Number of rotor blades?
I believe that the initial concept was to have all of the S-92"s dynamic components retrofittable on to the Blackhawk. As a result the S-92 was trapped into having just 4 main rotor blades. It was good in concept but was lost as the S-92 put on weight. The airframe out grew its rotor.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
I'm curious how you guys durability stress the blades for passing through the resonance rpms. Do you have standards to allow a period of soak for maximum alternating strain or can coupled FEA/CFD analysis provide realistic design goals?
I'm interested because fixed rpm seems to be one of the biggest limitations in helicopter design. Variable rpm rotors would allow efficient operation across the speed/weight envelope.
I'm curious how you guys durability stress the blades for passing through the resonance rpms. Do you have standards to allow a period of soak for maximum alternating strain or can coupled FEA/CFD analysis provide realistic design goals?
I'm interested because fixed rpm seems to be one of the biggest limitations in helicopter design. Variable rpm rotors would allow efficient operation across the speed/weight envelope.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 67
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always thought that more blades will develop more thrust, but at a lower efficiency. If you have a big engine(s) and you want to use all the power it can produce, use more blades. With a smaller powerplant, a two bladed (or a 1 bladed I guess) will be more efficient.
I'd have to go back through some books to say that more confidently, though.
I'd have to go back through some books to say that more confidently, though.
The only rotor resonance issues I have had to deal with were related to rotor to airframe resonances and ground resonances where the entire system reacts through the landing gear. Specific MRB span wise, cord wise or lead lag resonance design issues were handled long before the blade got onto a flight article.
In some instances the vibratory inputs from the main rotor blades were handled through absorbers or dampers. The S-76A incorporated 3/rev and 5/rev bi-filars installed on the main rotor hub to reduce vibrator inputs to the airframe. These were blade related vibrations.
In the case of the H-53E series, the natural frequency of the airframe was approximately 3.25 Hz. The rotor speed at 100% was 179 rpm (3.0 Hz). During high rotor rpm operations (heavy lifts, autorotations) the rotor’s natural 1/rev vibration level increased as the airframe’s natural frequency was approached. Prior to the incorporation of cyclic and collective flight control dampers and flight control desensitizers, pilot assisted inputs were also introduced as contributing elements to the total vibration levels of the system. This never seemed to be as issue with the smaller airframes because the natural frequency of the airframes were significantly different from that of the main rotor and at a higher frequency than any input a pilot would be capable of making.
In some instances the vibratory inputs from the main rotor blades were handled through absorbers or dampers. The S-76A incorporated 3/rev and 5/rev bi-filars installed on the main rotor hub to reduce vibrator inputs to the airframe. These were blade related vibrations.
In the case of the H-53E series, the natural frequency of the airframe was approximately 3.25 Hz. The rotor speed at 100% was 179 rpm (3.0 Hz). During high rotor rpm operations (heavy lifts, autorotations) the rotor’s natural 1/rev vibration level increased as the airframe’s natural frequency was approached. Prior to the incorporation of cyclic and collective flight control dampers and flight control desensitizers, pilot assisted inputs were also introduced as contributing elements to the total vibration levels of the system. This never seemed to be as issue with the smaller airframes because the natural frequency of the airframes were significantly different from that of the main rotor and at a higher frequency than any input a pilot would be capable of making.
Diameter Vs Number of Blades
As the gross weight of a machine increases so will the number of main rotor blades. The Bell 214ST at 17500 lbs. is about as far as a 2 bladed system could grow. A look at some other machines may reveal a similar trend. The S-61 had a five blades and a 62 ft. diameter main rotor and grossed out at 19000 lbs. The EH-101 at 32000 lbs. incorporates a 61 ft. 5 bladed main rotor. This is probably an upper limit for both the diameter and the number of blades. The H-53A/D series began with a 6 bladed 72 foot diameter main rotor at a gross weight of 42000-50000 lbs. When the weight grew to 73500lbs the diameter was increased to 79 feet and a seventh main rotor blade was added. The S-92 may be approaching the upper weight limit for a 4 bladed main rotor.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack, Thanks for the helpful response. I had forgotten about frame modes often being uncomfortably close to the rotor modes.
My original resonance question was probably unfair because by the time a rotor is fitted to an airframe it has already undergone significant whirl tower testing. I would imagine that this does as much to validate the blade service strains as it does to validate the rotor dynamics. I would equally imagine that it is not unheard of that a prototype rotor requires some redesign before being fitted to a prototype helicopter.
We live in interesting times, and i am certainly curious how the next generation of X2 derived machines will cope with the need to reduce Nr in flight at high speed. Probably numbers of blades will give way to wide chord blades, allowing more structure (which gets back to your ballistic tolerance comment).
My original resonance question was probably unfair because by the time a rotor is fitted to an airframe it has already undergone significant whirl tower testing. I would imagine that this does as much to validate the blade service strains as it does to validate the rotor dynamics. I would equally imagine that it is not unheard of that a prototype rotor requires some redesign before being fitted to a prototype helicopter.
We live in interesting times, and i am certainly curious how the next generation of X2 derived machines will cope with the need to reduce Nr in flight at high speed. Probably numbers of blades will give way to wide chord blades, allowing more structure (which gets back to your ballistic tolerance comment).
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bangalore, India
Age: 34
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number of rotor blades
Hello fellow rotorheads!
I wanted to know what the maximum number of rotor blades a helo can have is. What are the overall differences in multi blade rotors? Considering lift required, drag, power available, aspect ratio, solidity ratio, tip speed and any other factors you feel important, and at the same time disregarding landing space available, parking space, maintenance etc. Want a purely aerodynamic opinion.
Any and all inputs are greatly appreciated!
I wanted to know what the maximum number of rotor blades a helo can have is. What are the overall differences in multi blade rotors? Considering lift required, drag, power available, aspect ratio, solidity ratio, tip speed and any other factors you feel important, and at the same time disregarding landing space available, parking space, maintenance etc. Want a purely aerodynamic opinion.
Any and all inputs are greatly appreciated!
I hate replies that begin "It Depends" but it really does depend on what the designer has in mind for operational capabilites. It used to be that high lift, low speed want with two blades ie Bell 47, 205, 214 and high speed went with multiblade systems ie MD369 family. Current thinking is leading to multi blade systems that are fast and quiet.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, amateur explanation here:
2 blades - least drag. And because they normally have to have a greater diameter to compensate for less blade area, they have more lift. Big rotor diameter = greater lift and/or less power to lift same weight. Take your pick.
Multiple blades have lower Reynolds numbers, higher solidity and seems to produce less noise and less vibrations, but also have a more complex damping and hub system.
It seems to me that whenever a manufacturer choses a multi blade system, they also reduce the diameter to reduce the drag. This makes for agility, but will use more power and more fuel to lift same amount of weight. It would be interesting to make a big diameter, multi blade helicopter with high aspect ratio blades to mimic the lesser drag of a 2-blade system. I'm sure it has been done and I'm sure there might be some other drawback to that. Maybe blade structural?
2 blades - least drag. And because they normally have to have a greater diameter to compensate for less blade area, they have more lift. Big rotor diameter = greater lift and/or less power to lift same weight. Take your pick.
Multiple blades have lower Reynolds numbers, higher solidity and seems to produce less noise and less vibrations, but also have a more complex damping and hub system.
It seems to me that whenever a manufacturer choses a multi blade system, they also reduce the diameter to reduce the drag. This makes for agility, but will use more power and more fuel to lift same amount of weight. It would be interesting to make a big diameter, multi blade helicopter with high aspect ratio blades to mimic the lesser drag of a 2-blade system. I'm sure it has been done and I'm sure there might be some other drawback to that. Maybe blade structural?
I believe the actual reason to reducing diameter by using multi blade systems is to allow greater maximum speed. For example imagine a 369 with a 206 rotor system it would lift more but have much slower Vne. Probably have better autorotation characteristics too!
Ballistic Tolerance
Another aspect considered in military aircraft design is ballistic tolerance. Less blades of greater robust design equals greater ballistic tolerance. The four bladed systems on the Blackhawk and Apache seem to suggest this was the best combination or compromise arrived at in the 1970’s. This may change with the improved composite materials of today’s rotor blades.
Hm
comparison between 206 and 369. 369 has a greater mauw at 3550 lbs ( 3000lbs if internal) v 3200lbs with the same engine. I know the 250 works harder in the 206 then the 369, bleed valve is almost fully open in 369 in cruise, not so in 206 according to the engineers.
Mind you you can only make a blade so long before it loses structual integrity or is so heavy that it is difficult to turn it !
comparison between 206 and 369. 369 has a greater mauw at 3550 lbs ( 3000lbs if internal) v 3200lbs with the same engine. I know the 250 works harder in the 206 then the 369, bleed valve is almost fully open in 369 in cruise, not so in 206 according to the engineers.
Mind you you can only make a blade so long before it loses structual integrity or is so heavy that it is difficult to turn it !
