Chapter 9. Landing Gear Design

HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
REPORT
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
HELICOPTERS 4 SEATS
ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH
STUDENTS:
1. NGUYEN THANH PHONG G1002398
2. DINH MINH TUNG G1003867
3. PHAM TIEN HOANG G1001131
4. HOANG TIEN DAT G1000610
Ho Chi Minh City, June 19th, 2014

CONTENTS
PART 1: QUALITY FUNTION DEPLOYMENT ................................................... 2
I. FOUR PHASES OF QFD & APPLICATION: .................................................................. 2
1. Four phases of QFD: ........................................................................................ 2
2. Application ........................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Level 1 ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Level 2 & Level 3:....................................................................................... 7
II. EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 8
1. Pugh’s Concept Selection .................................................................................. 8
1.1 Hub .............................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Landing Gear ............................................................................................. 11
1.3 Tail rotor .................................................................................................... 12
2. Evaluation the concepts using AHP method ................................................... 15
2.1 Hub’s Selection ......................................................................................... 15
2.2 Landing Gear’s Selection ......................................................................... 17
2.3 Tail Rotor’s Selection............................................................................... 19
PART 2: AERODYNAMIC ..................................................................................... 22
I. MOMENTUM METHOD..................................................................................... 22
1. Basic of the theory ........................................................................................... 22
2. Induced Velocities ........................................................................................... 22
II. BLADE ELEMENT METHOD .................................................................................. 25
PART 3: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ................................................................ 28
PART 4: REFERENCE ............................................................................................ 42
I. EBOOK REFERENCE ............................................................................................... 42
II. CODE MATLAB..................................................................................................... 42
1. Helicopter Charateristic.................................................................................. 42
2. Hover Perfomance ........................................................................................... 43
3. NACA 0012 ...................................................................................................... 44
4. Vertical Flight ................................................................................................. 45
Report Aircraft Design 2 1
PART 01
QUALITY FUNTION DEPLOYMENT
HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

PART 1: QUALITY FUNTION DEPLOYMENT
I. FOUR PHASES OF QFD & APPLICATION:
1. FOUR PHASES OF QFD:
Phase 1, Product Planning: is also called The House of Quality. Many

organizations only get through this phase of a QFD process. Phase 1 includes customer
requirements, warranty data, competitive opportunities, product measurements,
competing product measures, and the technical ability of the organization to meet each
customer requirement. QFD matrix is used to translate customer requirements into
design requirements. Design requirements are ways in which the design team is able to
satisfy the customer requirements. Gathering good information from the customer in
Phase 1 is critical to the success of the next QFD process.
Phase 2 Part deployement: here you can see, there is a matrix between Design
Req & Part Quality Characteristics. This matrix answers the question, what parts of the
product deliver the quality characteristics our customers want? Critical quality
characteristics are showed into parts and their characteristics.
Part 3, Manufacturing Planning: This matrix answers the question, where in

our manufacturing process can we affect the critical parts characteristics? Critical parts

characteristics are showed into manufacturing steps and parameters. So this is where
the "voice of the customer," translated into critical process steps and
parameters, reaches the factory floor.
Phase IV, Production Planning: This matrix answers the question, what
should the production plans, procedures, and inputs be for the process parameters to
produce the key parts to satisfy the customer? So now the "voice of the customer" has
reached the machine operators, and it determines the settings on the production
machinery.

2. APPLICATION
2.1 Level 1
 Affinity Diagram

In “Customer Requirement”, we can identify “What does the Customer Want

& what does the Customer Needs.” , all of the results is showed by the figure below:
- What happen if our helicopter does not Safe, Reliable, Fast, Affordable
etc….? This is really the requirement of our customer. The more you hear voice of
customer, the more you can gather much more informations.
- My design team showed you 11 basic requirement of customer.
- In “Engineering Characteristics”, we can identify “What can I control that

allows me to meet my customer’s needs?”,
“How can I satisfy the Customer?” ,all of the results is showed by the figure
below:

- For each Customer Requirement, my design team decided to identify 13

components liking a initial for the design.
- You also know “What is the interaction, the relation” between each of
components, identified by correlation matrix.
- The relationship matrix is where my team determines the relationship between

customer needs and the engineering characteristics.

- By using Excel, you will obtain the result of Relative Weight used for
Weighted Decision.
(unit: %)
2.2 Level 2 & Level 3:
- Like what we have done in Level 1, the Level 2 will continue the QFD
process, but the ECs (How’s) in Level 1 replaced by new place of What’s position in
Level 2.
- It’s the same for Level 3.
- The most important after 3 level is to define “What is the prefer direction for
the selection of design” by calculating Relative Weight & apply it for the Weighted
Decision showed after the Pugh Matrix.
- You will obtain my detail information about Level 2 & Level 3 in my Excel
file named “QFD process H2.xlsx”

II. EVALUATION
1. PUGH’S CONCEPT SELECTION
1.1 Hub
- There are 4 types of helicopter rotor hubs.
 Teetering Hub:
- A teetering rotor has two blades that are hinged at the rotational axis.
- When one blade flaps up, the other flaps down.
- The teetering design has the advantage of being mechanically simple with a
low parts count & it is easy to maintain. One disadvantage of the design is that it can
have a relatively high parasitic drag in forward flight, in part because of the stabilizer
bar.
 Articulated Hub:
- In a fully articulated rotor system, each rotor blade is attached to the rotor hub
through a series of hinges, which allow the blade to move independently of the others.

- The advantage of articulated hub is low vibration, stability, easy to control,

low sensitivity to trim angle, it also doesn’t effected by cross- wind. The disadvantage
is subject to ground resonance, heavy weight, high cost for maintenance.
 Bearingless Hub:
- Bearingless hub designs are a relatively new innovation. In addition to

eliminating the mechanical flap & lead- lag hinges, the bearingless hub also eliminates
the feathering bearing. All three degrees of motion are obtained by bending, flexing &
twisting of the hub structure. Bearingless hubs can be particularly susceptible to
aeromechanical instabilities as a result of low in- plane damping of the lead- lag blade
motion.

- Now, I will show you the result of Pugh Matrix:
Pugh Matrix of Hub

Teetering Hub Articulated Hub Bearingless Hub
Tip speed - Datum +
Disk Loading - Datum +
atCost + Datum -
Weight + Datum -
Noise Level - Datum =
Total of "+ " 2 2
Total of "- " 3 2
Total of "=" 0 1
My group choose Articulated Hub as a Datum, next step, we compare it with

the 2 others:
 Beacause Bearingless Hub is modern than Teetering & Articulated, with more
powerful, so we can consider that the Tip speed & Disk Loading is better than
Datum. With traditional design, Teetering Hub, vice versa.
 But the Cost for design, manufacture etc…. of Bearingless is more expensive
than Datum, because it is complex. The cost of Teetering is cheaper than Datum,
because it is simple.
 Teetering Hub with a few parts & components is lighter than Datum, and it’s
also for Bearingless.
 The noise level depend on vibration, the more technology develop advanced, the
less vibration on hub design, because it’s balanced by special mechanism.
After the result of total + , - , =, we see that Bearingless Hub is not really better
than Articulated Hub in some cases.
 Articulated Hub is the best choice for my group.

1.2 Landing Gear
- Follow Hiller, there are 3 mainly types of Skid landing gear:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3

- Now, I will show you the result of Pugh Matrix:
Pugh Matrix of Landing Gear

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Weight Datum - -
Cost Datum = +
Stability Datum = -
Material & Structure Datum - -
Operating in multi
condition Datum = -
Total of "+ " 0 1
Total of "- " 2 4
Total of "=" 3 0
- My group choose Type 1 as a Datum, next step, we compare it with the 2 others:
Follow Hiller book named “Preliminary of a Light Observation Helicopter”
p.B- 7, we can easily define that the Weight of Type 1 is better than the 2 others. The
Cost of Datum is similar with Type 2 & more expensive than Type 3.
Because the contact surface on the ground is the same with Type 2, the stability
& operating in multi condition is same, too, so we check =. But when one helicopter
landing in a smooth aera, it may be glide with typ3, so we check - .
After the result of total + , - , =, we see that
 Type 1 is the best choice.
1.3 Tail rotor

Normal tail rotor:

- The tail rotor is a smaller rotor mounted so that it rotates vertically or near-
vertically at the end of the tail of a traditional single- rotor helicopter. Tail rotors are
simpler than main rotors since they require only collective changes in pitch to vary
thrust. The pitch of the tail rotor blades is adjustable by the pilot via the anti- torque
pedals, which also provide directional control by allowing the pilot to rotate the
helicopter around its vertical axis.
Fenestron:
- A Fenestron (or fantail, sometimes called "fan- in- fin") is a protected tail
rotor of a helicopter operating like aducted fan. Placing the fan within a duct reduces
tip vortex losses, shields the tail rotor from damage, is much quieter than a conventional
tail rotor, and shields ground crews from the hazard of a spinning rotor.
- Advantages:
+ Increased safety for people on the ground, the enclosure provides peripheral
protection;
+ Greatly reduced noise and vibration, due to the enclosure of the blade tips
and the greater number of blades;
+ A lower susceptibility to foreign object damage, as the enclosure makes it

less likely to suck in loose objects such as small rocks;
+ Enhanced anti- torque control efficiency.
- Disadvantages:
+ An increase in weight and air resistance brought by the enclosure;
+ Higher construction and purchasing cost.

Notar:
- Notar is the name of a helicopter anti- torque system which replaces the use
of a tail rotor. Developed by McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems (through their
acquisition of Hughes Helicopters), the name is an acronym derived from the phrase no
tail rotor.
- The boundary layer changes the direction of airflow around the tailboom,
creating thrust opposite the motion imparted to the fuselage by the torque effect of the
main rotor.
Pugh Matrix of Tail rotor

Normal tail rotor Fenestrons Notar
Weight Datum - -
Cost Datum - -
Noise Datum + +
Stability Datum + +
Polutant Datum = -
Total of "+ " 2 2
Total of "- " 2 3
Total of "=" 1 0
- My group choose Normal tail rotor as a Datum, next step, we compare it with the 2
others:
+ The weight of Datum is lighter, so we check “- “ for the 2 others.
+ The cost of Datum is cheaper, because we don’t have to pay much money for
design, manufacture etc….
+ But like the Hub design, Datum will have more vibration than the 2 others,
so it is less stability & it will make noise.

- After the result of total + , - , =, we see that
Normal tail rotor is the best choice.
2. EVALUATION THE CONCEPTS USING AHP METHOD

2.1 Hub’s Selection
Square matrix to determine weighting factors
Cruise Speed Payload Cost factor Noise Stability

Cruise Speed 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.50
Payload 4.00 1.00 0.50 0.33 1.00
Cost factor 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.25 0.20
Noise 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 4.00
Stability 2.00 1.00 5.00 0.25 1.00
Total 10.00 7.25 11.00 2.83 6.70
Nomalized value of square matrix, giving weighting factors
Cruise Cost
Payload Noise Stability Total WF
Speed factor
Cruise
0,1 0,0345 0,0455 0,3529 0,0746 0,6075 0,1215
Speed
Payload 0,4 0,1379 0,0455 0,1176 0,1493 0,8503 0,1701
Cost
0,2 0,2759 0,0909 0,0882 0,0299 0,6849 0,1370
factor
Noise 0,1 0,4138 0,3636 0,3529 0,5970 1,8274 0,3655
Stability 0,2 0,1379 0,4545 0,0882 0,1493 1,0300 0,2060
Total 1 1 1 1 1 5 1

Decision matrix for HUB’s selection
Teetering Articulated
Design Criterion WF Bearingless Hub
Hub Hub
Cruise Speed 0,1215 0,3333 0,2857 0,3810
Payload 0,1701 0,3810 0,3810 0,2381
Cost factor 0,1370 0,4000 0,3500 0,2500
Noise 0,3655 0,4211 0,3158 0,2632
Stability 0,2060 0,3684 0,4211 0,2105
Total 1,0000 1,9038 1,7535 1,3427
Non dimensional

0,0405 0,0347 0,0463
0,0648 0,0648 0,0405
0,0548 0,0479 0,0342
0,1539 0,1154 0,0962
0,0759 0,0867 0,0434
TOTAL 0,3898 0,4096 0,2606
 The choosen design is Articulated Hub because the total value of this design is
the largest value (0.4096).
Explanation for decision matrix:

Cruise Speed 190.722 ft/s 160.4 ft/s 413.513 ft/s
Score 7 6 8
Fraction of Total 0,3333 0,2857 0,3810

Payload 700-1000 lb 700-1000 lb 700-1000 lb
Score 8 8 5

Cost factor Cheaper Cheap Expensive
Score 8 7 5


Noise Less than 40 db Less than 72 db Less than 120db
Score 8 6 5

Stability Good Very Good Satisfactory
Score 7 8 4
2.2 Landing Gear’s Selection
Operating in Material &

Cost factor Stability
multi-conditions Structure
Cost factor 1,0000 0,2000 0,1667 0,2500
Stability 5,0000 1,0000 0,2000 4,0000
Operating in multi-
6,0000 5,0000 1,0000 3,0000
conditions
Material & Structure 4,0000 0,2500 0,3333 1,0000
Total 16,0000 6,4500 1,7000 8,2500
Operating
Cost Material &
Stability in multi- Total WF
factor Structure
conditions
Cost factor 0,0625 0,0310 0,0980 0,0303 0,2218 0,0555
Stability 0,3125 0,1550 0,1176 0,4848 1,0700 0,2675
Operating
in multi- 0,3750 0,7752 0,5882 0,3636 2,1021 0,5255
conditions
Material &
0,2500 0,0388 0,1961 0,1212 0,6061 0,1515
Structure
Total 1 1 1 1 4 1

Decision matrix for LANDING GEAR’s selection
WF Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Cost factor 0,0555 0,3000 0,3000 0,4000
Stability 0,2675 0,3810 0,3810 0,2381
Operating in multi-conditions 0,5255 0,3810 0,3333 0,2857
Material & Structure 0,1515 0,3636 0,3182 0,3182
TOTAL 1,0000 1,4255 1,3325 1,2420
Non dimensional

0,0166 0,0166 0,0222
0,1019 0,1019 0,0637
0,2002 0,1752 0,1501
0,0551 0,0482 0,0482
TOTAL 0,3738 0,3419 0,2842
 The choosen design is Type 1 because the total value of this design is the largest
value (0.3738).

Cost factor 0,4 0,4 0,2
Score 6 6 8
Fractional Total 0,3 0,3 0,4

Stability Very Good Very Good Satisfactory
Score 8 8 5

Operating in multi-
Very Good Good Satisfactory
conditions
Score 8 7 6


Material & Structure Very Good Good Good
Score 8 7 7
2.3 Tail Rotor’s Selection
Operation cost Stability Low Noise Low Pollutant

Operation cost 1,00 0,20 0,33 0,25
Stability 5,00 1,00 0,25 1,00
Noise 3,00 4,00 1,00 0,50
Pollutant 4,00 1,00 2,00 1,00
Total 13,00 6,20 3,58 2,75
Operation Low Low

Stability Total WF
cost Noise Pollutant
Operation
0,0769 0,0323 0,0930 0,0909 0,2931 0,0733
cost
Stability 0,3846 0,1613 0,0698 0,3636 0,9793 0,2448
Noise 0,2308 0,6452 0,2791 0,1818 1,3368 0,3342
Pollutant 0,3077 0,1613 0,5581 0,3636 1,3908 0,3477
Total 1 1 1 1 4 1
Decision matrix for TAIL ROTOR’S selection
WF Normal tail rotor Fenestrons Notar

Operation cost 0,0733 0,4000 0,3500 0,2500
Stability 0,2448 0,2857 0,3333 0,3810
Noise 0,3342 0,2632 0,3158 0,4211
Pollutant 0,3477 0,3810 0,3810 0,2381
Total 1,0000 1,3298 1,3801 1,2901

Non dimensional

0,0293 0,0256 0,0183
0,0700 0,0816 0,0933
0,0879 0,1055 0,1407
0,1325 0,1325 0,0828
TOTAL 0,3547 0,3452 0,3351
 The choosen design is Normal tail rotor because the total value of this design is
the largest value (0.3547).

Operation cost Cheaper Cheap Expensive
Score 8 7 5

Stability Satisfactory Good Very Good
Score 6 7 8

Noise
Score 5 6 8

Pollutant
Score 8 8 5

PART 2
AERODYNAMIC HOVER FLIGHT

PART 2: AERODYNAMIC
I. MOMENTUM METHOD
1. BASIC OF THE THEORY
The hovering helicopter must obey the basic laws of the physics. One of these
laws was stated by Newton:
Force = (Mass)(acceleration)
2. INDUCED VELOCITIES
In that figure, the three regions of interest have been numbered 0 for the region
high above the rotor, 1 for the plane of the rotor, and 2 for the region far below the
rotor in the fully developed rotor wake.The mass flow per second in the plane of the
rotor is:
m1  v1 Aslugs
  0.00237  20.5061  2185  106.1898s 1
sec sec
Where:
ρ is the density of the air in slugs/𝑓𝑡 3
𝑣1 is the induced velocity
A is the area of the rotor disc

T   1 A 2  0.0763  20.5061  41.0122  2185  140233.5 lb

The energy per second dissipated by the rotor, 𝐸𝑟 /𝑠𝑒𝑐, is:
Er / sec  Force  Velocity
Er / sec  Tv1 ft lb / sec  140233.5  20.5061  2875641 s 1
Er / sec   v12 Av2 ftlb / sec
The energy per second imparted to the wake
1 1
Ew / sec   v1 Av22 ft lb / sec   0.0763  20.5061 2185  41.01222  2875641
2 2
Now equating the two rates of the energy gives:
1
 v12 Av2   v1 Av22
2
v2  2v1
The equation for the induced velocity may be written:
1
v1  DL
2
v1  14.5 DL ft / sec  14.5 2  20.5061
v2  29 DL ft / sec  29 2  41.0122
The induced velocity in the wake of the hovering helicopter can produce
operational problems if the hoverning is done close to dust, sand, snow,or other loose
surfaces.
The dynamic pressure in the remote wake, 𝑞2
1
q2   v22
2
Dv   0.3 DL  ( Projected area of all affected components )
It is often convinient to express the vertical drag as a fraction of the gross weight:
Dv 0.3 Projected area 

  0.3    0.3  0.065  0.0195
GW
. Disc area
The rotor thrust required to support a hovering helicopter and its vertical drag is:
Dv
T  (1  ) GW  1  0.0195   4450  4536.775 lb
GW

Since 550 ft lb/sec is the equivalent of one horsepower, the ideal power is:
Tvi 140233.5  20.5061

HPi    5228.438
550 550
At sea level, the ideal power is:
T DL 140233.5  2
HPi    5218.949
38 38
 Figure of Merit that can be experted in pratice is 0.75 to 0.8, so we can choose
FM=0.8
First approximation to the power required to hover
The actual power is the induced power divided by the Figure of Merit:
D.L 2
T 140233.5 
HPi 2 2  0.0763  1153.711
HPact   
FM 550 FM 550  0.8
At sea level, this becomes:
T D.L 140233.5  2
HPact    6523.686
38  F .M  38  0.8
The power loading in pounds per horsepower:
T 38FM 38  0.8
   21.4961
HPact DL 2

II. BLADE ELEMENT METHOD
The lift on a Blade Element
The geometry of a blade element is shown in Figure 1.5
𝜎 ′ = 0.065 (Aircraft design 1)
We have
bc  R 0.065  3.14  26.4

  c   1.3477 ft
R b 4
b: Number of blades

The velocity is zero at the center of rotation and increases linearly to the tip. To
express this velocity, it is convnient to use the rotational speed in terms of radians per
second, Ω.
The local velocity at the blade element, 𝑉𝑙 , is:
26.4
Vl  r ft / sec  24.6212   32.5
2
At the trip, the tip speed, 𝑉𝑡 , is:
VT 650
VT  R ft / sec  650 ft / sec      24.6212 (rpm)
R 26.4
Note that
2 R
R   rpm    Rotor circumference  rps 
60
The local dynamic pressure, q, at the blade element is:
1 1
q    r    0.0763  3252  4030.333 (lb/ft 2 )
2
2 2

PART 3
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

PART 3: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Hover Performance Calculation is a procedure that find out how much the rotor
can lift and how many power required to drive the rotor in hover condition.
The procedure consist of several step below:
1. In put rotor characteristic:
+ Number of blade (b): 4
+ Rotor Radius (R): 20 ft
+ Rotor chord (c): 1.2 ft
+ Collective pitch: 10-30 degrees
+ Blade twist: linear twist -10 degrees
+ Cut-out: 15%
+ Height: S.L.
+ Temperature: 15 degree Celsius
2. Using the blade element theory to solve the problem, they divide blade into
small parts. Recommended to be divied into 10 to 15 parts. In ours case, we have 15
elements.
3. At each element boudary we calculate nondimensional blade station r/R

nondimensional chord, c/R, local Mach number, M= (r/R)[(tipspeed)/Vsound]; slope
of lift curve, a=f(M), per radian, from airfoil data such as Figure 1.10; local twist.
4. With a pre-chosen collective pitch, the actual pitch at these boudary is:
   o     Lo

5. Calculate local inflow angles:
6. Angle of attack:
7. Find the lift and drag at each element with the combination of angle of attack
and local Mach number. Base on the NACA0012 charateristic, we can get lift and drag
coefficient:
+ Lift curve:
+ Lift coefficient below stall:
+ Lift coefficient above stall:

+ stall angle:

Those K1, K2 is the coefficient taken from experiments and at the result, we
have
If Mach numble > 0.0725 then:
Drag coefficient:
+ Compressible limit
Drag without compressible effect:
From test data we have
When angle of attack greater than the compressible limit angle, drag coefficient
become:

In operation, the angle of attack can varies to 360 degree, so they estimate the
lift - drag charateristics for all over 360 degrees angle of attack.
Lift coefficient over 360 degrees angle of attack.
Drag coefficient over 360 degrees angle of attack.
8. Compute running thrust loading:

9. Intergrate thrust loading from cut-out position to the tip of the blade, we have
thrust coeffiction without tip-loss:
+ Tip loss factor :
+ Actual thrust coefficient:
10. Compute running profile torque loading:
11. From that we can get the induced torque coefficient:
12. Compute : due to the rotation of the wake using Figure 1.29:

13. Diskloading:
14. Calculate:
15. Obtain empirical correction factor:

16. Calculate total torque coefficient:
17. Calculate the rotor thrust and power:

Using MATLAB to follow the previous procedure we have the Helicopter

Performance in Hover

With several different Main Rotor Radius, we can see the ability of rotor in
hover performance
With solidity = 0.085, Twist angle = -10 degre, collective pitch vary from 10 –
30 degrees we have:
R=10 ft
The maximum thust that the rotor can create is about 4500lb

R=15 ft
R=20 ft
Althoght we have already figure out the main rotor radius of our helicopter
about 22ft at very low disk loading (about 2.5 lb/ft2). The helicopter gross weight GW
=4000lb , It seem quite in excesss and limit the collective pitch of the blade. So we

modify it to be about 12.5 ft where the maximum thrust can create is about 7000lb
seem more reliable.
So, the Horsepower the main rotor required to lift the Helicopter 4000lb at sea
level is about 450hp

Vertical performance
Induce velocity:
To find the induce velocity of the rotor we calculate the local velocity at each
element and intergrate to get the averate induce velocity
Since we have the differenes power in hover and vertical flight:
Where hover induce velocity is:
Induce velocity in climb:
So we get the vertical performance of the helicopter

So if we wish the Helicopter have the maximum vertical rate of climb about
3000 lf/min, then the power increment required about 270hp.

PART 4
REFERENCE

PART 4: REFERENCE
I. EBOOK REFERENCE
[1] Prouty Raymon - Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control - 2002
[2] Leishman J.G, Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, (Cambridge Aerospace
Series), 2006
[3] Bill, R.C, Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission Program, NASA-TM-103276,
Washington D.C, 1990
[4] Hiller Aircraft Company, Preliminary Design of a Light Observation Helicopter.
[5] www.wikipedia.com-Key word: Teetering, Bearingless, Articulated Hub,
Fenestron, Notar.
[6] George F.Dieter, Engineering Design, 4th edition
II. CODE MATLAB
1. HELICOPTER CHARATERISTIC
%%% Helicopter Charateritics
temperature = 15; % Celcius

height = 000 ; % ft
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Main Rotor Charateristic %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
main.b=4 ; % number of blade
main.R= 20 ; % Rotor radius in ft
main.c=1.2 ; % Chord in ft
main.cutout = 15/100 ;
main.twist=-10 ; % from root of blade in degree
main.tipspeed = 650 ; % ft/sec
main.collectivepitch = 17.5 ; % degree
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Tail Rotor Charateristic %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
tail.b=3 ; % number of blade
tail.R= 6.5 ; % Rotor radius in ft
tail.c=1 ; % Chord in ft
tail.cutout = 15/100 ;
tail.twist=-5 ; % from root of blade in degree
tail.tipspeed = 650 ; % ft/sec
tail.collectivepitch = 12.5 ; % degree
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
lT=37; % Tail rotor moment armn in ft

GW=20000; % Gross Weight
rho = 68.18 *exp(-((height- -7.646e+04)/7.436e+04)^2)*10^-4; % slug/ft3 ref:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
collectivepitch = 10:5:30
for i=1:length(collectivepitch)

[mainCtsigma(i),mainCQsigma(i),mainthrust(i),mainhp(i)]=HoverPerfomance(main.b,m
ain.R,main.c,main.cutout,main.collectivepitch,main.twist,main.tipspeed,temperatu
re,rho);
[tailCt(i),tailCQ(i),tail.thrust(i),tailhp(i)]=HoverPerfomance(tail.b,tail.R,tai
l.c,tail.cutout,tail.collectivepitch,tail.twist,tail.tipspeed,temperature,rho);
end
%VC=0:100:4000;
%for i = 1: length(VC)
%[deltahp(i)]=VerticalFlight(VC(i),GW,main.thrust,main.b,main.R,main.c,main.cuto
ut,main.tipspeed,main.collectivepitch,main.twist,tail.thrust,lT,rho,temperature)
%end
%plot(VC,deltahp)
2. HOVER PERFOMANCE
%%%%%%%% Hovering Perfomance %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
clear all;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Rotor Charateristic %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
b=4 ; % number of blade
R= 30 ; % Rotor radius in ft
c=2.001 ; % Chord in ft
cutout = 15/100 ;
twist=-8.5 ; % degree
tipspeed = 650 ; % ft/sec
collectivepitch = 16 ; % degree
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
temperature = 15; % Celcius
height = 0 ;% ft
rho = 68.18 *exp(-((height- -7.646e+04)/7.436e+04)^2)*10^-4; % slug/ft3 ref:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
Vsound = (331.3+0.606*temperature)*3.28084; % ft/sec
% Divide blade into (n-1) section
n=15;
for i=1:n
rR(i)= cutout + (1-cutout)/(n-1)*(i-1);
cR(i)=c/R;
localMach(i)=rR(i)*tipspeed/Vsound;
pitch(i) = collectivepitch + twist*((rR(i)-cutout)/(1-cutout));
a(i) = .1/sqrt(1-localMach(i)^2)-.01*localMach(i);
vOmegar(i)=a(i)/pi*180*b*cR(i)/(16*pi*rR(i))*(-
1+sqrt(1+(32*pi*(pitch(i)*pi/180)*rR(i))/(a(i)/pi*180*b*cR(i))));
alpha(i)=pitch(i)-atan(vOmegar(i))*180/pi;
[cl(i),cd(i)]=NACA0012(localMach(i),alpha(i));
dCtdrR(i)=b*rR(i)^2*cR(i)*cl(i)/2/pi;
dCQ0drR(i)=(b*rR(i)^3*cR(i)*cd(i))/2/pi;
dCQidrR(i)=b*rR(i)^3*cR(i)*cl(i)*vOmegar(i)/2/pi;
end
Ctnotiploss=trapz(rR,dCtdrR);
CQ0=trapz(rR,dCQ0drR);
CQi=trapz(rR,dCQidrR);
%calculate tiploss
if Ctnotiploss<0.006
B=1-0.06/b;
else
B=1-sqrt(2.27*Ctnotiploss-0.01)/b;
end
cRB=c/R;
localMachB=B*tipspeed/Vsound;

pitchB = collectivepitch + twist*(1-((B-cutout)/(1-cutout)));

aB = .1/sqrt(1-localMachB^2)-.01*localMachB;;
vOmegarB=aB/pi*180*b*cRB/(16*pi*B)*(-
1+sqrt(1+(32*pi*(pitchB*pi/180)*B)/aB/pi*180*b*cRB));
alphaB=pitchB+atan(vOmegarB)*180/pi;
[clB,cdB]=NACA0012(localMachB,alphaB);
dCtdB=b*B^2*cRB*clB/2/pi;
Ct=Ctnotiploss-trapz([B,1],[dCtdB,dCtdrR(n)])
deltaCQi=-8.315*Ct^2+2.591*Ct+0.001048; %%ref Figure 1.29 Prouty Raymon

diskloading=Ct*rho*tipspeed^2;
Ctsigma=Ct*pi*R/b/c;
dlcs=diskloading*Ctsigma;
% Empirical correction factor
ECF = 0.07285*dlcs^3 -0.2419*dlcs^2 + 0.2981*dlcs + 0.9432 ;%% Figure 1.34
CQ=(CQ0+CQi+deltaCQi)*ECF
thrust = rho*pi*R^2*tipspeed^2*Ct
hp=rho*pi*R^2*tipspeed^3*CQ/550
plot(rR,pitch,rR,10*cl,rR,alpha,rR,100*cd,rR,a*180/pi,rR,10*localMach,rR,atan(vO
megar)*180/pi,rR,10000*dCQ0drR,rR,1000*dCtdrR,rR,10000*dCQidrR)
3. NACA 0012
function[cl,cd]=NACA0012(Mach, alpha)
slope = .1/sqrt(1-Mach^2)-.01*Mach ;% per degree

cd=1.03-1.02*cos(2*alpha/180*pi);
if alpha <20
cl = slope*alpha - (0.0233+0.342*Mach^7.15)*(alpha-15+16*Mach)^(2.05-
0.95*Mach);
cd=0.0081+(-350*alpha+396*alpha^2-63.3*alpha^3+3.66*alpha^4)*10^-6 +
0.00066*(alpha-17+23.4*Mach)^2.54;
if alpha <15-16*Mach
cl=slope*alpha;
end
elseif 20<=alpha && alpha< 161 ||199<=alpha&& alpha<340

cl = 1.15*sin(2*alpha/180*pi);
elseif 161<=alpha&& alpha<173

cl = -0.7;

cl=0.1*(alpha-180);

cl=0.7;
elseif alpha<=360 && alpha>=340

alpha =360- alpha;
if alpha <15-16*Mach
cl=-slope*alpha;
else
cl =-( slope*alpha - (0.0233+0.342*Mach^7.15)*(alpha-15+16*Mach)^(2.05-
0.95*Mach));
end
end;

if alpha<17-23.4*Mach
cd=0.0081+(-350*alpha+396*alpha^2-63.3*alpha^3+3.66*alpha^4)*10^-6;
end
4. VERTICAL FLIGHT
%%%%%%%% Vertical Flight Perfomance %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
function[deltahp]=VerticalFlight(VC,GW,thrust,b,R,c,cutout,tipspeed,collectivepi
tch,twist,thrusttail,lT,rho,temperature)
%GW = 20000
DVGWhov=0.025
deltaAZCD=0.5
%lT= 20
VCa=VC/60
%rho=0.0024
%R=main.R
%=main.c
%cutout=main.cutout
%tipspeed=main.tipspeed
%b=main.b
%collectivepitch=main.collectivepitch
%twist = main.twist
Vsound = (331.3+0.606*temperature)*3.28084; % ft/sec

vihover =sqrt(thrust/2/rho/(pi*R^2))
vihovertail =sqrt(thrusttail/2/rho/(pi*R^2))
viC = -VCa/2+sqrt((VCa/2)^2+vihover^2) %VCa is climb verlocity in ft/sec
% Divide blade (from cutout to tip) into (n-1) section
n=15;
for i=1:n
rR(i)=cutout + (1-cutout)/(n-1)*(i-1);
cR(i)=c/R;
localMach(i)=rR(i)*tipspeed/Vsound;
pitch(i) = collectivepitch + twist*cutout+twist*(1-cutout)*((rR(i)-
cutout)/(1-cutout));
a(i) = .1/sqrt(1-localMach(i)^2)-.01*localMach(i);
vilocal(i)=(-
(tipspeed/R/2*a(i)*cR(i)*b+4*pi*VCa)+sqrt((tipspeed/R/2*a(i)*cR(i)*b+4*pi*VCa)^2
+8*pi*b*(tipspeed/R)^2*a(i)*cR(i)*(rR(i)*R)*(pitch(i)-
VCa/(tipspeed*rR(i)))))/8/pi
vidrR(i)=vilocal(i)*pi*rR(i)*2*R;
end;
vi=trapz(rR*R,vidrR)/(R^2*pi-(cutout*R)^2*pi);
deltahp=1/550*((GW*(viC+VCa)+4*DVGWhov*rho/2*(viC+VCa)^3*R^2*pi+deltaAZCD*rho/2*
VCa^3)-
(GW*vihover+4*DVGWhov*rho/2*vihover^3*R^2*pi))*(1+vihovertail*R/tipspeed/lT)

Chapter 9. Landing Gear Design

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter 9. Landing Gear Design

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

Ho Chi Minh City, June 19th, 2014

QUALITY FUNTION DEPLOYMENT

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

PART 1: QUALITY FUNTION DEPLOYMENT

I. FOUR PHASES OF QFD & APPLICATION:

1. FOUR PHASES OF QFD:

Phase 1, Product Planning: is also called The House of Quality. Many

Part 3, Manufacturing Planning: This matrix answers the question, where in

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

In “Customer Requirement”, we can identify “What does the Customer Want

- My design team showed you 11 basic requirement of customer.

- In “Engineering Characteristics”, we can identify “What can I control that

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

- For each Customer Requirement, my design team decided to identify 13

- The relationship matrix is where my team determines the relationship between

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

- It’s the same for Level 3.

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

1. PUGH’S CONCEPT SELECTION

- There are 4 types of helicopter rotor hubs.

- When one blade flaps up, the other flaps down.

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

- The advantage of articulated hub is low vibration, stability, easy to control,

- Bearingless hub designs are a relatively new innovation. In addition to

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

- Now, I will show you the result of Pugh Matrix:

Pugh Matrix of Hub

My group choose Articulated Hub as a Datum, next step, we compare it with

 Articulated Hub is the best choice for my group.

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

1.2 Landing Gear

- Follow Hiller, there are 3 mainly types of Skid landing gear:

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

- Now, I will show you the result of Pugh Matrix:

Pugh Matrix of Landing Gear

After the result of total + , - , =, we see that

 Type 1 is the best choice.

1.3 Tail rotor

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

+ A lower susceptibility to foreign object damage, as the enclosure makes it

+ Enhanced anti- torque control efficiency.

+ Higher construction and purchasing cost.

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

Pugh Matrix of Tail rotor

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

- After the result of total + , - , =, we see that

Normal tail rotor is the best choice.

2. EVALUATION THE CONCEPTS USING AHP METHOD

Square matrix to determine weighting factors

Cruise Speed Payload Cost factor Noise Stability

Nomalized value of square matrix, giving weighting factors

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

Decision matrix for HUB’s selection

Teetering Hub Articulated Hub Bearingless Hub

Explanation for decision matrix:

Teetering Hub Articulated Hub Bearingless Hub

Teetering Hub Articulated Hub Bearingless Hub

Teetering Hub Articulated Hub Bearingless Hub

HELICOPTER 4 SEATS – GT10HK ADVISOR: PHD VU NGOC ANH

Teetering Hub Articulated Hub Bearingless Hub