aerodynamic theory question
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tip path plane
Agree with mk10, with the following reservation
in order to strictly define a plane, the tip would have to follow a strikt circular path. For an number of reasons this is not so
- global higher orders of the aerodynamics resulting in higher order loadings. In the case of a R44 in forward flight there seems to be at high speed a clear second order as showed by the coning angle which is not constant during rotation (even assuming fully ridgid blades)
- vibrations of the blade resulting in bending of a 'higher order' because of the higher order excitations (cfr the rather extreme flexing of the rotor blade film that was mentioned even recently on this forum
- during transients (ie sudden control inputs), before the rotor takes a steady regime
In my simulator the tip path is defined as the average tip path, that is taking higher orders out.
Example : look at the dotted red line :
d3
in order to strictly define a plane, the tip would have to follow a strikt circular path. For an number of reasons this is not so
- global higher orders of the aerodynamics resulting in higher order loadings. In the case of a R44 in forward flight there seems to be at high speed a clear second order as showed by the coning angle which is not constant during rotation (even assuming fully ridgid blades)
- vibrations of the blade resulting in bending of a 'higher order' because of the higher order excitations (cfr the rather extreme flexing of the rotor blade film that was mentioned even recently on this forum
- during transients (ie sudden control inputs), before the rotor takes a steady regime
In my simulator the tip path is defined as the average tip path, that is taking higher orders out.
Example : look at the dotted red line :
d3
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Is this something to do with those lost 18 degrees of blade advance that the late Lu Zuckermann used to worry us silly about? 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
delta3,
You ask too many deep questions!
It is my belief that the mythical "tip path plane" is a construct that helps explain things, but is not a physical reality. Perhaps we could define the "tip path plane" as the average resultant path of a set of uniform blades, infinite in number.
The actual tip path is a mutating lumpy pulsating thing (look again at that famous film clip, rotor.avi for the reality).
An analogy might be "mean sea level" which is a plane, yet the sea is a wavy dynamic entity.
You ask too many deep questions!
It is my belief that the mythical "tip path plane" is a construct that helps explain things, but is not a physical reality. Perhaps we could define the "tip path plane" as the average resultant path of a set of uniform blades, infinite in number.
The actual tip path is a mutating lumpy pulsating thing (look again at that famous film clip, rotor.avi for the reality).
An analogy might be "mean sea level" which is a plane, yet the sea is a wavy dynamic entity.
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tip path
Nick,
I fully agree, somewhere 'theory' and 'practise/practical' have to meet.
I'll be most of the time at one end of the spectrum, I am afraid.
A real specialist is one who can explain things to others, as you clearly do.
I am still in the discovery phase.
d3
I fully agree, somewhere 'theory' and 'practise/practical' have to meet.
I'll be most of the time at one end of the spectrum, I am afraid.
A real specialist is one who can explain things to others, as you clearly do.
I am still in the discovery phase.
d3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thecontroller,
You want a plane and simple answer?
This is not meant to be glib, but, 'the plane of rotation of what?'
At the risk of getting toooo complicated, here are four planes (or axes) to choose from.
Dave
is the tip path plane the same thing as the plane of rotation?
is there any danger of getting my original question answered with a simple answer?!
This is not meant to be glib, but, 'the plane of rotation of what?'
At the risk of getting toooo complicated, here are four planes (or axes) to choose from.
Dave
Well, actually, the above posters have got it all wrong.
The tip path plane is actually something quite different, and if you'll allow me I'll just draw a diagram which will set it all straight immediately!
AAAAHHH - JUST KIDDING!!
The tip path plane is actually something quite different, and if you'll allow me I'll just draw a diagram which will set it all straight immediately!
AAAAHHH - JUST KIDDING!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by delta3
in order to strictly define a plane, the tip would have to follow a strikt circular path. For an number of reasons this is not so...
) that in the R22 Tip Path Plane does not quite follow the Control Plane (ie swash plate). There seems to be slight overshoot to transient inputs, which results in the pilot needing to learn to moderate hover cyclic inputs.No data, but reasonable conjecture - i'll get me coat...
Mart
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jeezy creezy
controller...the simplest answer to your question is no.
For the ppl or cpl theory, the tip path plane is (as asserted by MK10) parallel to the plane of rotation and is the plane through which the tip of the blade travels.
The distance of the tip path plane from the plane of rotation will be determined by disc loading and centrifugal/centripetal (don't even get them started on that one) force, increasing or decreasing the coning angle.
controller...the simplest answer to your question is no.
For the ppl or cpl theory, the tip path plane is (as asserted by MK10) parallel to the plane of rotation and is the plane through which the tip of the blade travels.
The distance of the tip path plane from the plane of rotation will be determined by disc loading and centrifugal/centripetal (don't even get them started on that one) force, increasing or decreasing the coning angle.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thecontroller,
There is a lot of incorrect information posted on the Internet. Two incorrect posting can be found on this thread.
Um... lifting.... was wrong when he spoke about the mouse and confusion.
Pornography is the biggest industry on the net. The mouse reduces the confusion.
Pear was also wrong.
Centrifugal and centripetal forces are not relevant. This is because one cancels out the other.
The only correct posting is this one.
Anonymous
There is a lot of incorrect information posted on the Internet. Two incorrect posting can be found on this thread.
Um... lifting.... was wrong when he spoke about the mouse and confusion.
Pornography is the biggest industry on the net. The mouse reduces the confusion.
Pear was also wrong.
Centrifugal and centripetal forces are not relevant. This is because one cancels out the other.
The only correct posting is this one.
Anonymous
Controller
My understanding is this:
The TPP as a few people have written is just a contruct to "help" sort POF questions out. If the helicopter is sitting on the ground in nil wind at operational RRPM with no pitch applied the TTP and plane of rotation are one and the same thing.
If the blades are under load and begin to cone, no wind, cyclic neutral, same thing.
However, if there is any difference in the relative velocities of the blades and they begin to flap or teeter, or if a cyclic input is made, the path described by each blade will no longer be uniform : consider flapping to equality of angle of attack or rotor thrust for example. Also refer to Hooks Joint Effect. The TPP is then used as an "average" of the orbit described by the aerofoils.
TT
My understanding is this:
The TPP as a few people have written is just a contruct to "help" sort POF questions out. If the helicopter is sitting on the ground in nil wind at operational RRPM with no pitch applied the TTP and plane of rotation are one and the same thing.
If the blades are under load and begin to cone, no wind, cyclic neutral, same thing.
However, if there is any difference in the relative velocities of the blades and they begin to flap or teeter, or if a cyclic input is made, the path described by each blade will no longer be uniform : consider flapping to equality of angle of attack or rotor thrust for example. Also refer to Hooks Joint Effect. The TPP is then used as an "average" of the orbit described by the aerofoils.
TT
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of having my head (now peering over the parapet) shot off and without the benefit of my dusty PofF books to hand to confirm this I'm going out on a bit of a limb from memory....
Surely, the POR is the plane described 90 deg perpendicular to the AXIS of rotation (i.e. a vertical axis extending through the mast).
The TPP is the plane described by the rotor tips - nothing "Construct" about it TorqueTalk (lets discount the effects of tracking / out of track blades)
With cyclic input applied (and the effects of Hookes Joint, Flapping etc), the the TPP can describe a plane which is NOT parallel to the POR.
It is for this reason that the two descriptions (POR and TPP) exist otherwise they would be described by the same definition ... mange tout, non ?
... he ducks for cover awaiting a triade of "durr!" statements
FO
Surely, the POR is the plane described 90 deg perpendicular to the AXIS of rotation (i.e. a vertical axis extending through the mast).
The TPP is the plane described by the rotor tips - nothing "Construct" about it TorqueTalk (lets discount the effects of tracking / out of track blades)
With cyclic input applied (and the effects of Hookes Joint, Flapping etc), the the TPP can describe a plane which is NOT parallel to the POR.
It is for this reason that the two descriptions (POR and TPP) exist otherwise they would be described by the same definition ... mange tout, non ?
... he ducks for cover awaiting a triade of "durr!" statements
FO
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we are getting into the details, I've got a question toooo.
Why is the action of teetering hinges and flapping hinges referred to as a Hookes joint (Universal & Cardan joint)? These rotorheads have basically one hinge, whereas the Hookes joint has two hinges, which are located at 90-deg to each other.
Why aren't these hinges referred to as a Knuckle joint?
Dave
Why is the action of teetering hinges and flapping hinges referred to as a Hookes joint (Universal & Cardan joint)? These rotorheads have basically one hinge, whereas the Hookes joint has two hinges, which are located at 90-deg to each other.
Why aren't these hinges referred to as a Knuckle joint?
Dave
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example a second order harmonic can result in the tips being higher at the fore and aft positions than at the left and right positions, hence no single plane will pass through the tips at all locations.
The TPP "construct" basically involves finding the plane from which the average displacement of the tips is zero - i.e. the blades go above the plane as much as they go below the plane.
With cyclic input applied (and the effects of Hookes Joint, Flapping etc), the the TPP can describe a plane which is NOT parallel to the POR.
It is for this reason that the two descriptions (POR and TPP) exist otherwise they would be described by the same definition ... mange tout, non ?
It is for this reason that the two descriptions (POR and TPP) exist otherwise they would be described by the same definition ... mange tout, non ?
The third axis - that Dave mentioned - is the control axis/plane. With zero translational velocity, this corresponds to the TPP, and differs from the axis/plane of rotation as determined by cyclic input. With translational velocity, the TPP will tilt back away from thr direction of motion.
So in forward flight, your control axis/plane will be tilted forward (forward stick trim at speed), but flapback will cause the TPP to be tilted back towards the plane of rotation.
Daniel