference of the housing. The burner is
bolted to one end of it, and the inlet guide vane is bolted to the opposite end. In this way, the casing serves a
structural member and is a very compact way to integrate the engine into the airframe.
3.7 - Burner
The PSU250 has a reverse flow, annular combustor with eight automotive fuel injectors evenly
spaced around its circumference. Detailed design of the burner will meet a few general design goals, such as
high atomization, high swirl, stable flame, and sufficient secondary cooling air. Innodyn has developed a fuel
injection system that produces very small fuel particles at a very high pulse rate. This is the key cost
reduction feature of the engine. Instead of a traditional fuel system which delivers a continuous fuel flow, the
PSU250 makes use of discrete injection capable of sustaining sufficient atomization and power in the burner.
The burner is assumed to have an adiabatic efficiency of 0.98.
3.8 - Turbine
The turbine is designed to extract as much enthalpy as possible before exhaust. Part of the energy it
generates is used to drive the compressor, and another part is used for useful shaft horsepower. The
remaining enthalpy is exhausted as hot gas. It is a radial inflow, axial exhausting turbine and spins at
60,000RPM. It has an efficiency of 0.78. The turbine pressure ratio is designed to be about 0.225 and its
corresponding temperature ratio is about 0.759. Knowing mass flow rate, fuel consumption, and shaft
horsepower of an operating Solar T62, turbine properties were acquired through moving backwards through
the program [Benini03]
3.9 - Exhaust
The GrassChopper exhausts straight out the back of the aircraft. This was originally a concern
because the MR downwash is going to downwash exhaust gasses on the tail boom that are around 1315 °F
(713 °C) at MP. However, the shroud spanning the tail boom that encloses the TR drive is lined with a heat
shield, and any portion of the tail boom that is within the region of this hot downwash will need to be
covered. There will be additional heat diffusion from the cooler downwash of the MR which will dissipate
the hot exhaust gasses to an appropriate temperature.
SFC (lb/hp-hr)
0.8 4000 ft
similar graph but for ISA + 20°C. Fuel 5000 ft
6000 ft
consumption at higher atmospheric 0.75
SHP
in Figure 3.5. Available shaft
Figure 3.3: PSU250 – SFC versus SHP and Altitude, ISA, Jet-A fuel
horsepower drops linearly with
altitude. At the GrassChopper’s mission of 6,000 ft (1829 m) altitude and ISA + 20°C, the MP available is
about 193.0 hp (143.9 kW). Assuming 10.0% power transmission and parasitic losses, the available power to
the rotors is 173.7 shp (129.5 kW).
Figure 3.6 is a trend graph of power to weight ratio versus specific fuel consumption. Data from
other turboshafts was taken from [Leyes99] for the trend points. Moving up and to the left, power density of
the engines increase. The PSU250 is on the lower end of the power density curve, and also the mid to higher
range of fuel consumption. Figure 3.7 is a trend graph of specific fuel consumption versus maximum
continuous shaft horsepower. The PSU250 is on the lower end of the power curve and as a result, suffers
from lower efficiency but benefits from lower production and operating cost.
14
0.9
265.00
0 ft
0.85 1000 ft 245.00
2000 ft
3000 ft 225.00
SFC (lb/hp-hr)
0.8 4000 ft
5000 ft
SHP
6000 ft 205.00
0.75
185.00 ISA
ISA + 20C
0.7 165.00
0.65 145.00
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Figure 3.4: PSU250 – SFC versus SHP and Altitude, ISA+20C, Jet-A fuel Figure 3.5: Maximum SHP versus Altitude, 1300K max cycle temperature
1.1
2.50
1
Power to weight (hp/lb)
Increasing cost
2.00
0.9
SFC (lb/hp-hr)
1.50 0.8
Increasing cost, power, and efficiency
0.7
1.00
PSU250
PSU250 0.6
0.50
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 0.5
SFC (lb/hp-hr) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
SHP
Figure 3.6: Power to weight versus SFC
Figure 3.7: SFC versus SHP
15
sequence, or if the flight controlling requires more power than the PSU250 can deliver. Overspeed and
overtemperature protection reduces fuel flow to return the engine to its normal operating conditions.
In summary, the PSU250 is an extremely cost competitive turbine engine and fits nicely into the
GrassChopper package. It has a very low part count which makes assembly and disassembly relatively easy.
There is only one main rotating assembly, and this makes the internal operation of the engine simple,
maintainable, and durable. The unit itself is cantilevered into the engine to eliminate bearings and oil in the
engine. Using single stage centrifugal turbomachinery definitely reduces the cost of production and
maintenance, but there is a fuel efficiency decrease due to tip losses associated with centrifugal
turbomachinery. The innovative fuel delivery system developed by Innodyn Turbines drives the cost of the
engine very low. The performance automotive fuel injection greatly reduces the cost from conventional fuel
delivery packages while maintaining acceptable operating performance in the engine.
G.R. = 1 + R
S
At the given dimensions, the planetary gear reduction is 6:1 providing a MR output of 500 RPM.
The final stage in the main gear box is the tail shaft output. The stage is made of a 90° spiral bevel
set. The central shaft spins at 3,000 RPM and the pinion has a diameter of 2.2 in (55.9 mm). The output gear
has a diameter of 2 in (50.8 mm) and rotates at 3,300 RPM.
[HP]
From classical momentum theory: Vi ~1/r, and for hovering,
P
80
10
autorotation and hover performance. On the other hand, large a
MRD requires longer tail booms, thus shifting the CG significantly 5
defined as 1 ∂Vi ≈ 1 . For a MRD>25 ft (7.6 m) the RPI is only Figure 5.2: Relative Performance
VI ∂r r
Improvement versus MRD
about 3%, hence a MRD of 26 ft (7.9 m) was selected.
20
0.05
NA CA 63-212
^
NA CA 11-H-09
0.04
/CL
N A C A 2415
d
NA CA 5-H-15
0.03
C
N A C A 63A 010
0.02 N A C A 64-008A
N A SA / LA NGLEY
0.01 N A C A 0012
NA CA 23012
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Angle of Attack[deg]
5.1.7 Taper
Blade taper and blade twist have quite similar to effects, both resulting in a more uniform inflow
distribution. Tapering also results in a several percent increase in rotor hover performance (lower RP),
however, this is not justified by additional production cost for a lightweight, cheap helicopter. Therefore, no
taper was applied to the GrassChopper.
5.1.8 RPM
Critical Mach numbers at the tip should be
prevented using tip sweep and supercritical airfoils. A
y
rather simple and cheap solution is limiting the tip speed
to 689 ft/s (210 m/s) ( M ≈ 0.6 ), thus not allowing the tips x
to reach critical Mach numbers. Therefore, 500 RPM
was selected for a MRD of 26 ft (7.9 m), which is 30 Figure 5.6: Modeled Rotor Blade
RPM higher than the initial estimate (section 1.5).
mgR 4
(3) δ = , ([Popo98]) is limited to 1.7 ft (0.52 m) according to FAA ground clearance requirements of
8EI
7.08 ft (2.16 m) ([AMCP74]). Centrifugal forces cause tension stresses along the blade with a maximum at
CF 1 M Ω 2 R
the blade root given by: (4) σ t = = . Finally, for the TR design, δ=0.76 ft (0.23 m); σb=13ksi
Ab 2 Ab
(89,630 kPa) σt=4.1ksi (28,270 kPa).
22
Section 6 – Systems
6.1 – Fuel System Design
A major cost reduction design concept of the engine is an innovative fuel delivery system. The
engine runs on Jet-A kerosene fuel. There is a Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) unit which
manages the operation of the engine from startup to shut down. The fuel system is modeled off of an
automotive fuel injection system. The injection manifold consists of seven electronically controlled fuel
injection nozzles attached to the fuel injection manifold ring. High quality automotive fuel injectors will
provide a droplet size small enough for proper combustion in the burner, as well as a pulse rate high enough
to simulate a continuous fuel flow seen in existing turboshafts.
23
The engine is equipped with two high pressure electric pumps, each capable of providing at least 65
psi (448 kPa) of fuel pressure at the required fuel flow of 3.0 lb/min (1.37 kg/min) at MP. Only one pump is
used at a time to provide fuel to the injection nozzle manifold ring. The other pump is used as a backup and
is switched to automatically if a pressure drop is detected by the computer system. The pilot is noted of this
switch on the instrument panel. A high pressure regulator is used to maintain pressure in the manifold at 65
psi, and another pump is required inside the fuel tank and this must supply the high pressure pumps with at
least 2 psi (13.8 kPa) of fuel pressure when the flow is at its maximum rate. This is required because the fuel
tank is below the engine and gravity cannot be used as a fuel feed [Innodyn05].
The FADEC system will monitor fuel flow, fuel pressure, collective pitch, exhaust gas temperature,
and MR RPM. These variables will be used to control the fuel flow, and maintain a constant turbine RPM
throughout the power range required during flight.
(MPT), cooler, fan, and main pump shown in Figure . The MPT M
Scavenge Pump
P
is located right after the main oil filter, and there is another filter
T
at the MPT output. Both filters have integral alarms and any Oil Cooler
there be at least one gallon of oil for every 40 gal (131.2 L) of fuel capacity in a certified rotorcraft. The
GrassChopper will have 2 gal (6.6 L) of circulating oil at about a four minute recirculation rate. If there is an
oil leak at the circulation rate, the pilot will have four minutes to land the aircraft before dry run which is
damaging to the gearboxes.
to any helicopter, but especially a trainer. Increasing the chances of survival during a crash is certainly a
worthwhile investment.
1.2% was validated against the theoretical estimation: Dtheory = 1 ρv 2 SDd = 76Nt (a minor 4Nt deviation).
2
7.2 Trim Analysis
Trim analysis included solving the GrassChopper’s equilibrium equations for hovering and forward
flight velocities. The equations can be divided into the following four sets:
1. Three forces equilibrium equations.
2. Three moments equilibrium equations.
3. Three equations describing the flapping angels of the MR blades.
4. Glauert's equation, describing the inflow ratio through the MR disc.
The equations were used under the following assumptions:
1. MR trust equals the helicopter’s weight plus down force drag.
= 1, sin( x) ~
2. Small angles assumption ( cos( x) ~ = x ).
3. Airframe drag was estimated using its cross – section and Cd=0.3.
4. only longitudinal flight was simulated (no side-slip or lateral flight).
A main interest was to find the following parameters as a function of forward flight velocity: three pilot
command angles, three MR flapping angles, two body angles, TR force, and the inflow ratio. These results
were used to determine other parameters in the design.
The equations are coupled and non linear, hence no analytic solution is available for them except for the
case of hovering. The equations are solved numerically using a specially designed multidimensional
unconstrained nonlinear minimization solver (employing the Nelder-Mead method). An initial guess for
forward flight numerical solution is the analytical solution for the case of hovering. Each solution step uses
the previous output as an initial guess.
After consulting a few helicopter pilots, longitudinal and lateral body shouldn't exceed 5°. Hence the
horizontal stabilizer was designed to provide a positive pitch moment and partially overcome rolling moment
27
produced by the TR. Its location is on the tail’s left hand side (same as the TR), 12 ft (3.6 m) behind the MR
shaft. It has a 2° negative incidence angle and a NACA 0012 airfoil, mainly due to simplicity and
convenience. It has a 2.5 ft (0.76 m) span and a 2 ft (0.61 m) chord. Note that the longitudinal pitch angle is
defined positive when the GrassChopper has a “nose down” pitch.
It is important to add that a vertical fin was not a part of the simulation, although all equilibrium
requirements were still satisfied. However, in the case of a TR shaft failure a vertical fin will provide the
necessary anti-torque at a certain forward speed which will allow the pilot to maintain control of the
GrassChopper, increasing the helicopter crashworthiness. This is a suggested addition to the design.
7.3 Performance
Table 7.1: RFP Mission Phases
The main RFP requirement is HOGE at 6000 ft for two Mission Phase Time (min) Fuel lbs
hours. Trim analysis results at that altitude were used to estimate Warming up 2 13.1
Climb 6.1 13.1
the required power. Using a fuel consumption of 0.8 lb/(hp-hr),
Hovering 120 194
an estimate for the total required fuel weight was determined. Descent 3.05 3.41
Table 7.1 divides this main RFP mission into five phases. In Reserve 20 52.5
Total 151.2 276.3
conclusion, the GrassChopper requires a total of 276.3lb of fuel.
Engine power analysis takes
Power In Forward Flight
into account induced power, airfoil 250
Shaft Power
Induced Power
parasite drag, airframe aerodynamic Body Drag Power
Blade Profile Power
200 Engine Power (losses=30%)
drag, assuming 10% installation power
losses. Figure 7.1 presents this analysis Maximum Range
290 miles at 89knots
150 Maximum Indurance
Power [HP]
Maximum rotor pitch is mechanically limited by 24° (Figure 7.2), hence maximum velocity is 115
knots. A simple turbine engine model for temperature changes with altitude was used. Figure 7.3 features
payload versus range. Note that with a maximum payload of 440 lb
(200 kg), the GrassChopper can reach up to about 290 nm. For
smaller payloads the range may increase up to about 320 nm for a
light-weight pilot of 150 lb (68.1 kg). Figure 7.3 was derived
assuming a fully fueled helicopter, and since the fuel weight
fraction (almost 20%) is quite large, the change in maximum range
is quite small (since the total change in GW is relatively small).
Primary mission capability verification can be seen in
Figure 7.4 presenting HOGE altitude vs. OAT for different weight Figure 7.2: Command Angles
configurations. Note that weight range exceeds GrassChopper o
Payload vs. Range (ISA+20 )
500
minimum and maximum values for the sake of showing trends. Maximum Payload
450
The GrassChopper has a relatively high hover altitude ceiling, 400
Payload [lb]
300
example, hover altitude for 1500 lb (682 kg), on an ISA+20o 250
day, is about 12,000 ft (3,658 m), which is well over the basic 200
150
RFP requirement of 6000 ft hovering altitude.
100
Figure 7.5 combines maximum velocity limitation (115 50
0
kts) along with the available altitude for each speed at the higher 290 300 310 320 330 340 35
Range [nm]
end of the GrassChopper speed range. As speed is gradually
Figure 7.3: Payload versus Range
increased from 110 to 115 kts, the maximum altitude drops from
20,000 ft (6,096 m) to about 15,000 ft (4,572 m), until the performance curve meets the red line indication
maximum velocity.
10 W [lb] 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 110 112 114 116 118 120 12
o Max. Velocity [kt]
OAT [C ]
Figure 7.4: HOGE versus altitude Figure 7.5: Max. Velocity versus Altitude
29
Section 8 – Manufacturing
8.1 – Manufacturing Techniques
8.1.1 – Electron-Beam Curing
Electron-beam curing is the proposed process to manufacture the composite materials in the
GrassChopper. This method of curing is a type of radiation curing that uses high speed electrons that collide
with atoms in a polymer-initiator mix. The high energy of the electron beams and the x-rays generated from
these beams penetrates into the composite, giving a uniform cure to materials [Lopa99].
Electron-beam curing is chosen over the traditional use of the autoclave and resin transfer molding
because it minimizes the temperature required to form composites, and it greatly reduces the use of volatile
materials required for curing. The high temperatures required for the autoclave and resin transfer molding
techniques can produce residual thermal stresses in the composite, and require resins that are not as stable at
room temperature as the resin required for the electron-beam curing. Furthermore, electron-beam curing
minimizes cost of handling, storing, and disposing of the materials [Lopa99].
The most valuable benefits of using Electron-beam curing come from the capability to manufacture
large, near shape components. This eliminates the use of expensive tools required to make smaller, precision
composite parts and minimizes the need for mechanical fasteners and adhesive bonds. Since manufacturing
large parts reduces the weight, part count, manufacturing time and manufacturing complexity, it significantly
cuts manufacturing costs. In fact, in the RWSTD program, Sikorsky Aircraft and the U.S. Army Aviation
Applied Technical Directorate proved that electron beam curing leads to a manufacturing cost savings
between 25%-50%. In addition to the cost savings, Sikorsky demonstrated a 60% reduction in tooling costs.
Lastly, composite repairs could be performed quicker and easier than traditional methods if small electron-
beam curing devices would be used onsite with the helicopter needing a repair [Lopa99].
adjustable features, both of which increase part count, weight and manufacturing labor. Using tool-less
assembly can lower costs for manufacturing, weight, and manufacturing time savings associated with
elimination of mechanical fasteners by utilizing detailed part features to locate parts within their assemblies.
This concept was proven effective in the RWSTD program (Sources from: [Burley98] and [Sandy03]).
The airframe skin material are made of fiberglass because of its relatively low density, and low cost
(compared the commonly used Graphite/Epoxy). Furthermore the skin does not require high strain range
therefore it is natural to choose fiberglass with a simple wet lay up process.
31
The GrassChopper’s windows are made of polycarbonate which is optically clear, providing
excellent total luminous transmittance and a very low haze factor. Being tough and lightweight it is ideal for
"see-through" applications where impact resistance is important, and another advantage is that it maintains its
properties over a wide range of temperatures from -40° F to 280°F [KMac06].
8.2.8 – Summary
Most manufacturing methods and materials chosen are based on new, emerging technologies tested
and validated through research and testing. Table 8.3 lists some of these newer technologies and their
benefits, quality enhancements, and appropriateness to be used in industry (on a scale from 1 to 5, 5 being
ready for implication or currently being used).
Z axis [ft]
CG movements can occur due 99 397
engine
to various mission definitions, -4 pilots and chairs
57.3 cargo
44 fuel tank
different pilots, cargo, fuel m ain rotor
-6 tail rotor
quantity, and fuel 105 avionics
Landing Gear
Tail
consumption during flight. In -8
The current cost of a R22 is $210K and the cost of a Schweizer 300C is $215.8K. Based on these
values, there was a 0.00% error for the Schweizer 300C and a 1.30% error for the Robinson R22. These
errors were significantly low and therefore it was determined that this cost model would accurately predict
the cost of the GrassChopper. There was some concern, however, that the cost prediction was “too accurate”.
It was therefore noted that the cost model may have been created from Prouty’s Text or these models.
Piston helicopters are significantly less expensive their Figure 10.1: Composite GrassChopper
Cost Breakdown
turbine equivalents. The most common piston trainer
helicopters were approximately $210K. The hope was to design a helicopter which would not exceed $400K,
which was highly dependant on the type of engine selected. The first few months of the design process took
into account the costs well-known industry engines. The most significant reduction in cost, as seen in Figure
10.3, was the innovative design for the PSU-250. At that point in time the weights were theoretical estimates.
Another drop in cost in February was due to the reduction of MR blades from four to two. As the detailed
design began to develop, most accurate and higher weight estimates were determined and the cost began to
35
increase. The idea for using composite structures became more developed as the cost difference between an
aluminum and composite helicopter became more significant.
An important note in Figure 10.2 is that in April/May there are two data points per date. The higher
value is that of the aluminum model and the lower for the composite model. The final cost for the aluminum
model is $275K and $261K for the composite model.
In comparison to the piston-engine
450
equivalent trainers, the GrassChopper is
400
approximately $50K more expensive, as seen in
350
Cost ($1000)
Figure 10.3. Note, however, the GrassChopper
300
out performs the Robinson R22 in maximum 250
velocity, maximum range, and maximum 200
endurance as discussed in section 7.3 of this 150 PSU250 Used
Cost Comparison
$300.00
$250.00
Cost ($1000)
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00
$-
Robinson R22 Schweizer GrassChopper GrassChopper
300C (composite)
Rotorcraft Model
[Alkh03] Al-Khabbaz, et. al., ”Wake Damper Design Project: Helicopter Tail Boom Vibration Control
Device.” Submitted to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. 18 Dec 2003.
[AMCP74] Army Material Command Pamphlet AMCP 706-201. Engineering Design Handbook.
Helicopter Engineering, Part One: Preliminary Design. Alexandria: 1974.
[Armor06] Armor Holdings: Aerospace & Defense Group. 2006. “Cockpit Air Bag System (CABS).”
20 April 2006 <http://adg.armorholdings.com>.
[Benini03] Benini, E., Toffolo, A., and Lazzaretto, A.. “Centrifugal Compressor of a 100kW
Microturbine: Part 1- Experimental and Numerical Investigations on Overall Performance.”
Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2003, “Power for Land, Sea, and Air,” Atlanta, Georgia,
USA, June 16-19, 2003.
[Bisa02] Bisagni, Chiara, Lanzi, L and Ricci, S. “Size and Topological Optimization for
Crashworthiness Design of Helicopter Subfloor,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Atlanta, Georgia, Sept. 4-6, 2002.
[Burley98] Burley, Graham J., Corbett, J. "Flyaway Tooling for Higher Quality, More Cost-Effective,
Aerostructure." Society of Automotive Engineers, 1998.
[Dona93] Donaldson, Bruce K. Analysis of Aircraft Structures: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1993.
[FAR2706] The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation Regulations. 2006. “Airworthiness
Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft”. Jan-May, 2006 <http://www.airweb.faa.gov>.
[Fede05] Federal Aviation Administration. “Rotorcraft – Normal Category Rotorcraft Design and
Construction.” 7 Jul, 2005. 10 Apr. 2006
<http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air2cert/design2approvals/rotorcraft/norm2cat/norm2 design/>.
[Gayda98] Gayda, John. “High-Temperature Compressor Material Development.” 1998. 5 April 2006
<http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1997/5000/5120gayda.htm>.
[Gessow99] Gessow, Alfred and Myers, Garry C. Jr.. Aerodynamics of the Helicopter. New York:
Ungar, 1999.
[Hill] Hill, Philip and Peterson, Carl. Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion. Ed. 2.
Prentice Hall, 1991.
[Innodyn05] Innodyn Turbine Engines. “Installation and Information Manual.” Ed. 03-05. 10 Nov, 2005.
[Kay02] Kay, Bruce F. "RWSTD Structures Technology Improvements and Validation." AHS Forum
58 Proceedings 2, (2002), pp. 1900-1912.
[KMac06] K-Mac Plastics. “Zelux W Polycarbonate Sheet.” 29 May 2006. 20 May 2006
<http://www.k-mac-plastics.net/zelux-polycarbonate-sheet.htm>.
[Leyes99] Leyes, Richard A, and Fleming, William. The History of North American Small Gas Turbine
Aircraft Engines. U.S. National Air and Space Museum. Washington, D.C.: AIAA, 1999.
[Ligh88] “Light Fixed and Rotary-Wing Aircraft Crash Resistance.” Mil-STD-I290A. Department of
Defense, United States of America. 26 Sept. 1988.
[Lopata99] Lopata, Vince, et. al., Materials World, Vol. 7 No. 7, July 1999, pp. 398-400.
[Miller94] Miller, R. V. and Khinoo, L.A.. “Helicopter In-flight Simulation Development and Use in
Test Pilot Training.” AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference. Scottsdale,
Arizona. August 1-3, 1994.
[Misc05] Misciagna, David T. and Landi, Dennis J. “Integrated Ceramic Composite Firewall.” SAE
International, 05WAC-93, 2005.
[Moore03] Moore, Robert A. "Compliant Composite Part Machinging." AHS Forum 59 Proceedings 1
(2003), pp. 727-735.
[Nort05] Northern States Metals, “The Advantages of Aluminum Extrusions.” October 2005. 14 Apr.
2006 <http://www.extrusions.com/005issue/htmls/ExtrusionAdvantages.htm>.
[Popov98] Popov, Egor. Engineering Mechanics of Solids.Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 1998.
[Prou95] Prouty, Raymond W. Helicopter Performance Stability, and Control. Malabar: Kreiger,
1995.
[Rand02] Rand, O. and Khromov V.. “Helicopter Sizing By Statistics.” Presented at the American
Helicopter Society’s 58th Annual Forum., Montreal, Canada. June 11-13, 2002.
[RAPID00] Rand, O. RAPID User’s Manual. Haifa, Isreal: Israeli Institute of Technology, 2000.
[Sandy03] Sandy, David F. and Rogg, Christian. "Rotary Wing Structures Technology Demonstration
of Tool-Less Assembly." AHS Forum 59 Proceedings 1 (2003), pp. 736-746.
[USAR89] US ARMY Aviation Systems Command, “Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide.” Vols. I-
V. USAAVSCOM TR 98-D-22A-E, 1989.
38
MIL-STD-1374
PSU-TECHNION GRASSCHOPPER
MAY 30 2006 PAGE 2
MIL-STD-1374
PSU-TECHNION GRASSCHOPPER
MAY 30 2006 PAGE 3