Hanging one side low
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
IBut does it really matter, other than giving you something to think about, and divert your mind from the lack of Lou Rawls and the closure of Dan Murphy's?
I have been away looking for more information and I now have some doubts about the cause of the roll in the hover.
I am sure about the physics: the balance/equilibrium of forces and couples in the hover; the need for correct terminology; the absence of a pivot.
I looked back at what Nick Lappos had said in earlier threads and he is telling us that the torque applied to an articulated or semi-rigid rotor head by a tilted rotor disc is big. I was ignorant of this in the 70s and it is something I learned here. I could not find that he explicitly said this was enough to cause the hover roll and he also said that the position of the tail rotor was significant in determining the degree of the roll. I am also largely ignorant of the very sophisticated design of modern helicopters - the last I had some small knowledge of was the Lynx.
Here is where I stand at the moment. There is tail rotor drift and this is corrected by tilting the rotor disc laterally. The mechanism by which the disc is tilted is a combination of design choices and pilot control. The design choices will be a compromise between providing for the hover and cruise. In nearly all cases tilting the disc will result in a roll couple, which is from the torque on the rotor head and/or the offset between the tail rotor and main rotor. As the roll progresses the roll couple is balanced by the couple formed between the vertical component of the rotor thrust and the weight acting through the CG.
My real doubts are about where the roll couple comes from. The hover is a state of static equilibrium and in comparison to most helicopter aerodynamics it should be relatively easy to analyse. However, I am aware that there are a lot of things contributing to the forces and couples and that Nick Lappos may know of interactions that have completely escaped me.
Lastly, I think that the simple explanation may be true for teetering rotors, but I am even questioning that.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bah! All you experts with thousands and thousands of hours arguing the merits of which side they hang.
Last time I parked one near the hanger with the wind tumbling over the roof it was hanging left, then right, then left, then right and so on until it finally touched that hard allergic grey stuff.
Fair weather flyers the lot of you.
(tongue-firmly-in-cheek
)
Last time I parked one near the hanger with the wind tumbling over the roof it was hanging left, then right, then left, then right and so on until it finally touched that hard allergic grey stuff.
Fair weather flyers the lot of you.
(tongue-firmly-in-cheek
)Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
We have been discussing couples that create rotation of a body - how do you identify the axis of that rotation? Is it along the line between (in this case as in ACs diagram) MR head and TR and, if so, where along that line?
I am pretty sure that it is ok to apply statics to a hovering helicopter, but I am even having some doubts about that.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
Many years ago, Nick put out a list of Helicopter Urban Myths,
I tried to eliminate those I new of and met with a little resistance from the beefers as a result.
However, this thread has made me consider the awful possibility that I might have fallen for one of them regarding tail rotor roll.
Syd, thank you for your answers but surely there has to be an axis of rotation if the body rotates.
Consider just the translating tendency of the TR thrust before the disc is tilted to compensate - that lateral force must act either through or at some distance from the vertical C of G. If it acts through it the body will simply move laterally but if it acts at some distance (ie TR vertically separated from the vertical C of G, it must also cause a rotation.
If my sentence is correct then applying lateral cyclic gives a force acting at the rotor head which, again, if not aligned with the vertical C of G, will produce a rolling moment as well as a lateral force to oppose TR drift.
Thoughts?
Consider just the translating tendency of the TR thrust before the disc is tilted to compensate - that lateral force must act either through or at some distance from the vertical C of G. If it acts through it the body will simply move laterally but if it acts at some distance (ie TR vertically separated from the vertical C of G, it must also cause a rotation.
If my sentence is correct then applying lateral cyclic gives a force acting at the rotor head which, again, if not aligned with the vertical C of G, will produce a rolling moment as well as a lateral force to oppose TR drift.
Thoughts?
As far as rotor design goes - with a teetering head, the fuselage just hangs under the rotor so you tilt the disc and the fuselage obediently follows it. When you add hinges (physical or virtual) you allow the blade flapping to exert a force on the rotor head which is fixed to the fuselage - the results are the same but the mechanisms are different.
The Lynx, with it's titanium flapping forging had an effective hinge offset of around 17% if memory serves (I used to instruct on it). The bigger this offset, the quicker the fuselage reaction to any cyclic input and the greater control power you are deemed to have. Having rolled, looped and back-flipped it, I know it is VERY responsive.
The Lynx, with it's titanium flapping forging had an effective hinge offset of around 17% if memory serves (I used to instruct on it). The bigger this offset, the quicker the fuselage reaction to any cyclic input and the greater control power you are deemed to have. Having rolled, looped and back-flipped it, I know it is VERY responsive.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Syd, thank you for your answers but surely there has to be an axis of rotation if the body rotates.
When analysing this you must be sure that you have identified all the linear forces and all the couples. It is my ability to do the latter that has thrown doubts in my mind.
If my sentence is correct then applying lateral cyclic gives a force acting at the rotor head which, again, if not aligned with the vertical C of G, will produce a rolling moment as well as a lateral force to oppose TR drift.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
As far as rotor design goes - with a teetering head, the fuselage just hangs under the rotor so you tilt the disc and the fuselage obediently follows it. When you add hinges (physical or virtual) you allow the blade flapping to exert a force on the rotor head which is fixed to the fuselage - the results are the same but the mechanisms are different.
The Lynx, with it's titanium flapping forging had an effective hinge offset of around 17% if memory serves (I used to instruct on it). The bigger this offset, the quicker the fuselage reaction to any cyclic input and the greater control power you are deemed to have. Having rolled, looped and back-flipped it, I know it is VERY responsive.
The Lynx, with it's titanium flapping forging had an effective hinge offset of around 17% if memory serves (I used to instruct on it). The bigger this offset, the quicker the fuselage reaction to any cyclic input and the greater control power you are deemed to have. Having rolled, looped and back-flipped it, I know it is VERY responsive.
The essence of a helicopter in the hover is that it does not move or rotate - it is in static equilibrium - and there is no axis of rotation. It means that the sum of linear forces is zero and the turning effects (couples/torques) are balanced.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
But those couples/torques must be acting around a point to have created the rotation until equilibrium is reached.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So are you saying that I am correct when the aircraft is moving but you are correct when the aircraft is static?
Originally Posted by HissingSyd
When the aircraft is moving all bets are off as far as I am concerned. What happens does depend on the position of the CG but also in the Centre of Inertia, which is probably as far as this forum should go.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 212man
No - don't rock the boat! But if you did, which point would it be rotating about?...….. ;-)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try not to think of this as rotation about a point in 3-space. In the static equilibrium case, you can pick any point you want, and the most logical (giving simplest equations) is the rotor hub. Rotor disc is tilted with respect to the hub. Fuselage is hanging with respect to the hub, pushed one way by the tail rotor, and the other way by the CG.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,095
Likes: 0
Received 31 Likes
on
20 Posts
AC....BK used mine as a model!
Well...size and weight perhaps.... but not cast in Brass!
Well...size and weight perhaps.... but not cast in Brass!
Gentlemen,scholars, engineers, aviators, five pages of discussion about a fairly simple free body diagram but without concurrence as to a solution,and now,we are to proceed into an allegorical treatment of the relationship between the MBB Pendab and Army Pilot physiology?
It would seem that physics isn't much use where helicopters are concerned since they never stay still once running so static diagrams don't help.
ISTR the people that investigated the 2 Sea King dynamic rollovers (one at St Magwan and the other brilliantly reproduced at Boscombe Down) on level ground were very interested in rolling moments from MR and TR and especially their position relative to the vertical C of G
ISTR the people that investigated the 2 Sea King dynamic rollovers (one at St Magwan and the other brilliantly reproduced at Boscombe Down) on level ground were very interested in rolling moments from MR and TR and especially their position relative to the vertical C of G
