Gyroscopic precession engineering question
I thought very carefully about whether to add to this post, but on balance I think there's an important point to be made.
What I think good teachers are trying to do is to give you enough information to do the job, and although it may not be the whole truth, they make sure that nothing they offer is wrong. That way anyone coming in later isn't trying to correct mistakes, they're trying to extend and enrich what you know already. If you teach that rotors are 'like' gyros, you're picking on a single common feature that can't support any extension, and is easily proved to be wrong from the example of the helicopter on the ship.
Robbiee, you've already said that your interest is purely flying, and that these aerodynamic curiosities are just hurdles you have to cross to get to do that. I'd say that's completely fine and I wish you luck and success in your flying career. If you ever have to teach though, I think there's a responsibility to dig a little deeper, and acknowledge the simplifications you might choose to make, and to make those simplifications act as foundations not detours.
What I think good teachers are trying to do is to give you enough information to do the job, and although it may not be the whole truth, they make sure that nothing they offer is wrong. That way anyone coming in later isn't trying to correct mistakes, they're trying to extend and enrich what you know already. If you teach that rotors are 'like' gyros, you're picking on a single common feature that can't support any extension, and is easily proved to be wrong from the example of the helicopter on the ship.
Robbiee, you've already said that your interest is purely flying, and that these aerodynamic curiosities are just hurdles you have to cross to get to do that. I'd say that's completely fine and I wish you luck and success in your flying career. If you ever have to teach though, I think there's a responsibility to dig a little deeper, and acknowledge the simplifications you might choose to make, and to make those simplifications act as foundations not detours.
Like it or not, its an apt simile that does absolutely nothing (just like whatever the "real" reason is) for a pilot than to help him pass a few tests.
If I were a teacher, I'd teach my students what they need to know to pass the tests. Flight training is unbelievably expensive, and there's no need to make it more expensive by wasting the students time (money) on "Cliff Clavinesque" information!
If pilots want to know more than what the FAA wants them to know, well,...that's what the library (Google) is for,...plus its free!
A helicopter is LIKE a hummingbird, it can hover
A helicopter is LIKE an aeroplane, it can fly forwards
A helicopter is LIKE a person on rollerskates on an ice rink, it is somewhat unstable
A helicopter is LIKE an egg with a straw stuck up its fundamental orifice
A helicopter is LIKE a lot of things, but it ain't a gyroscope. Some aspects are LIKE a gyro.
It gives the lowest common denominator (a student) a concept to work with. In the same manner, "Ground Effect is LIKE a cushion of air". The increase of RRPM as the blades cone upward is LIKE a skater spinning round and pulling their arms in. Teaching some students is LIKE practising bleeding.
A helicopter is LIKE an aeroplane, it can fly forwards
A helicopter is LIKE a person on rollerskates on an ice rink, it is somewhat unstable
A helicopter is LIKE an egg with a straw stuck up its fundamental orifice
A helicopter is LIKE a lot of things, but it ain't a gyroscope. Some aspects are LIKE a gyro.
It gives the lowest common denominator (a student) a concept to work with. In the same manner, "Ground Effect is LIKE a cushion of air". The increase of RRPM as the blades cone upward is LIKE a skater spinning round and pulling their arms in. Teaching some students is LIKE practising bleeding.
The following users liked this post:
If I were a teacher, I'd teach my students what they need to know to pass the tests. Flight training is unbelievably expensive, and there's no need to make it more expensive by wasting the students time (money) on "Cliff Clavinesque" information!
A helicopter is LIKE a hummingbird, it can hover
A helicopter is LIKE an aeroplane, it can fly forwards
A helicopter is LIKE a person on rollerskates on an ice rink, it is somewhat unstable
A helicopter is LIKE an egg with a straw stuck up its fundamental orifice
A helicopter is LIKE a lot of things, but it ain't a gyroscope. Some aspects are LIKE a gyro.
It gives the lowest common denominator (a student) a concept to work with. In the same manner, "Ground Effect is LIKE a cushion of air". The increase of RRPM as the blades cone upward is LIKE a skater spinning round and pulling their arms in. Teaching some students is LIKE practising bleeding.
A helicopter is LIKE an aeroplane, it can fly forwards
A helicopter is LIKE a person on rollerskates on an ice rink, it is somewhat unstable
A helicopter is LIKE an egg with a straw stuck up its fundamental orifice
A helicopter is LIKE a lot of things, but it ain't a gyroscope. Some aspects are LIKE a gyro.
It gives the lowest common denominator (a student) a concept to work with. In the same manner, "Ground Effect is LIKE a cushion of air". The increase of RRPM as the blades cone upward is LIKE a skater spinning round and pulling their arms in. Teaching some students is LIKE practising bleeding.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
depends where you set your personal standards - knowing the wrong thing is worse than knowing nothing at all.
Whatta ya gonna do?
Is The Rotor A Gyro? - Ray W. Prouty 1926 - 2014
You might remember your first experience with a toy gyroscope and the amazing things it did in apparent disregard for the obvious laws of nature.
It displayed remarkable stability. If it was set spinning horizontally, it wanted to stay horizontal no matter how you moved the support, but if you were determined to move the axis by brute force, the gyro moved in a strange way—at right angles to the applied moment. Even if you were later exposed to the gyroscopic equations and acquired a confidence in your ability to manipulate them, you were probably still vaguely disturbed by this device's strange behavior (I know I was).
A rotor in a vacuum.
The disc of a spinning helicopter rotor certainly looks much like a toy gyroscope. So does it act like one? Yes and no. The reason for the "no" is the existence of very large aerodynamic forces on the rotor blades. As a matter of fact, if you remove the aerodynamics by running a rotor in a vacuum, it will demonstrate gyroscopic stability.
A rotor with blades hinged at the center of rotation (such as a teetering rotor) for example, in a vacuum, there are no aerodynamic forces, only centrifugal forces acting in the plane of rotation, and these can produce no moments about the flapping hinges. If the shaft is tilted, no changes in moments will be produced and the rotor disc will remain in its original position as if it were a gyroscope. (Of course, if the rotor had had offset flapping hinges, the centrifugal forces would have produced moments that would have aligned the blades perpendicular to the shaft.
A rotor in air.
In air, the aerodynamic forces will cause any rotor to align itself perpendicular to the shaft.
First, there is the tilt of the shaft alone as the rotor disc acts as a gyroscope and remains in its original plane. However, since the blade feathering is referenced to the shaft, the angle of attack of the right-hand blade is increased and that of the left-hand blade decreased by the same amount.
This causes the rotor to flap until it is perpendicular to the shaft, where it will again be in equilibrium with a constant angle of attack around the azimuth and the moments will be balanced. This alignment is very rapid, usually taking less than one revolution following a sudden tilt. Because of this, the flapping motion in hover has practically no effect on the stability of the helicopter in terms of holding a given attitude.
This was not recognized by many people in the early days of helicopters.
A rotor as a gyro.
So, if a rotor does not act like a gyro trying to retain its position in space, when does it act like a gyro? This answer has to do with how the rotor moves if you put an unbalanced aerodynamic lift on the disc. It will respond by moving at right angles to the unbalance just as the toy gyro does, and it does so in exact compliance with the gyroscopic laws that say the angular rate of motion-the "precession rate" —will be proportional to the applied moment.
This is in apparent contrast to Newton's Law that states that an angular acceleration should be the result of an applied moment. (The rotor/gyro is actually obeying Newton's Law but its high rate of rotation is producing this overwhelming side effect.)
The unbalanced lift distribution can come either from external sources such as a gust or from control inputs using cyclic pitch. For example, right stick will lower the angle of attack of the blade over the tail and raise it on the blade over the nose. This noseup unbalance on the disc will cause it to precess down to the right and the rest of the helicopter will soon follow. For a given helicopter, the resulting right roll rate will be directly proportional to the change of cyclic pitch from trim. Not all helicopters, however, will roll at the same rate for the same cyclic pitch. In response to the gyroscopic laws, the rate will be higher for those helicopters whose rotors are lighter or turning faster.
Thus, it may be seen that the rotor is like the mysterious toy gyro as it responds to applied moments but it has practically none of the toy's inherent stability. If required, this last drawback can be compensated. Early Bell helicopters used a stabilizer bar that acted like a gyro and controlled cyclic pitch in a way that transferred some of the gyro stability to the rotor. The Lockheed rotor and gyro system did the same thing. Nowadays, the designer can use a hidden black box containing a small, rapidly turning gyro with appropriate connections to the control system to make the helicopter achieve as much stability as desired.
It displayed remarkable stability. If it was set spinning horizontally, it wanted to stay horizontal no matter how you moved the support, but if you were determined to move the axis by brute force, the gyro moved in a strange way—at right angles to the applied moment. Even if you were later exposed to the gyroscopic equations and acquired a confidence in your ability to manipulate them, you were probably still vaguely disturbed by this device's strange behavior (I know I was).
A rotor in a vacuum.
The disc of a spinning helicopter rotor certainly looks much like a toy gyroscope. So does it act like one? Yes and no. The reason for the "no" is the existence of very large aerodynamic forces on the rotor blades. As a matter of fact, if you remove the aerodynamics by running a rotor in a vacuum, it will demonstrate gyroscopic stability.
A rotor with blades hinged at the center of rotation (such as a teetering rotor) for example, in a vacuum, there are no aerodynamic forces, only centrifugal forces acting in the plane of rotation, and these can produce no moments about the flapping hinges. If the shaft is tilted, no changes in moments will be produced and the rotor disc will remain in its original position as if it were a gyroscope. (Of course, if the rotor had had offset flapping hinges, the centrifugal forces would have produced moments that would have aligned the blades perpendicular to the shaft.
A rotor in air.
In air, the aerodynamic forces will cause any rotor to align itself perpendicular to the shaft.
First, there is the tilt of the shaft alone as the rotor disc acts as a gyroscope and remains in its original plane. However, since the blade feathering is referenced to the shaft, the angle of attack of the right-hand blade is increased and that of the left-hand blade decreased by the same amount.
This causes the rotor to flap until it is perpendicular to the shaft, where it will again be in equilibrium with a constant angle of attack around the azimuth and the moments will be balanced. This alignment is very rapid, usually taking less than one revolution following a sudden tilt. Because of this, the flapping motion in hover has practically no effect on the stability of the helicopter in terms of holding a given attitude.
This was not recognized by many people in the early days of helicopters.
A rotor as a gyro.
So, if a rotor does not act like a gyro trying to retain its position in space, when does it act like a gyro? This answer has to do with how the rotor moves if you put an unbalanced aerodynamic lift on the disc. It will respond by moving at right angles to the unbalance just as the toy gyro does, and it does so in exact compliance with the gyroscopic laws that say the angular rate of motion-the "precession rate" —will be proportional to the applied moment.
This is in apparent contrast to Newton's Law that states that an angular acceleration should be the result of an applied moment. (The rotor/gyro is actually obeying Newton's Law but its high rate of rotation is producing this overwhelming side effect.)
The unbalanced lift distribution can come either from external sources such as a gust or from control inputs using cyclic pitch. For example, right stick will lower the angle of attack of the blade over the tail and raise it on the blade over the nose. This noseup unbalance on the disc will cause it to precess down to the right and the rest of the helicopter will soon follow. For a given helicopter, the resulting right roll rate will be directly proportional to the change of cyclic pitch from trim. Not all helicopters, however, will roll at the same rate for the same cyclic pitch. In response to the gyroscopic laws, the rate will be higher for those helicopters whose rotors are lighter or turning faster.
Thus, it may be seen that the rotor is like the mysterious toy gyro as it responds to applied moments but it has practically none of the toy's inherent stability. If required, this last drawback can be compensated. Early Bell helicopters used a stabilizer bar that acted like a gyro and controlled cyclic pitch in a way that transferred some of the gyro stability to the rotor. The Lockheed rotor and gyro system did the same thing. Nowadays, the designer can use a hidden black box containing a small, rapidly turning gyro with appropriate connections to the control system to make the helicopter achieve as much stability as desired.
The following 2 users liked this post by RVDT:
Whatta ya gonna do?
If you want to revel in ignorance that's your business.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
let you continue in your little bubble of self-righteous indignation.
If you want to revel in ignorance that's your business.
If you want to revel in ignorance that's your business.
Anyway, given the above post, seems this Prouty guy shares my ignorance. So at least now I have someone to tango with.
Let's play 'Spot the Troll' - oh yes its robbiieee
The British Army have a very quaint expression for those that can't or won't listen to reason - 'You can't educate pork' - somehow seems appropriate here
Originally Posted by [email protected]
The British Army have a very quaint expression for those that can't or won't listen to reason - 'You can't educate pork' - somehow seems appropriate here
I have enjoyed reading the commentary (debate) on this topic, even if some of you have seen it discussed to death.
The video of the Bo105 main rotor blade filmed in slow-motion (from a camera mounted above the hub) is worth a look:
A few things to note: The tail boom comes into view each revolution. This is also when the track of the rotor disk is at about its highest point above the line of the horizon so helicopter is undoubtedly in forward flight. Note that maximum angle of blade incidence had been applied much earlier and is already being reduced again by the time the blade passes over the tail boom. There is also not much "flapping" of the blades themselves, rather the whole rotor disk (as apparent from the movement of the hub relative to the horizon) is tilted relative to the horizontal on this hingeless rotor. Shy Torque gave a nice summary in #2 outlining what is happening, also applicable in this Bo105 case.
All the same, given this is a hingeless rotor, it would certainly have some of the characteristics of a gyroscope. So give a Bo105 a solid shove on its skid while it is in a low hover and the helicopter should partly respond like a gyroscope even if rotor aerodynamics may be a more dominant effect.
The video of the Bo105 main rotor blade filmed in slow-motion (from a camera mounted above the hub) is worth a look:
A few things to note: The tail boom comes into view each revolution. This is also when the track of the rotor disk is at about its highest point above the line of the horizon so helicopter is undoubtedly in forward flight. Note that maximum angle of blade incidence had been applied much earlier and is already being reduced again by the time the blade passes over the tail boom. There is also not much "flapping" of the blades themselves, rather the whole rotor disk (as apparent from the movement of the hub relative to the horizon) is tilted relative to the horizontal on this hingeless rotor. Shy Torque gave a nice summary in #2 outlining what is happening, also applicable in this Bo105 case.
All the same, given this is a hingeless rotor, it would certainly have some of the characteristics of a gyroscope. So give a Bo105 a solid shove on its skid while it is in a low hover and the helicopter should partly respond like a gyroscope even if rotor aerodynamics may be a more dominant effect.
Last edited by helispotter; 28th Mar 2024 at 09:24.
Megan, looks like a really old manual, maybe from when Igor Sikorsky was an instructor on your course.
Note that it says "precession is not a dominant force", and adds that a rotor exhibits "some" of a gyro's characteristics.
The second section about nose up or down when rolling into a turn is something that I have never observed in 45 years and 15,000 hours of rotary flying. Either I have been totally blind to such things happening around me, or they are confused about what is happening. Rolling into a right turn means the swash plate is causing the blade pitch to be at a minimum over the tail to reach the lowest point at the right side. The whole disc tilts right, the fuselage follows. The "precession" has already happened over the tail and over the nose to make the disc tilt right, it is not a force applied at the right side to tilt the disc and having a "precession" effect 90 degrees later over the nose.
Or is my brain fried after all these years of being bounced up and down at 2:1 and 4:1?
Note that it says "precession is not a dominant force", and adds that a rotor exhibits "some" of a gyro's characteristics.
The second section about nose up or down when rolling into a turn is something that I have never observed in 45 years and 15,000 hours of rotary flying. Either I have been totally blind to such things happening around me, or they are confused about what is happening. Rolling into a right turn means the swash plate is causing the blade pitch to be at a minimum over the tail to reach the lowest point at the right side. The whole disc tilts right, the fuselage follows. The "precession" has already happened over the tail and over the nose to make the disc tilt right, it is not a force applied at the right side to tilt the disc and having a "precession" effect 90 degrees later over the nose.
Or is my brain fried after all these years of being bounced up and down at 2:1 and 4:1?
looks like a really old manual, maybe from when Igor Sikorsky was an instructor on your course
I said "have a go at this" thinking it might stir things up.
The second section about nose up or down when rolling into a turn is something that I have never observed in 45 years and 15,000 hours of rotary flying
when does it act like a gyro? This answer has to do with how the rotor moves if you put an unbalanced aerodynamic lift on the disc. It will respond by moving at right angles to the unbalance just as the toy gyro does, and it does so in exact compliance with the gyroscopic laws that say the angular rate of motion-the "precession rate" —will be proportional to the applied moment.
Another discussion on the subject, and where you had the last word AC.
Me?All this techo stuff is beyond my intellect.https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-19678.html
Megan, looks like a really old manual, maybe from when Igor Sikorsky was an instructor on your course.
Note that it says "precession is not a dominant force", and adds that a rotor exhibits "some" of a gyro's characteristics.
The second section about nose up or down when rolling into a turn is something that I have never observed in 45 years and 15,000 hours of rotary flying. Either I have been totally blind to such things happening around me, or they are confused about what is happening. Rolling into a right turn means the swash plate is causing the blade pitch to be at a minimum over the tail to reach the lowest point at the right side. The whole disc tilts right, the fuselage follows. The "precession" has already happened over the tail and over the nose to make the disc tilt right, it is not a force applied at the right side to tilt the disc and having a "precession" effect 90 degrees later over the nose.
Or is my brain fried after all these years of being bounced up and down at 2:1 and 4:1?
Note that it says "precession is not a dominant force", and adds that a rotor exhibits "some" of a gyro's characteristics.
The second section about nose up or down when rolling into a turn is something that I have never observed in 45 years and 15,000 hours of rotary flying. Either I have been totally blind to such things happening around me, or they are confused about what is happening. Rolling into a right turn means the swash plate is causing the blade pitch to be at a minimum over the tail to reach the lowest point at the right side. The whole disc tilts right, the fuselage follows. The "precession" has already happened over the tail and over the nose to make the disc tilt right, it is not a force applied at the right side to tilt the disc and having a "precession" effect 90 degrees later over the nose.
Or is my brain fried after all these years of being bounced up and down at 2:1 and 4:1?
Prouty Helicopter Aerodynamics 2 - Chapter 75 - Some Coupling Considerations
In explaining how a rotor works, we often talk about how the flapping response follows the maximum aerodynamic input a quarter of a revolution later. For our scientific-minded friends, we relate this to a system in resonance or to a gyroscope. It turns out that this is a very good rule-of-thumb that adequately covers most situations, but there are several “Yes, buts”.
Enter Hinge Offset
One of the these is that the resonance theory strictly applies only to rotors with no hinge offset. Thus, the explanation was valid up to about 1950 since all autogyro and helicopter rotors up to that time had been designed that way. The Sikorsky S-52 was the first production helicopter I know of that had hinge offset. The only motivation at the time was that the design of the hub could be made simpler than on the zero-offset S-51. When the test pilots first got in the S-52, they were astounded by the improved control power compared to what they had been used to. We now think of this as the prime motivation for using flapping hinge offset.
With zero offset, as on teetering rotors, if you are on the ground and apply minimum cyclic pitch to the blade directly over the tail boom, the resulting flapping response will be seen to be down on the right side. This also initially happens in the air when the rolling motion is first accelerating. If the helicopter has offset flapping hinges, or a hingeless rotor where flexibility takes the place of an actual flapping hinge, the response angle is not 90 gegrees but something less since the dynamic and centrifugal force effects are not quite balanced and this causes the rotor to operate somewhat off its natural frequency.
Thus, when the minimum cyclic pitch is applied over the tail boom, the rotor produces a large left rolling moment but a small nose-up moment as well (we are talking about American helicopters, of course). The response angle, however, is seldom less than 85 degrees and the resulting cross-coupling is practically unnoticeable to the pilot.
There are exceptions to this. The Eurocopter BO-105, designed in the 1960s, has a very stiff hingeless rotor that acts as if it had a flapping hinge at 13.6% of the rotor radius. Its calculated response angle is 73 degrees and since the moment of inertia in roll is much less than in pitch, the cross-coupling is such that by pulling straight back on the stick, the roll response is more than the pitch response!
As awkward as this might seem, pilots quickly adapt to this characteristic. There are, however, some other adverse effects to so much stiffness and so the next two projects in this line, the BK-117 and the EC-135, have softer hingeless rotors with effective hinge offsets of 12% and 11.8% respectively.
When a Steady Rate is Achieved
What we have been talking about so far is acceleration cross-coupling. A different physical law governs rate cross-coupling. Imagine a helicopter in which the pilot is making the helicopter roll to the right at a constant rate. For this case, there is no rolling moment and therefore no flapping with respect to the shaft; otherwise the roll motion would not be at a constant rate but would be accelerating. (We are ignoring the small aerodynamic roll damping associated with the rest of the airframe.)
To get this steady right roll state, the pilot is holding his stick to the right to obtain an airload distribution that will precess the rotor down to the right as a gyroscope. The airframe will respond by rolling to the right along with the rotor. Since there is no flapping in this steady condition, it does not matter how the blades are attached to the hub.
Where does the rate cross-coupling come from? Compare the environment of the blades on the right and left side. On the right, the blade is going down through the air and thus has a higher angle of attack than the blade on the left, which is going up. This should produce some up-flapping toward the nose, but if the maneuver is such that the helicopter has only rolling motion as we specified, the pilot must be putting in some forward stick to suppress this flapping and its resulting pitching moment.
This results in the minimum cyclic pitch being imposed, not when the blade is directly to over the tail boom, but somewhat later.
The resulting value of this cross-coupling is a function of the ratio of aerodynamic forces to dynamic forces. This ratio is known as the Lock number after a British engineer who developed equations for autogyros in the 1930s. Since the blade flapping inertia is in the denominator of the equation, heavy blades have low Lock numbers and light blades, high. For current helicopters, the range for main rotor blades is from about four to twelve. For a conventional Lock number of eight, the longitudinal cyclic pitch required to keep from pitching is just half the lateral pitch that is being used to maintain the roll rate. The lighter the blade, the more longitudinal cyclic pitch must be used.
The Other Side Of The Coin
The above discussion applies to maneuvering where the pilot is making the rotor do his bidding and the airframe goes along. There is yet another consideration. It is when the airframe is moving and dragging the rotor along with it. This happens, for instance, when the pilot neutralizes his control after a maneuver but the helicopter still has some rolling or pitching rate or when the helicopter has been upset by a gust.
In these cases, the rotor flaps with respect to the shaft to produce a damping moment. For the case of no hinge offset, the cross-coupling effect is the mirror-image of the one that applies in a steady rate case. If the aircraft is rolling to the right without a pilot command, the magnitude of lateral flapping producing a damping moment to the left is equal to the cyclic pitch that the pilot would have used to maintain that right roll rate. This is a result of the fact that flapping and cyclic pitch are related in a one-to-one ratio. For the same reason, there is a corresponding longitudinal flapping producing a noseup pitching moment which is about half the lateral flapping. In other words, there is cross-coupling even in this case.
The situation is a little different if the rotor has offset flapping hinges. Not only is the damping moment larger, but it can be shown that the cross-coupling diminishes with offset and that for conventional blades, a 15% offset would eliminate this coupling entirely so that a rolling velocity would produce no longitudinal flapping. (My thanks to Tom Hanson for pointing this out to me.)
Because all of these cross-coupling effects are different, there is no single adjustment to the control system that will simultaneously eliminate all of them. In most helicopters that I know of, moving the stick directly to the right produces minimum cyclic pitch over the tail boom and the decoupling is left to the skilled pilot. I have been told, however, of two where the designers have attempted to minimize cross-coupling by changing the geometry of the control system within the fuselage. One is Frank Robinson who has designed the control systems on his helicopters such that when the stick is pushed straight forward, the maximum pitch displacement occurs at an azimuth angle of 73 degrees instead of at 90 degrees.
In explaining how a rotor works, we often talk about how the flapping response follows the maximum aerodynamic input a quarter of a revolution later. For our scientific-minded friends, we relate this to a system in resonance or to a gyroscope. It turns out that this is a very good rule-of-thumb that adequately covers most situations, but there are several “Yes, buts”.
Enter Hinge Offset
One of the these is that the resonance theory strictly applies only to rotors with no hinge offset. Thus, the explanation was valid up to about 1950 since all autogyro and helicopter rotors up to that time had been designed that way. The Sikorsky S-52 was the first production helicopter I know of that had hinge offset. The only motivation at the time was that the design of the hub could be made simpler than on the zero-offset S-51. When the test pilots first got in the S-52, they were astounded by the improved control power compared to what they had been used to. We now think of this as the prime motivation for using flapping hinge offset.
With zero offset, as on teetering rotors, if you are on the ground and apply minimum cyclic pitch to the blade directly over the tail boom, the resulting flapping response will be seen to be down on the right side. This also initially happens in the air when the rolling motion is first accelerating. If the helicopter has offset flapping hinges, or a hingeless rotor where flexibility takes the place of an actual flapping hinge, the response angle is not 90 gegrees but something less since the dynamic and centrifugal force effects are not quite balanced and this causes the rotor to operate somewhat off its natural frequency.
Thus, when the minimum cyclic pitch is applied over the tail boom, the rotor produces a large left rolling moment but a small nose-up moment as well (we are talking about American helicopters, of course). The response angle, however, is seldom less than 85 degrees and the resulting cross-coupling is practically unnoticeable to the pilot.
There are exceptions to this. The Eurocopter BO-105, designed in the 1960s, has a very stiff hingeless rotor that acts as if it had a flapping hinge at 13.6% of the rotor radius. Its calculated response angle is 73 degrees and since the moment of inertia in roll is much less than in pitch, the cross-coupling is such that by pulling straight back on the stick, the roll response is more than the pitch response!
As awkward as this might seem, pilots quickly adapt to this characteristic. There are, however, some other adverse effects to so much stiffness and so the next two projects in this line, the BK-117 and the EC-135, have softer hingeless rotors with effective hinge offsets of 12% and 11.8% respectively.
When a Steady Rate is Achieved
What we have been talking about so far is acceleration cross-coupling. A different physical law governs rate cross-coupling. Imagine a helicopter in which the pilot is making the helicopter roll to the right at a constant rate. For this case, there is no rolling moment and therefore no flapping with respect to the shaft; otherwise the roll motion would not be at a constant rate but would be accelerating. (We are ignoring the small aerodynamic roll damping associated with the rest of the airframe.)
To get this steady right roll state, the pilot is holding his stick to the right to obtain an airload distribution that will precess the rotor down to the right as a gyroscope. The airframe will respond by rolling to the right along with the rotor. Since there is no flapping in this steady condition, it does not matter how the blades are attached to the hub.
Where does the rate cross-coupling come from? Compare the environment of the blades on the right and left side. On the right, the blade is going down through the air and thus has a higher angle of attack than the blade on the left, which is going up. This should produce some up-flapping toward the nose, but if the maneuver is such that the helicopter has only rolling motion as we specified, the pilot must be putting in some forward stick to suppress this flapping and its resulting pitching moment.
This results in the minimum cyclic pitch being imposed, not when the blade is directly to over the tail boom, but somewhat later.
The resulting value of this cross-coupling is a function of the ratio of aerodynamic forces to dynamic forces. This ratio is known as the Lock number after a British engineer who developed equations for autogyros in the 1930s. Since the blade flapping inertia is in the denominator of the equation, heavy blades have low Lock numbers and light blades, high. For current helicopters, the range for main rotor blades is from about four to twelve. For a conventional Lock number of eight, the longitudinal cyclic pitch required to keep from pitching is just half the lateral pitch that is being used to maintain the roll rate. The lighter the blade, the more longitudinal cyclic pitch must be used.
The Other Side Of The Coin
The above discussion applies to maneuvering where the pilot is making the rotor do his bidding and the airframe goes along. There is yet another consideration. It is when the airframe is moving and dragging the rotor along with it. This happens, for instance, when the pilot neutralizes his control after a maneuver but the helicopter still has some rolling or pitching rate or when the helicopter has been upset by a gust.
In these cases, the rotor flaps with respect to the shaft to produce a damping moment. For the case of no hinge offset, the cross-coupling effect is the mirror-image of the one that applies in a steady rate case. If the aircraft is rolling to the right without a pilot command, the magnitude of lateral flapping producing a damping moment to the left is equal to the cyclic pitch that the pilot would have used to maintain that right roll rate. This is a result of the fact that flapping and cyclic pitch are related in a one-to-one ratio. For the same reason, there is a corresponding longitudinal flapping producing a noseup pitching moment which is about half the lateral flapping. In other words, there is cross-coupling even in this case.
The situation is a little different if the rotor has offset flapping hinges. Not only is the damping moment larger, but it can be shown that the cross-coupling diminishes with offset and that for conventional blades, a 15% offset would eliminate this coupling entirely so that a rolling velocity would produce no longitudinal flapping. (My thanks to Tom Hanson for pointing this out to me.)
Because all of these cross-coupling effects are different, there is no single adjustment to the control system that will simultaneously eliminate all of them. In most helicopters that I know of, moving the stick directly to the right produces minimum cyclic pitch over the tail boom and the decoupling is left to the skilled pilot. I have been told, however, of two where the designers have attempted to minimize cross-coupling by changing the geometry of the control system within the fuselage. One is Frank Robinson who has designed the control systems on his helicopters such that when the stick is pushed straight forward, the maximum pitch displacement occurs at an azimuth angle of 73 degrees instead of at 90 degrees.
The following 2 users liked this post by RVDT:
The answer without calculations: it is an effect of highly damped vibrations. If you want to know exact numbers, you would have to apply the theory behind highly damped vibrations, and that theory scared so much the bezjeezes out of me, they were the first papers to hit the bin once I graduated +25 years ago and I decided I wanted to be a pilot.
In the world of "mainstream" pilots, gyroscopic effect is "an explanation" that avoids you have to face reality because that reality is too complex to grasp for many people. If people cannot accept that, I can assure you there are plenty of other "pilot theories" that don't survive any self-respecting bachelor/master in aerodynamics. It's fine. It's not the goal of your/my job. Just keep it simple. Simple keeps the flightdeck alive.
As a pilot you are trained to be an operator, not a designer.
In the world of "mainstream" pilots, gyroscopic effect is "an explanation" that avoids you have to face reality because that reality is too complex to grasp for many people. If people cannot accept that, I can assure you there are plenty of other "pilot theories" that don't survive any self-respecting bachelor/master in aerodynamics. It's fine. It's not the goal of your/my job. Just keep it simple. Simple keeps the flightdeck alive.
As a pilot you are trained to be an operator, not a designer.
Last edited by BraceBrace; 28th Mar 2024 at 21:06.
The following users liked this post: