Rotation direction of Tail Rotors: merged threads
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotation direction of Tail Rotors: merged threads
Hello all,
Here's a nice one:
If you stand infront of the tail rotor of most helicopters it turns in a clockwise direction ( the blade at the bottom moving towards the nose of the helicopter).
Why?
I talked to our magical chief engineer about this and we speculated on a number of theories.
1: Simple Design feature
2: Aerodynamic reasons
3: Centifugal force reasons (gyroscopic procession)
4: That the way the gearbox was made by the manufacturer!
Any body know why? or is it just a design fluke as in 1:
Going further on that theme. Why do some helicopters have left turning rotors and some right? Is there an advantage in one or the other?
Here's a nice one:
If you stand infront of the tail rotor of most helicopters it turns in a clockwise direction ( the blade at the bottom moving towards the nose of the helicopter).
Why?
I talked to our magical chief engineer about this and we speculated on a number of theories.
1: Simple Design feature
2: Aerodynamic reasons
3: Centifugal force reasons (gyroscopic procession)
4: That the way the gearbox was made by the manufacturer!
Any body know why? or is it just a design fluke as in 1:
Going further on that theme. Why do some helicopters have left turning rotors and some right? Is there an advantage in one or the other?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dun Laoghaire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one of the books I've read, it cites studies into noise and tail rotor effectiveness as being determining factors in deciding the direction of rotation (clockwise being the preferred). And some designs of helicopter have actually had changes in direction and boom side in the course of their lives. Also interesting to note that the R22 is anti-clockwise but the R44 is clockwise (looking from the left hand side of course).
Irlandés
Irlandés
Last edited by Irlandés; 19th Sep 2002 at 04:57.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, Prouty had a discussion of this in his column in Rotor & Wing some time back.
As for the main rotor, it seems to be just tradition. Sikorsky, in the very early models, had some one way & some the other, depending I surmise on the simplest engineering on that model. Having flown both, I can say it's a pain to switch from one to the other. Hovering is no problem, but when you turn final, drop the power to descend while rolling into a turn, & automatically push the wrong pedal, everyone aboard knows it.
As for the main rotor, it seems to be just tradition. Sikorsky, in the very early models, had some one way & some the other, depending I surmise on the simplest engineering on that model. Having flown both, I can say it's a pain to switch from one to the other. Hovering is no problem, but when you turn final, drop the power to descend while rolling into a turn, & automatically push the wrong pedal, everyone aboard knows it.
My understanding is that the direction of rotation of the tail rotor is dominated by aerodynamic considerations. The reason for the inconsistencies in design that are observed is that it is very difficult to simulate or predict the exact (and very complex) nature of the MR wake/downwash, in which the tail rotor must operate.
In forward flight the rotor wake skews backwards and at very high speeds the wake adopts many of the characteristics of the wake that could be expected to trail behind a circular wing. If we consider low forward speeds, such as encountered during transition to forward flight the wake skew angle is small and the demand on the tail rotor is high. Consider the tip vortex tailed by the main rotor as it passes from the 270-degree position (left side) to the 90-degree position (right side) over the tail. A very strong tip vortex is produced in the wake that passes over the tail boom in the same plane of rotation as the tail rotor. This vortex is happily convected back with the flow as the helicopter moves forwards. Before long this ‘mini-tornado’ is sitting right over the tail rotor and is rotating forwards at the top and back-at-the-bottom. It is easy to see from this reasoning that if the tail rotor is rotating forward–at-the-top then the rotation of the flow induced by the presence of the vortex is subtracting from the relative rotational velocity of the tail rotor motion and hence reducing its effectiveness. Rotate the tail rotor in the other direction and the effect is positive interference……NICE!
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, because at any one time the tail rotor is being battered by multiple tip vortices of various ages. The number depending on the forward speed. All of these vortices interact with each other and the tail rotor and so the total effect is very difficult to predict. However, taking the initial simple 1-vortex concept and having the tail rotor rotate back at the top tends to work, but it’s not always the case, because many other effects have an influences that are very difficult to quantify.
This is a gross simplification of one of the aerodynamics mechanisms that makes the direction of rotation important. As with many helicopter design problems the system must be optimised for many flight conditions with conflicting requirements. The reason why some helicopters have TR's rotating the other way is because we currently cannot simulate accurately the rotor wake and so calculating what is going on becomes a very educated best guess. Inevitably, best-guesses are not always right and things have to be modified in development.
Give us 50 years to allow computer technology to reach a level where current CFD techniques can be exploited to full advantage in the commercial design environment and we will get it right first time every-time!
Hope this helps
CRAN
One consideration in the direction of rotation for SMALL helicopters is which side of the machine you want to pilot to sit on.
Ideally you want the pilot to be sitting on the side that is hanging high, so when he flies solo, his weight levels the machine to some extent rather than making the left/right skid low problem worse. If you machine is intended for training or general flying around you would want the pilot on the right so his 'collective' hand - the one he can use in flight, is directly over the centre console/instrument panel for easy access. In this case you would want to have an american/bristish rotation of CCW from above.
If you fancy doing a bit of sling loading, so your jolly-jock is going to want to hang out of the door, then he would prefer to sit on the left hand side. In this situation the french/russian (CW from above) rotation is more sensible.
In bigger machines these considerations are not so important as the weight of the pilot is insignificant in terms of the weight of the machine.
Oooo and the rotors spin the wrong way on French helicopters because they are awkward!!!!
CRAN
In forward flight the rotor wake skews backwards and at very high speeds the wake adopts many of the characteristics of the wake that could be expected to trail behind a circular wing. If we consider low forward speeds, such as encountered during transition to forward flight the wake skew angle is small and the demand on the tail rotor is high. Consider the tip vortex tailed by the main rotor as it passes from the 270-degree position (left side) to the 90-degree position (right side) over the tail. A very strong tip vortex is produced in the wake that passes over the tail boom in the same plane of rotation as the tail rotor. This vortex is happily convected back with the flow as the helicopter moves forwards. Before long this ‘mini-tornado’ is sitting right over the tail rotor and is rotating forwards at the top and back-at-the-bottom. It is easy to see from this reasoning that if the tail rotor is rotating forward–at-the-top then the rotation of the flow induced by the presence of the vortex is subtracting from the relative rotational velocity of the tail rotor motion and hence reducing its effectiveness. Rotate the tail rotor in the other direction and the effect is positive interference……NICE!
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, because at any one time the tail rotor is being battered by multiple tip vortices of various ages. The number depending on the forward speed. All of these vortices interact with each other and the tail rotor and so the total effect is very difficult to predict. However, taking the initial simple 1-vortex concept and having the tail rotor rotate back at the top tends to work, but it’s not always the case, because many other effects have an influences that are very difficult to quantify.
This is a gross simplification of one of the aerodynamics mechanisms that makes the direction of rotation important. As with many helicopter design problems the system must be optimised for many flight conditions with conflicting requirements. The reason why some helicopters have TR's rotating the other way is because we currently cannot simulate accurately the rotor wake and so calculating what is going on becomes a very educated best guess. Inevitably, best-guesses are not always right and things have to be modified in development.
Give us 50 years to allow computer technology to reach a level where current CFD techniques can be exploited to full advantage in the commercial design environment and we will get it right first time every-time!
Hope this helps
CRAN
One consideration in the direction of rotation for SMALL helicopters is which side of the machine you want to pilot to sit on.
Ideally you want the pilot to be sitting on the side that is hanging high, so when he flies solo, his weight levels the machine to some extent rather than making the left/right skid low problem worse. If you machine is intended for training or general flying around you would want the pilot on the right so his 'collective' hand - the one he can use in flight, is directly over the centre console/instrument panel for easy access. In this case you would want to have an american/bristish rotation of CCW from above.
If you fancy doing a bit of sling loading, so your jolly-jock is going to want to hang out of the door, then he would prefer to sit on the left hand side. In this situation the french/russian (CW from above) rotation is more sensible.
In bigger machines these considerations are not so important as the weight of the pilot is insignificant in terms of the weight of the machine.
Oooo and the rotors spin the wrong way on French helicopters because they are awkward!!!!
CRAN
Last edited by CRAN; 4th Sep 2002 at 21:46.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your helicopter firm happens to be called Westlands, you design your Lynx firstly with a counter clockwise rotating TR so that you can make your main customer purchase the midlife upgrade of a clockwise rotating TR. Amazing difference it makes too. Shame the designers didnt go for it in the first place.
Perhaps it was the flip of a coin.
Perhaps it was the flip of a coin.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
!
One reason is:
For the efficient direction there is a greater Arm on the TR shaft than in the other direction.
You might notice some with one bearing and some with two - have a look at the direction of the TR and correlate!
For the efficient direction there is a greater Arm on the TR shaft than in the other direction.
You might notice some with one bearing and some with two - have a look at the direction of the TR and correlate!
With the TR in the config you suggested. Advancing blade moving up into the rotor downwash, the TR becomes more efficient by producing more lift therefore offloads TR therefore maximising TRE 
That's why the lynx TR was swapped to the other side.
That's why the lynx TR was swapped to the other side.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CRAN and Thomas Coupling.
I shall bombard my engineer with all this and baffel him to bits.
Thinking about it, the tail rotor moving forwards and up in to the MR downwash sounds totally logical to improve effectiveness but I still wonder if any gyroscopic force plays any part.
Talking of tail rotor noise. Is a CW rotating tail-rotor any quieter than a CCW tail-rotor due to the decreased speed of airflow over it?
I shall bombard my engineer with all this and baffel him to bits.
Thinking about it, the tail rotor moving forwards and up in to the MR downwash sounds totally logical to improve effectiveness but I still wonder if any gyroscopic force plays any part.
Talking of tail rotor noise. Is a CW rotating tail-rotor any quieter than a CCW tail-rotor due to the decreased speed of airflow over it?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be unrelated, but during some Army reserve service in Bosnia 2000, we had some Czech Mi 17's located at the UK base at Banja Luka. One of the first things I noticed was the strange 'chook-chook' sound they make when running with lift pitch on. (Ground running, lever down; no noise).
Anyone encountered this or anything similar?
Andy
Anyone encountered this or anything similar?
Andy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thomas Coupling has it right on, I think. Igor Sikorsky was said to believe that the bottom of the tail rotor should move into the main rotor downwash, and he never designed a helicopter otherwise.
The AH-1G's that I flew did the opposite, and they were woefully short on tail rotor margin until they were retrofitted by flipping the rotor over to the other side of the pylon.
The AH-1G's that I flew did the opposite, and they were woefully short on tail rotor margin until they were retrofitted by flipping the rotor over to the other side of the pylon.
Driving the TR up into the MR downwash does impact significantly on the noise footprint of the helo.
Hence the evolution of staggered TR blades (in tip path plane and plan form (135 / apache / blackhawk, etc) to reduce the noise.
The following blades don't then run head on into the vortices created by the previous blade which creates a lot of noise.
I wonder if they tried it on the MR
[Igor did try a single MR blade though, didn't he - perhaps he was thinking about it then )
Another noise profile you should try to modify is while descending to land. Normal inconsidered arrivals lead to the MR blades slapping the vortices of the previous blades - big time. By modifying you speed ROD, it makes for far quieter approaches - though not always practical I might add! (STAR's)
Hence the evolution of staggered TR blades (in tip path plane and plan form (135 / apache / blackhawk, etc) to reduce the noise.
The following blades don't then run head on into the vortices created by the previous blade which creates a lot of noise.
I wonder if they tried it on the MR
[Igor did try a single MR blade though, didn't he - perhaps he was thinking about it then
)Another noise profile you should try to modify is while descending to land. Normal inconsidered arrivals lead to the MR blades slapping the vortices of the previous blades - big time. By modifying you speed ROD, it makes for far quieter approaches - though not always practical I might add! (STAR's)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas Coupling:
I was doing some pleasure flights today ( over 50 trips!)in a 206 and was doing some experiments with blade slap.
I found that it was mainly dependant on the aircraft weight. I tried steep approaches, shallow, fast, slow etc. etc. When heavy it was very hard to prevent while trying to remain in a fairly normal profile.
I know that on the 205 that at about 60kts and 500-600 ROD the blade slap is at its worst no-matter how heavy you are but the 206 is definitly different, the lighter I was the quieter and on the way back to base with only 30gals and me it was practically non-exsistant.
On our 205's the tail rotor is on the opposite side compared to a UH-1 and I'm sure they're a bit quieter
I was doing some pleasure flights today ( over 50 trips!)in a 206 and was doing some experiments with blade slap.
I found that it was mainly dependant on the aircraft weight. I tried steep approaches, shallow, fast, slow etc. etc. When heavy it was very hard to prevent while trying to remain in a fairly normal profile.
I know that on the 205 that at about 60kts and 500-600 ROD the blade slap is at its worst no-matter how heavy you are but the 206 is definitly different, the lighter I was the quieter and on the way back to base with only 30gals and me it was practically non-exsistant.
On our 205's the tail rotor is on the opposite side compared to a UH-1 and I'm sure they're a bit quieter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
On Robinsons it is recommended to keep the approach speed up to avoid too much noise. A high speed means low power on descend, maybe that does the trick, but better plan ahead, a 206 will float forever with that kind of approach! If interested I will check the actual numbers on monday in the poh!
3top
On Robinsons it is recommended to keep the approach speed up to avoid too much noise. A high speed means low power on descend, maybe that does the trick, but better plan ahead, a 206 will float forever with that kind of approach! If interested I will check the actual numbers on monday in the poh!
3top
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotation direction of Tail Rotors
I have noticed that the direction of rotation of tail rotor blades are different. Some design have the forward blade descending, otheres have the blade ascending. Why is there a difference?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Long story, and it boils down to engineering preference at the time of design, followed by inertia afterwards. Some of the current designs were made in the late 50's/early 60's and have stayed the same. About that time someone did research that showed that top turning aft was the optimum direction, but those with the tail rotor top going forward haven'g changed as they'd have to re-qualify the design, and re-do the flight test - all very expensive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
the R22 and R44 revolve in opposite directions to each other,
the R22 anticlockwise when viewed from the left and the R44 clockwise.
the R44 being the more conventional direction, i heard several reasons why the R22 is like it is, one was that they used off the shelf parts and thats how it was, and another that it just worked better anticlockwise
hard to know what is horse s**t and what isnt
the R22 anticlockwise when viewed from the left and the R44 clockwise.
the R44 being the more conventional direction, i heard several reasons why the R22 is like it is, one was that they used off the shelf parts and thats how it was, and another that it just worked better anticlockwise
hard to know what is horse s**t and what isnt
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the robinson factory course in January, Tim Tucker mentioned that there was a rear transmission factor on this decision having to do with the weight of changing the direction and additional gearing.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ross-on-Wye
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAIL ROTOR BLADE DIRECTION.
I know there are many aerodynamics experts out there with greater knowledge of this situation than mine so I am surprised none have provided answers to this old chesnut.
I have to return to the Enstrom marque although it is sometime since my sales history was linked to the Spoonair Enstrom distributorship.
Most readers will be aware that the early model Enstrom non turbo models (F28A, 280 Shark) circa 1970 to 1976 - rotated anti clockwise (when viewed from the left side of the tailboom.) I'll do my best to explain without diagrams and hope the words will cover the point.
It was always felt by the Enstrom R & D department that on the original 'right hand tail rotor' layout - the thrust lost by the downgoing blade in the main rotor induced downflow was offset by the upgoing blade's thrust increase. However further research revealed that there was a marked reduction in induced main rotor airflow speed occurring about the tail rotor hub centre line and further reducing as it extended past the tail towards the upgoing blade. So what was lost on the downgoing blade was not regained on the upgoing. Additionally as we all know, the thrust generated varies with the square of the speed, resulting in a further thrust loss.
The fix was simple, reverse the tail rotor gearbox through 180 degrees to become a 'left hand' tail rotor layout and hey presto, the upgoing blade is now receiving the benefit of the increased induced M/R airflow providing increased thrust and a more efficient rotor. (less tip induced drag !) This being the only drag that 'reduces' with increased speed !
Enstrom introduced the reversed 'left hand tail rotor' on all factory produced higher powered 'C' models and also offered a conversion kit for the earlier 28A's. Enstrom pilot's will still come across both 'left' and 'right' 28A types and a few 280's and should understand the lower tail rotor authority available to him on the unmodified right hand tail rotor. In addition the 'C' and later models were fitted with the wider 3.3 chord blade which further improved the situation.
With my selling boots on, a point I was always at pains to explain to prospective purchasers was the superb tail rotor control of the later layout, and usually demonstrated this by underspeeding the main rotor, (overpitching) to the point at which vertical lift was lost but even as the machine descended, the airframe could still be yawed to the left against the torque.
I hasten to mention this exercise was shown in a low hover !!!
Thanks for reading me and I now expect an 'expert' to enlarge on the dynamics of all this !!!
Fly safely chaps.
Dennis.
degrees and h9 so by the t
I know there are many aerodynamics experts out there with greater knowledge of this situation than mine so I am surprised none have provided answers to this old chesnut.
I have to return to the Enstrom marque although it is sometime since my sales history was linked to the Spoonair Enstrom distributorship.
Most readers will be aware that the early model Enstrom non turbo models (F28A, 280 Shark) circa 1970 to 1976 - rotated anti clockwise (when viewed from the left side of the tailboom.) I'll do my best to explain without diagrams and hope the words will cover the point.
It was always felt by the Enstrom R & D department that on the original 'right hand tail rotor' layout - the thrust lost by the downgoing blade in the main rotor induced downflow was offset by the upgoing blade's thrust increase. However further research revealed that there was a marked reduction in induced main rotor airflow speed occurring about the tail rotor hub centre line and further reducing as it extended past the tail towards the upgoing blade. So what was lost on the downgoing blade was not regained on the upgoing. Additionally as we all know, the thrust generated varies with the square of the speed, resulting in a further thrust loss.
The fix was simple, reverse the tail rotor gearbox through 180 degrees to become a 'left hand' tail rotor layout and hey presto, the upgoing blade is now receiving the benefit of the increased induced M/R airflow providing increased thrust and a more efficient rotor. (less tip induced drag !) This being the only drag that 'reduces' with increased speed !
Enstrom introduced the reversed 'left hand tail rotor' on all factory produced higher powered 'C' models and also offered a conversion kit for the earlier 28A's. Enstrom pilot's will still come across both 'left' and 'right' 28A types and a few 280's and should understand the lower tail rotor authority available to him on the unmodified right hand tail rotor. In addition the 'C' and later models were fitted with the wider 3.3 chord blade which further improved the situation.
With my selling boots on, a point I was always at pains to explain to prospective purchasers was the superb tail rotor control of the later layout, and usually demonstrated this by underspeeding the main rotor, (overpitching) to the point at which vertical lift was lost but even as the machine descended, the airframe could still be yawed to the left against the torque.
I hasten to mention this exercise was shown in a low hover !!!
Thanks for reading me and I now expect an 'expert' to enlarge on the dynamics of all this !!!
Fly safely chaps.
Dennis.
degrees and h9 so by the t
This may be apocryphal, but there was a story that when Westlands changed the direction of rotation of the Lynx tail rotor, they forgot about the worm drive in the gearbox that lifted the oil for lubrication. Hence it was going the wrong way and seized on the first test flight.