PDA

View Full Version : Piasecki Compound Helicopter


rotormatic
20th Dec 2000, 08:17
What do you think of the compound helicopter being an alternative to the tilt rotor?

Piasecki Aircraft Wins U.S. Navy Contract

by John Persinos

GOVERNMENT "EXPERTS" ARE wonderfully reliable contrarian indicators. For example, in 1899, the Director of the U.S. Patent Office, Charles Duell, said: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Fortunately, inventors such as Frank Piasecki never subscribe to conventional wisdom.

Piasecki, an aviation legend, has, over the years, introduced a host of trail-blazing innovations in rotorcraft design. In particular, he has spent the last four decades doggedly advocating his proprietary technology for compound helicopters. This fall, his efforts achieved a major milestone, with sweeping consequences for the entire industry.

Piasecki Aircraft Corp., Essington, Pennsylvania, was awarded in late October a $26.1 million four-year U.S. Navy contract for the design, fabrication, and flight test of a Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP) compound helicopter. The compound helicopter is based on a modified Sikorsky H-60 Hawk family airframe.

Sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, the primary objective of this flight demonstration is to show the potential improvements in speed, range, survivability, and reduced life cycle costs attainable with Piasecki's VTDP technology. The VTDP compound helicopter achieves these goals by adding fixed wings and a tail-mounted ducted propeller.

Piasecki Aircraft, founded by Frank Piasecki in 1956, has long proposed this technology as a way to enhance performance and reduce costs of rotorcraft. Today, the company has 50 employees, 20 of them engineers. Starting with Frank's groundbreaking R&D in the early 1960s, the company pioneered the development of compound helicopters. Frank celebrated his 81st birthday in October and still shows up at work, six days a week.

John Piasecki, Frank’s son and company vice president, says that the VTDP compound helicopter is capable of faster cruise speeds, longer range, superior maneuverability, and reduced costs. The VTDP design augments the aircraft’s lift, combating retreating blade stall by unloading the main rotor system as the burden of lift is transferred to the wing.

In addition to the stability conferred by the fixed wing, the aircraft reaches greater speeds because of auxiliary propulsion provided by the tail-mounted VTDP, commonly referred to as the "ringtail." The combination of the VTDP and a lifting wing provides for increased speed over 200 knots in production configurations, as well as greater maneuverability and reduced vibration and fatigue loads.

The compound helicopter confers several advantages to the armed forces. One of the most important, in the post-Cold War era of limited military budgets, is lower operating costs. By lowering fatigue loads and vibration levels, the technology can reduce costs and extend the life of parts. The technology also enables a rotary wing aircraft to fly at up to 220 knots; an attack helicopter fitted with the VTDP system would make for a formidable warship.

John Piasecki says the idea of compound helicopters is coming back into vogue with military planners because of the convergence of limited resources and expanded performance requirements.

"This contract traces its origins to early Cold War competitions, but the compound technology is still very relevant, as armed helos proliferate in Third World countries," he says. "Armed helos are versatile and cost-effective aerial weapons platforms. Navy and Marines Corps aerial assault forces are projected over the sea at greater and greater distances. Emerging military requirements are driving the compound helicopter concept, not the old Fulda Gap scenarios."

The U.S. Marines are committed to the V-22 tiltrotor as an aerial assault platform, but they still rely on conventional helicopters, such as the Cobra and Huey. That’s where compound technology can make a difference. "Compound helicopter technology could extend the performance and life of these legacy aircraft, to reduce their performance shortfall as compared to the V-22," he says.

Piasecki Aircraft’s VTDP was competitively selected by the Navy under the FY00 Advanced Technology Demonstration program, which funds development and testing of high risk/high payoff technologies to address the Navy’s future warfighting needs.

The contract was awarded after Piasecki successfully completed ground testing of a full-scale flightworthy VTDP unit under a $16.1 million concept exploration and development contract. John Piasecki says the VTDP Ground Test results were better than predicted, meeting all of the technical criteria necessary to proceed into the flight demonstration phase of the program.

The flight test program will be conducted by a Joint Piasecki and Naval Rotary Wing Test Squadron Team, starting in 2003. The VTDP compound helicopter concept is being investigated as an affordable means of addressing the Defense Department’s need to upgrade the capabilities and extend the service life of existing single-rotor helicopters.

Based on the services’ current aviation modernization plans, the Defense Department is projected to spend over $41 billion to extend the capability and service life of the H-60, H-1, and AH-64 fleets until Joint Replacement Aircraft are fielded sometime after 2025.

The Air Force selected the H-60/VTDP compound helicopter concept as one of several alternatives under consideration as an upgrade or replacement for its aging HH-60G combat rescue helicopter fleet. The replacement is slated to be fielded as early as FY07.

Lu Zuckerman
20th Dec 2000, 09:11
To: rotormatic

“What do you think of the compound helicopter being an alternative to the tilt rotor”?

I can hear it right now. First he badmouths Robinson Helicopters and now, he going to bash Frank Piaseki. I would never badmouth a former U S Coast Guard Aviator. My very first helicopter ride was in an HRP the original flying banana. I don’t particularly like what Vertol and Boeing have done to his original concept. But that is not the subject of this post. I would like to respond to the first part of the question. “What do you think of the compound helicopter?

Not knowing his design philosophy, and how he is going to adapt an H-60 from what it is to what it will be I can’t criticize his design. I can however raise several questions that I’m sure his designers are taking into consideration.

The compound helicopter is in essence an autogyro. Unlike the autogyro, the compound helicopter can hover and it is capable of moving in any direction. I
Do not know if his design will incorporate flight control surfaces on the wings or if he will use cyclic control to fly in a particular direction. If he uses flight control surfaces to change the attitude of the aircraft he will have to deal with gyroscopic turning moments that might require a special stabilization system that counters the tendency for the rotor system to precess. This would be similar to the system on the Lynx that counters the right roll induced by the control offset.

Another problem related to the autogyro is that after attaining cruise speed the pilot can flatten out the disc as opposed to flying with the disc flapped back. If the disc is tilted to effect flight direction as in a helicopter the control inputs have to be input with the greatest of care as the flatter the blade disc the more sensitive it is to control input and can in effect result in divergence and possibly hit the fuselage. Some type of automatic stabilization system or stability control augmentation system too can rectify this.

The last time the military commissioned a compound helicopter was in the late 60s and it was called the AH-56 Cheyenne. Because of design constraints when the helicopter gained weight Lockheed wanted to enlarge the rotor diameter. The Army said no so the chief aerodynamicist (Ray Prouty) came up with a very unique high lift rotor blade. It had a negative twist and it was cambered. But this blade was different in that the camber was not the same at each blade station. This made the blade highly unstable. The blade was also very stiff compared to other helicopter blades. Another unique trait of this blade is that it didn’t believe in the laws of gyroscopic precession. When the pilot input cyclic and depending on the load and speeds the pilot never knew exactly where his disc would tilt. This caused a problem as on two occasions one in flight and the other in a wind tunnel the helicopter was in the compound (autogyro) mode and when the pilot made a cyclic change the blade because of its’ instability in the flat disc mode diverged and killed the pilot. In the wind tunnel it did a similar thing and the rotor system self destructed and put the wind tunnel out of commission for quite a while.

The concept is a good one and I congratulate Frank Piaseki for his vision and stick-to-itiveness as he has been promoting this concept for many years. Now, his time has come.



------------------
The Cat

Randy_g
20th Dec 2000, 13:31
Lu didn't Bell also play with a compound machine in the 70's ??? If my memory serves me right, it was a modified 212 with 2 jets hung on the side. It had decent straight-line performance, but was heavy, and it's hover performance was lacking. It's range wasn't what they'd hoped, so they cancelled it.


Randy_G

Lu Zuckerman
20th Dec 2000, 19:54
To: Randy_G

Just about every helicopter company experimented with compound technology but the Cheyenne was the only one to be committed to production. I believe 10 ships were built with two of them being destroyed as indicated above.

Lockheed worked on the problem of not knowing where the rotor would tilt in conjunction with Parker Bertea the manufacturers of the hydraulics and servo systems. It took over two years for Bertea to solve the problem and with the fix installed, the Lockheed test pilots raved about the smoothness and controlability of the Cheyenne. However in creating the fix Bertea created a reliability nightmare. There were hundreds of failure points and any one of them would cause loss of control.

The Army finally gave up on the Cheyenne and the Apache was born.

------------------
The Cat

turboshaft
20th Dec 2000, 23:55
Randy_G: you're probably thinking of the Sikorsky XH-59/S-69 ABC research program.

As Lu says, it's good to see Frank & John win the opportunity to demo the concept. CarterCopter is also promoting similar technology for its Heliplane FTR proposal.

T/shaft

Lu Zuckerman
21st Dec 2000, 19:36
To: turboshaft

The CarterCopter is an autogyro and has an unpowered rotor. It is capable of "Jump takeoff" but it can't hover. CarterCopter is considering a larger version which would be in competition with the Piaseki which is a helicopter capable of doing everything a helicopter can do. To be fully competitive, CarterCopter will have to power the main rotor.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 21 December 2000).]

Cyclic Hotline
24th Dec 2000, 05:16
Piasecki seems to keep appearing with some "new" concept or another, must have some pretty strong political connections in Government procurement.

After the Heli-Stat, (balloon with 4 round motor S58's strapped to the side) it is fair to debate the real potential of any of these concepts. The Heli-stat crashed on it's first flight, killing one of the unfortunate operators of the helicopter strapped to the side.

The Heli-Stat was funded by, of all people, the US Forest Service, and was a ridiculous concept to demonstrate a machine that clearly had no commercial application whatsoever.(That's why you may have never heard of it!)

That these projects relentlessly pursue previously explored (and abandoned) ideas does make you wonder about the funding and review process of these Government funded (read taxpayer funded) programmes. The glory days of the highly funded exploration and advances in helicopter technology and performance in the 60's, 70's and early 80's, gave way to the realities of commercial enterprise and showing a return on investment.

I will actually be very interested in watching this project advance, if only to ensure that some practical conclusion is achieved, and that it is not yet another political boon-doggle, to explore and develop a technology that will have no practical application. In particular it will be interesting to see the performance improvements relative to the S61 "swing-tail rotor" and the other experimental activities carried out in this area, a long time ago.

Hopefully a worthwhile project, time will tell?

212man
24th Dec 2000, 05:47
I think Randy is thinking of a modified B204 that flew in the 60's. I recall seing film of it and a quoted top speed of 212 mph! It looked fairly standard apart from two jet engines 'strapped' on the sides. Must have been a hell of a ride, though you'd want to make damm sure the track and balancing had been done accurately before flight!

------------------
Another day in paradise

Lu Zuckerman
24th Dec 2000, 05:55
To: Cyclic Hotline

In the early to late sixties I worked for Douglas Missile and Space Systems on the propulsion system for the Saturn S IV B. Douglas had a skills retreival system and through that system they found out that I had a heavy helicopter background. I was pulled out of my job for several weeks and assigned to a group that was working on a similar system that employed multiple helicopter power trains and dynamic system just like the system described in your post. The entire concept was flawed and instead of helping them in the design process I spent most of my time picking the system to small pieces. It was eventually dropped. The system was going to be used to catch satellites as the dropped out of orbit. The eventual successor to that idea was to use a C-130 with a drogue hanging out of the fuselage in trail about a hundred yards behind the aircraft. That worked, ..most of the time.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 December 2000).]