Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Twin Main Rotors In Autorotation Situations  
User currently offlineTripleDelta From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 7
Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4675 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

How do the twin main rotors (like on Kamov helicopters) behave in autorotation situations? Do they help to slow the descent rate since two rotors are better than one? Are there any other advantages / disadvantages of this system in autorotation?


No plane, no gain.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

Never flew twin or tandem rotor helicopters, but I expect that they would perform similar to single rotor. The issue is blade loading and the engineers tend to design the rotor system to match the loads intended to be carried. Don't think two rotors are actually better than one - just different.

One factor that has really improved autorotation performance in the last couple of decades is weighted blades. Early helos, say, 1950s vintage had very light blades, balsa wood with maybe bronze or aluminum spars and leading edge caps. They would bleed energy (RPM) very quickly when loaded up in autorotation, as in pulling a little pitch to carry the helicopter a bit farther in the descent. Blades with internal weights carry a lot more inertia.




Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAirtractor From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4438 times:

This is a very good question.

A Kamov helicopter with contra-rotating blades behave very well in auto rotation as there is no tendency for the aircraft to yaw out of control on flare before touch down, like all other "conventional" helicopters do without torque control ( Tail rotor )

As for tandem rotor aircraft such as the Chinook I have no idea how they would handle an auto-rotation.



In memory of Agnes & Aaron, you're always with me when I fly.
User currently offlineTripleDelta From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4431 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hmm...I never thought about the yaw issue. Interesting. Two blades spinning at same speed but in different directions would pretty much cancel each other's effects. I'd guess that with the Chinook-style ones, the effect is the same, though maybe the stress on the fuselage is greater, on account of the torque "arm", i.e. the distance of the rotor from the CG. Possibly then an imbalance between the two rotors would cause additional adverse effects along with yaw, maybe something like a sliding motion.


No plane, no gain.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

Don't think two rotors are actually better than one - just different.

IIRC the biggest advantage is smaller rotor diameter, leading to slower tip speeds and also ease of handling on/near the ground.

Of course, the solution is trickier to engineer with all that gearing in the same place.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineUps763 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

I fly single rotor helicopters and perform several touchdown autorotations a week and am interested is what you mean when you say the aircraft yaws out of control?

The only time the aircraft will have a high yaw rate is during the initial power failure or throttle roll off, which will require right pedal in most american built helicopters, during the actual touchdown when you pull collective pitch to cushion the landing, there is no tourque being generated by the engine hence no yaw or need for a pedal input.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4358 times:

I asked a Chinook pilot about this once when I was visiting an Army Guard hangar. He basically said that if they lose either 1 or both of the rotors, they're screwed. Thus, they pay extra close attention to keeping them in top shape. Their chinook was down because they found metal in the oil and the engine had to be replaced.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinePaveLowDriver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

Gents,

Regarding the original question posed:

"Are there any other advantages / disadvantages of this system in autorotation?"

I don't have any stick time in a contra-rotating aircraft, but there are a couple of notable differences in the coaxial (Kamov) type system during autorotation that I'm aware of. Most notably in the how the aircraft behaves about the yaw axis.

Obviously, in a conventional helicopter, yaw is controlled by the application of pitch to the antitorque rotor - in the coaxial system, however, yaw is controlled by the application of differential torque to each rotor system. This allows helicopters with coaxial rotor systems to dispense with the long tailboom common to almost all other configurations and results in all of the Kamovs looking sort of like a fat goldfish. This config reduces the aerodynamic moment of the tail - i.e. the fuselage does not "weathervane" into the relative wind as easily as a conventional helicopter. What this necessitates on most coaxials is a large set of vertical tailplanes on the horizontal stabilizer, usually equipped with a set of rudders....

In short, since yaw control in a coaxial system is based on engine torque being applied to the system, when that torque is removed during a freewheeling autorotation, the only yaw axis control remaining is that provided by the aerodynamic surfaces, resulting in the aircraft being sort of squirrelly, heading-wise, on the way down through the auto.

To quote from Shawn Coyle, "Maintaining directional control [in a coaxial system] is difficult, as the amount of differential lift between the two rotors is not high, and may in fact, reverse. The rigging that produces a left pedal turn in powered flight may produce a different effect in autorotation."

On a different note, I've heard nothing but rave reviews from my friends who used to fly HH-43s and some dudes who are flying K-MAXs now. Apparently with the intermeshing (eggbeater) config, autorotational performance is pretty impressive. You've still got the yaw control problems requiring extensive stabilizer set-ups, but apparently they are some of the most forgiving rotor systems out there. I've heard the old HH-43 guys talk about autos in which, after rolling the throttle off, you could take the aircraft all the way to the ground without raising the collective from the floor. Some of 'em have even said you could do an auto without even lowering the collective....pretty amazing.

I'm all ears if anybody has any contradicting info or thinks I'm off-base....

Hope this helps......

PAVE LOW LEADS!


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

PaveLowDriver, welcome to the A.nut forums and thanks for your info.

Pave Lows are HUGE! I once saw two passing my window in London when Bush was there. Man was that impressive!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Yes, welcome to the forums PaveLowDriver. I'm a big fan of the whole 53 series.

You seem kinda young to have friends that flew the Husky  Smile . I've never had the pleasure of seeing one fly, but I'm guessing they were pretty much out of service by the end of the Nam war, late 70's at latest? Pretty interesting that it is so docile in the auto though, I would have never guessed. I have seen the KMax fly, interesting bird there.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinePaveLowDriver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

Thanks for the hearty welcome, gents.....

Starlion....Yep.....Paves are one of the biggest [western] helos you're going to see flying around....Although the Marine E-model is significantly larger, with our FLIR/radar setups in the nose, the Pave Low definitely looks more aggressive....but of course I'm biased.

HaveBlue....Yeah, the guys I know that flew the Husky have got a couple years on me, and as far as I know, they were pretty much out of service by the late mid-70's, with the exception of some local air base rescue units.....If you're interested, check out...

http://www.pedroafrescue.org/

The K-MAX is definitely a different kind of bird.....A great example of "form follows function..." I've heard from the pilots that the ride is a little bumpy, but other than that, a great bird.

Cheers!

PAVE LOW LEADS!


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

PaveLowDriver, I became a Pave Low fan after reading Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger". Still one of my favorite books. I stopped wondering if you could actually land a Pave Low on a CG cutter (but I'm sure you can enlighten us) in a storm after my boss told me this story:
He was in the Swedish Navy and a Boeing Vertol driver was showing off by holding the nose gear steady on the deck of a pitching ship (and there aren't any big ones in the Swedish Navy) while unloading pax in a mild storm. He was "flying" sideways compared to the ship with only the nose gear on the deck. Just following the movements of the ship.

Maybe OT, but we can throw autorotation in there  Big grin: How would you compare Western helos with, for example, the Hind, Hip or Halo when it comes to flight characteristics, behavior and safety features?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Twin Main Rotors In Autorotation Situations
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Autoland In Crosswinds Situations Question posted Thu May 4 2006 15:18:56 by JulianUK
What's The Main Airport In St. Louis? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 01:01:49 by AMSMAN
Fly-by-wire In Sticky Situations posted Tue Jun 3 2003 05:39:40 by Cessnapimp
Notar, Fenestron, Twin Main Rotors posted Wed Apr 10 2002 14:18:27 by LZ-TLT
In The Cruise Engine Failure Twin Question posted Mon May 22 2006 00:24:08 by JulianUK
Steerable PDUs Numbering In Main Deck posted Sat Nov 30 2002 02:26:31 by Popee
F/A's That Don't Live In The Base City posted Tue Jan 9 2007 00:51:16 by KLM672
The Avro Arrow Used In "The Arrow" Mini-series posted Mon Jan 8 2007 00:42:49 by Starglider
Best Regional Airline In US? posted Wed Jan 3 2007 03:12:29 by Dreampilot
747 Takeoff Video: Zero To Rotate In 20 Seconds? posted Mon Jan 1 2007 09:58:25 by Jawed

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format