CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HOVER PERFORMANCE

!I
TEST DATA OF THE BELL YAH-lR HELICOPTER
WHEN EQUIPPED WITH BOTH THE
STANDARD AND H1PROVED MAIN ROTOR BLADES

A project·submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Engineering
by

-
Tom P. Benson

June, 1978
The Project of Tom P. Benson is approved:

(Di\TE)

DR. VINCENT W. ANDERSON (DATE)

'
DR. HARISH VAISH, Chairman (DATE)

California State University, Northridge

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v

LIST OF TABLES vi
ABSTRACT . . vii
INTRODUCTION
Background
Objectives
Description 2

Test Scope . 4

Test Methodology 5

ANALYSIS .... 6

Methodology 6

Data Base 7

Statistical Hypothesis 9

General . . . . . 9

Two Kinds of Errors 10

Choice of the Significance Level 11

Computation of Test Statistics 11

General . . . . . 11

Linear Regression 13

Regression Une 13

Variation About the Regression Line 17

Chi-Squared Goodness of Fit Test 18

Test for Independence 25

Correlation Analysis 26
 Page
Regression in Two Populations 28

Comparison of Slopes . . 28

Comparison of Performance 31
CONCLUSIONS 35

APPENDIXES
A. References 37
B. Aircraft Description 39

C. Instrumentation . 54

D. Hover Performance 58

E. Test Data . . . . 62
F. List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols 66

iv
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure No. Title Page

OGE Hover 540 Blades 20
2 OGE Hover 747 Blades 21
3 OGE Hover 540 Blades 22
4 OGE Hover 747 Blades 23
Bl K747 Blade Configuration 46
B2 K747 Blade Cross-Section Structural
Arrangement . . . . 47

v
 LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
1 Hover Performance Test Conditions .... 4

Bl Aircraft Loading for Aft Center-of-Gravity 52

B2 Aircraft Loading for Forward Center-of-
Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

vi
 ABSTRACT

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HOVER PERFORMANCE

TEST DATA OF THE BELL YAH-lR HELICOPTER
WHEN EQUIPPED WITH BOTH THE
STANDARD AND IMPROVED MAIN ROTOR BLADES
by
Tom P. Benson
Master of Science in Engineering

The United States Army Aviation Engineering Flight Activity conducted

an airworthiness and flight characteristic evaluation of the improved
main rotor blade manufactured by Kaman Aerospace Corporation which was
installed on the YAH-lR helicopter. Both the standard Bell 8540 and
Kaman K747 rotor blades were evaluated for hover perfonnance. The
results of the 8540 blades were used as a baseline for comparison to
the K747 results. Both sets of hover performance data were analyzed
using techniques based upon established statistical and probability
theories. The results of these analysis and hypothesis testing were
the rejection of the contractors claim of a 8.7% improvement in hover
performance.

vii
 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The United States Army Aviation Systems Command (AVSCOM) awarded

a development contract to Kaman Aerospace Corporation (KAC) in May 1975
to design, fabricate, and test an improved main rotor blade (IMRB) for
the AH-1 series helicopter. The design objectives of the program were
to provide improved hover performance, reduced ballistic vulnerability,
and improved reliability and maintainability. The resulting Kaman blade
design, given the designation K747, includes the use of an advanced
design airfoil, a tapered tip planform, composite material construction,
and a multicell ballistically tolerant spar. AVSCOM directed the United
States Army Aviation Engineering Flight Activity (USAAEFA) to conduct an
airworthiness and flight characteristic (A&FC) evaluation of the YAH-lR
helicopter with the K747 rotor installed and specifically to verify the
hover improvement specification compliance (ref l, app A).

Hover data gathered, using both the standard and improved rotor
blades, during this engineering flight test conducted by USAAEFA form
the basis for this report. Inductive statistical methods are used to
analyze both sets of hover data and test various t~potheses.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this report ~re as follows:

1
 2

a. Analyze the hover data gathered during the A&FC evaluation of

the YAH-lR with both the standard Bell Helicopter Company (BHC) 8540
rotor blades and the KAC K747 rotor blades installed.

b. Determine compliance with the performance design requirements

of paragraph 3.2.1.1.1 .d. of the IMRB Detailed Specification (ref 2,
app A) which states: "The AH-lS configured with the improved blade
shall have the capability to hover out-of-ground effect at a gross
weight 8.7 percent greater than the AH-lS configured with the standard
main rotor blades for conditions of military rated power (T53-L-703
engine), 4000 feet pressure altitude and 95°F ambient temperature."

DESCRIPTION

The YAH-lR helicopter is a modified version of the AH-lG helicopter

and is manufactured by BHC. The YAH-lR is a tandem, two place, single-
lifting-rotor attack helicopter. AH-lS wings were installed for this
evaluation to accommodate the TOW pods. The appearance and overall
dimensions of the YAH-lR are the same as the AH-lG helicopter except for
those dimensions pertaining to the Model 212 tail rotor and the internal
construction and location of jack points of the wings. A detailed
description of the AH-lG helicopter is contained in the AH-lG operator•s
manual (ref 3, app A) and of the S model armament systems in the AH-lS
operator•s manual (ref 4, app A). A detailed description of the Model
212 tail rotor is contained in USAASTA Final Report No. 72-30 (ref 5).
The Model 212 tail rotor used in the YAH-lR differed fro1n that described
in reference 5 only in the rigging of the maximun1 tail rotor blade pitch
 3

angle. The maximum blade pitch angle was larger (19.9 deg) in the
YAH-lR because of the uprated tail rotor drive train. The aircraft
empty-weight was increased approximately 61 pounds, and the maximum
allowable gross weight was increased from 9500 pounds to 10,000 pounds.
Internal modifications applied to the AH-lG airframe to develop the
YAH-lR include the following:

a. Installation of a T53-L-703 engine with a thermodynamic rating

of 1800 shaft horsepower (shp) and an engine torque limit of 1175 foot-
pound (ft-lb) (1500 shp).

b. Installation of a modified AH-lJ transmission rated at 1290

shp for 30 minutes and 1134 shp continuous operation.

c. Installation of a modified AH-lJ tail rotor drive system

allowing 187 shp continuous and a transient power limit of 260 shp for
4 seconds.

d. Strengthened transmission mounts and associated structures,

and tail boom.

e. Installation of push-pull tubes replacing cables in the tail

rotor control system.

The IMRB incorporates an advanced design airfoil, a tapered tip

planform, construction of composite material and a multicell, ballisti-
 4

cally tolerant spar. The blades are designed to be individually inter-

changeable, and when used as a set, are interchangeable with the
standard AH-1 main rotor blades without modification other than pitch
link adjustment. A more detailed description of the test aircraft
(S/N 70-15936) and the IMRB, including photos, is provided in appendix
B.

TEST SCOPE

The limited A&FC evaluation of the IMRB was conducted at Edwards

Air Force Base (2302-foot field elevation), Bishop (4168-foot field
elevation) and Coyote Flats (9980-foot field elevation), California
from 25 February 1977 through 10 June 1977. A total of 77 test flights
(44.7 productive hours) were accomplished. The hover test conditions
and configurations are shown in table l.

Table 1. Hover Performance Test Conditions 1

ROTOR EXTERNAL DENSITY OUTSIDE AIR ROTOR 2

BLADES CONFIGURATION GROSS WEIGHT ALTITUDE TEMPERATURE SPEED
(LB) ( FT) (oc) (RPM)
B540 8-TOW & Clean 7960 to 9960 1000 to l 0920 1. 5 to 19.5 292 to 331
K747 8-TOW & Clean 7960 to 10200 1520 to 10700 -6.5 to 15.5 293 to 336

1
NOTES: Free flight hover out-of-ground effect at a skid height of 100
feet.
2
Referred rotor speeds.
 5

The comparison of out-of-ground effect (OGE) hovering performance

was only one of the many objectives of the evaluation and is the only
subject which will be discussed in this report. One YAH-lR test
helicopter {S/N 70-15936) was used throughout the A&FC evaluation.
Flight limitations contained in the Safety-of-Flight Release (ref 6,
app A), and the operator•s manual (ref 4, app A) were observed during
the evaluation.

TEST METHODOLOGY

Test methods and data reduction procedures used in these tests are
standard engineering flight test techniques (ref 7 and 8, app A) and
are described briefly in appendix D. All tests were flown on the same
aircraft with the same engine and with the same basic instrumentation.
Data were obtained with each blade type, "back to back," at each of the
three test sites. Flight test data were obtained from test instrumen-
tation displayed on the pilot and copilot panels and recorded on
magnetic tape. A detailed listing of the test instrumentation is
contained in appendix C.
 ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY

The reason for this evaluation was to define changes in hover

performance resulting from a change in rotor blade design (airfoil,
planform, tip, solidity, construction material, etc.), and specifically
to verify a contractor guarantee of hover performance improvement under
certain specific conditions. Even with extreme attention to control of
test condition state variables, the problem of duplication of condition
is an order of magnitude more difficult than in a laboratory environment
and nearly impossible to exactly duplicate. Further complicating the
problem is the fact that the hover flight regime is made up of six
independent variables, many of which, such as the ambient atmospheric
conditions can not be controlled by the operator. Since the guarantee
condition can not be duplicated exactly nor can the test conditions from
one set of rotor blades to the other be exactly duplicated, the problem
is to determine the specific functional relationship between the
dependent and independent variables for each rotor blade set. To
determine the functional relationship between the hover performance
variables, tests were performed under widely varying conditions with a
fairly large sample size to minimize the effects of any random errors
the operator may have induced upon the data. The mathematical technique
of regression analysis was used to determine the hover performance
functional relationship. The analysis in this report includes the
proc~dure for helicopter hover performance data collection and reduction

6
 7

plus the computation of certain statistics to be used in making

decisions about various aspects of the test results. The analysis used
in this report involves the computation of test statistics such as the
student t, F, chi-square, and their corresponding decision rules for
testing hypothesis about various aspects of the regression analysis of
the test data. From the computation of test statistics, conclusions
will be drawn as to the significance of the test results.

DATA BASE

Nondimensional methods are commonly used in helicopter performance

analysis. The parameters of interest for hover performance, are
coefficient of power (Cp), and coefficient of thrust (or weight) (CT).
Nondimensional hover performance parameters:

3
Cp = 2ITQ X RPS X 550/pA(QR) (l )

(2)

Where: Q = Engine output shaft torque, ft-lb.

p = Air density, slug/ft 3 •
A = Main rotor disc area, ft 2 •
Q = Main rotor angular velocity, radian/sec.
R = Main rotor radius, ft.
GW = Aircraft gross weight, 1 b.
 8

To define the power to thrust relationship (in coefficient form)

in a hover and to check the specific hover performance guarantee a
sample of the two random variables, CP and CT was performed over a wide
range of power and thrust conditions as shown in table l. All hover
tests were conducted in winds of less than 3 knots. Atmospheric
pressure, temperature, and wind velocity were recorded from a ground
weather station. The data sample were obtained by stabilizing the
helicopter in a hover, using the free-flight technique, out-of-ground
effect at a skid height of 100 ± 2 feet. The free flight hover test
technique is performed by stabilizing the helicopter at the desired
height with reference to a premeasured weighted cord hung from the
landing gear skid.

The aircraft was initially ballasted to a gross weight determined

by either the maximum gross weight limit or drive train limits. After
the data was recorded for each sample set ballast was incrementally
removed from the aircraft, this process was repeated until the minimum
gross weight was obtained. At each stabilized hover point data was
recorded continuously for a period of approximately 10 seconds at a
sample rate of 100 samples per second. The data records were then
edited from time history strip charts. Acceptable data points were then
edited to the most stabilized 6 seconds of the record. The edited
record was then used to calculate the nondimensional parameters based on
actual data every tenth of a second. The calculated nondimensional
parameters of CT and Cp were then averaged over the period.
 9

Utilizing the nondimensional relationships for thrust and power,

coefficient of thrust is generally considered (see app D) to be
linearly proportional to the coefficient of power to the two thirds
power.

CT = A + BC P2 / 3
(3)

In other words, a plot of CT vs Cp 2 / 3

will be a straight line. This
assumption is valid only if the rotor profile drag coefficient is
constant, that is there is no stall or compressibility present, which
is normally true in a hover.

STATISTICAL HYPOTHESES

General

The statistical basis of a decision test (accept/reject) is the

theory of testing hypotheses. A statistical test always involves a
null hypotheses, which is considered to be under test, as against a
class of alternative hypotheses. In this report, the null hypothesis
under test is: the hover performance of the K747 rotor blade, under
the conditions specified, is improved by at least 8.7 percent over the
standard rotor blade. An alternate hypothesis can also be swecified
or implied. The improved rotor blace does not conform to the hover

.s-,-, ..,
is ofU~"'

hypothes1s.
 10

The following notation is used:

H0 _ the null hypothesis that the hover performance conforms to

the specification requirements.

H _ the alternate hypothesis that the hover performance of the

1
improved rotor is at some level considered to be unacceptable.

Two Kinds of Errors

In basing decisions on the outcomes of statistical tests, there is

always the risks of making either one or the other of these two types
of errors. If we reject the null hypothesis when it is true, e.g.,
fail to find an improvement when one exists, then a type I error has
been made. If we fail to reject a null hypothesis when it is false,
e.g., announce an improvement in hover performance for the new rotor
when an improvement does not exist, then a type II error has been made.
Although it is not known whether an error has been made, the probabili~

of making either type of error is known. A type I error is sometimes

called an error of the first kind or producer's risk and a type II error
is sometimes called an error of the second kind or a consumer's risk.

The following notation ~s used for these two ~pes of incorrect

inferences:
 11

a. Type I error: H0 may be rejected when it is true. (Producer

risk)
a = Probability of Type I error.

b. Type II error. H0 may be accepted when H1 is true. (Consumer

risk)
B = Probability of Type II error.

Choice of the Significance Level

The significdnce level of a statistical test is essentially an

expression of the reluctance to reject the null hopothesis. In general,
for tests in the production acceptance stage the a risk should be in
the l to 5 percent range. Also these two values of a, a= 0.01 and
a = 0.05 have been most frequently used in test and evaluation work,
and are given in tabluations of test statistics in most texts on
statistical analysis (ref 9 through 14, app A). For the purpose of
this report the standard level of significance adopted is a= 0.01.

COMPUTATION OF TEST STATISTICS

General

In many decisions, it is necessary to predict the values of unknown

variables. Most such predictions of population parameters are made on
the basis of sample statistics derived from a number of individual
 12

observations of the population. Sometimes, knowledge of the relation-

ship between two variables may be applied so that information regarding
one of the variables can be used to predict the value of the other.
The technique~ discussed in this report (ref 9 through 14, app A) fit
into three broad categories of regression analysis, correlation
analysis, and significance testing.

Regression analysis is a statistical technique that quantitatively

defines the best fit of a curve through a set of data points. Regres-
sion analysis tells how one variable is related to another. It
provides an equation wherein the known value of one variable may be used
to estimate the unknown value of another. The regression analysis used
in this report, is for a linear relationship between two variables,
where they are interrelated by an equation for a straight line.

Correlation analysis tells the degree to which two variables are

related. It is useful in expressing the efficiency achieved in the use
of one variable to estimate the value of another. Correlation considers
the joint variation of the two measurements.

Significance testing is a useful statistical tool in making

decisions regarding the significance of the observed differences in the
data samples. By the use of this technique, it is possib-le to determine
whether observed differences are due to underlying differences or to
change variations in the data.
 13

The analysis techniques discussed in this report have one purpose

in common. That common purpose is to allow prediction of some popula-
tion parameters from sample statistics within the confidence lin1its
dictated by the statistical data available. These techniques are based
upon established statistical and probability theories.

Linear Regression

The two variables of interest are the coefficients of power and

thrust, the independent variable Cp 2 1 3 will be designated x and the
dependent variable CT will be designated y through this report. The
paired values of the data sample will be designated (x 1 , y 1 ; x 2 , y 2 ;

· · ·; xn' yn).

Regression Line

The line used to describe the relationship between y and x is

obtained from the sample data and is called the estimated regression
line. It expresses the average relationship between the x andy
variables. This provides an estimate of the mean level of the dependent
variable y when the value of x is specified. Because the estimated
regression line provides estimates only, the symbol i is used to
represent the value obtained from the linear estimated regression
equation:

y = a + bx (4)
 14 (

The parameters a and bare called the maximum likelihood estimates

of the regression coefficients a and s. These point estimates of a and
S can be obtained by the method of least squares, which is a mathe-

matical method for fitting curves that yields a unique result depending
only on the data points.

The least squares criterion requires that a line be chosen to fit

the data so that the sum of the squares of the vertical deviations
separating the data poi~ts from the line will be minimum. These
vertical deviations represent the amount of error associated with using
the regression line to predict y and the value to be minimized is:

L: (y-y)2 (5)

where y is the value indicated by the data, andy is the value

determined by the regression equation. Substituting the expansion for
y (equation 4) into expression 5, the sum to be minimized becomes

L:(y-a-bx) 2 '(6)

which is a function having two unknown parameters a and b. Mathemat-

ically, the required values simultaneously must satisfy the following
expressions referred to as the normal equations:
 15

L.y = na+br.x (7)

L.yx = al.x+bl.x 2 (8)

where n is the sample size.

From these relationships an expression for b can be obtained:

(9)

Solving equation 7 explicitly for a

a = L.y-bl.x
( 10)
n

The value of a then can be obtained by substituting the value of b

into equation 10.

A computer program was written to perform most of the calculations

shown in this report. The listing of the program output for both sets
of data is shown in appendix E, but will be summarized where needed
throughout the text of the report.

The fit of a regression line of y (CT) on x (Cp 2 / ~ to the data of

the standard rotor blades (8540) is shown in appendix E along with the
tabulated values of the data set and is summarized below:
 16

Ex,= 5253.660150 Ex 2 = 339617.4873

Ey = 4411 .36995 Ey 2 = 239761.7136
n = 82 Exy = 285328.0973

The regression coefficients are:

= nEx~-ExEy 2 = 0.8925123 ( 11 )
bl nEx -(Ex)

= Ey-bEx =
-3.385163 (12)
al n

Therefore, the equation of the regression line of y on x for the

standard rotor is

y
1
= -3.385163 + 0.8925123x

This line is plotted as the solid line on the scatter diagram of

figure 1. Where it can also be seen that the least squares line passes
through the centroid or center of gravity of the data.

Again the process is repeated for the improved rotor blades (K747)
whose sample data set is shown in appendix E and is summarized below:

Ex = 3789.094020 Ex 2 = 250287.3186
Ey = 3303.20601 Ey 2 = 190553.5790
n = 58 Exy = 218360.9622
 17

The regression coefficients are:

b2 = 0.9331791

a2 = -4.011995

So, the equation of the regression line of yon x for the improved
rotor is

y2 = -4.011995 + 0.933179lx

This line is also plotted along with the sample data set and is
shown in figure 2.

Variation About the Regression Line

The scatter, in the vertical (y) direction, of the data points

about the regression line is measured by Sy·x, where

(13)

The positive square root of the mean squared deviation, Sy·x is

referred to as the standard error of estimate. The standard error of
estimate has properties analogous to those of standard deviation. By
drawing pairs of lines parallel to the regression line of y on x at
respective vertical distances Sy·x, 2 Sy·x, and 3 Sy•x from it, and if
n was large enough that there would be included between these pairs of
lines about 68%, 95% and 99.7% of the sample data points respectively.
 18

For the standard rotor (8540) sample data set:

s., =[HY1-[Y-b(X1-X)]F] 1/ 2
y•x 1 L n-2 J
= 0.6730821

For the improved rotor (K747) sample data set:

sy·x 0.8042810
2

Lines drawn on figures 3 and 4 at vertical distances of ±Sy·x and

±2 Sy•x units from the regression line show for the standard rotor 57
points (67.5%) and the improved rotor 40 points (72.7%) be within ±S y• X
of the regression line, and that 80 points (95.6%) and 55 points (94.8%)
for the standard and improved rotors respectfully are within ±2 Sy•x of
the regression line.

Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test

Since many of the standard statistical techniques used in this

report are based on the assumption that the data is normally distrubuted
about the regression line, one procedure useful in checking on the
validity of such an assumption is the chi-square test of goodness of
fit.

The chi-square test is performed by dividing the data from the

'']" 'e into cells. Thr i"ctual number of data po~nts in each •'Pll is
 19

compared to the predicted number for that cell and a combined statistic
x2 is calculated for all cells; it is then compared with x2 v, the
statistic x2 is defined by the formula

k (O.-E.) 2
x2 = L: 1 1 ( 14)
i=l E.1

where: x2v = a random variable having the chi-square distrubution

with v degrees of freedom.
o.1 = observed number in each cell.
E.1 = expected number in each cell.
k = number of cells
v = ( k-n-1) degrees of freedom.

and is a measure of the discrepancy between the observed and expected

frequencies. The expected frequencies are usually calculated by using
the assumed distribution, in this case the normal or Gaussian
distribution, with the parameters set equal to their sample estimates.
This is done by grouping the data, the residual values from the regres-
sion analysis, into classes or cells to form a frequency distribution.
Using the standard error of estimate, a normal distribution is fitted
and the expected frequencies in each cell are obtained. Table 2
presents the observed (Oi) and expected (Ei) frequencies.
 20

~-: .L-I I-:----

' I
i I. - j- _)
! '
~-- 4 +: --; _ 1 _j
! - ·t I ! f I

i- -·1-1 r· : r 1
~
·1-··--l·--1---: -, :· -!
:- .l I , l·I -· .t
! .

.+ ··I

I
l.
i -. i
!
'- ·i\ ·.. \ .,
I
~·
:I !
I , . / (1) .
. i /r ,
'/ : .
.. I - ('J ;
! I

' I
!.
(') I
.i .! ~ 1- '
i I
I
I j
'I
I
----l .
i

. I J
i
- ~ I . -~
! i
21 (
22
 23

!~ r ·-

I .. i .
·-- t-
l
!
 24

Table 2
(a) Using the 8540 test data from Appendix E.
22.1 22.1 12.7 6.2
~12.7
14 26 18 ll 8

x2 = 2.564

(b) Using the K747 test data from Appendix E.

~-ij~~~--8~7-~-- __2_~~~---~-~ ---~ !__~__?. _2~

oi 1 5 12 15 1o 7 9

x2 = 3.356

The number in each cell has a binomial distribution, which depends

on 2 parameters: the total number in the sample, and the probability
of a value falling in that cell. As the s-expected frequency in the
cell becomes very large, the binomial distribution turns into a s-normal
distribution with the same mean Ei and a standard deviation equal to the
square root of the mean IE;. The number in each ce 11 is converted to a
standard s-normal variate by subtracting the mean and dividing by the
standard deviation. The sum of the squares of such variates has ,a
chi-square distribution with k-1 degrees of freedom; each term is of
the form

(oi-E;/ 2
( 15)
;r:·1
 25

The 1 degree of freedom is lost because the last variate is not

s-independent, i.e., it can be calculated from the previous data
because the total number in the sample is known.

Using a 1-tail test the calculated value of x2 is greater than the

tabulated value for x 2 v (at a 0.01 level of significant level) reject
the assumed normal distribution.

The calculated value of x2 for the standard rotor (8540) is 2.564

and the improved rotor (K747) is 3.356 when compared with the tabulated
value for x2 v of 13.277 shows that the hypothesis of normality is not
rejected at the 1 percent level.

Test for Independence

Another assumption frequently made in regression analysis is that

the variable Y is not independent of the variable X. One criterion of
independence is that the mean Y is the same for each value of X, which
in the case of linear regression, means that B=O. If the hypothesis
that B=O is tested and if this hypothesis is rejected there is
sufficient reason to believe, at the specified level of significance
(a=O.Ol), that Y is dependent upon X. As a test statistic the following
equation is used:

t --
( b-o) Sxln..::l
sy•x ( 16)
 26

where:
( 17)

For the standard rotor blade (B540) the test statistic is

_ 0.8925123X6.1~0~6~66~2~4~2l~X~9
tl - --·· 0.673081

= 72.87747227

and the tabled value for tLa,n-2

/2
(t.005,80) is 2.64495, and for the
improved rotor blade (K747) the test statistic is

0.9331791X6.944403527X157 = 60 . 83164645
0.8042810

and the tabled value for t 1 a,n-2 (t.005,56) is 2.6688. In both cases
~

the calculated values are larger than the tabulated value, so there is
sufficient reason at the 1 per cent level of significance to reject the
hypothesis of B=O and conclude the Y is dependent on X.

Correlation Analysis

The goal of correlation analysis is to measure the degree to which

two variables are related. The central focus of correlation analysis is
finding a suitable index that indicates how strong x and y are related.
The degree of which x and y are related may be explained in terms of the
magnitude of scatter about the regression line. For example, the
 27

extreme case occurs when the amount of scatter is so great that the
regression line has zero slope and is parallel to the x axis. The
degree of correlation is zero, since knowledge of x cannot add to the
accuracy of predictions of y. The opposite extreme is a perfect fit
between y and x observations because all the data points happen to lie
on the same line.

The best estimate of the correlation coefficient is the sample

correlation coefficient and is formally defined as:

s
r = _ll_
ss ( 18)
Xy

where the sample variances (S 2x and S2y) and the covariance (S 2 xy)
of x and y are given by

sz =
L:(x-x) 2 ( 19)
X n-1

S2 L:(y-y-)2
= (20)
y n-1

S2 =
t:(x-x) (y-y) ( 21 )
xy n-1

Since the regression coefficient has already been calculated, the

following form can be used:

b sX
r = (22)
sy

for the standard rotor blade (B540), with the data from appendix E, the
calculated sample correlation coefficient is:
 28

r
1 = 0.9925525

and for the improved rotor blade (K747), the calculated sample
correlation coefficient is:

r
2 = 0.9925182

Since the correlation coefficient measures how well the regression line
fits the data. If the total variation is all explained by the regres-
sion line, if r = 1, there is perfect linear relation (and in such case
also perfect regression). As can be seen from r 1 and r 2 that both
coefficients are ver·y close to unity indicating that there is very good
correlation between the regression line and how well it fits the data.

Regression in Two Populations

The concepts described in the preceeding sections of this report

can be extended to two populations allowing for the comparison of the
slopes B1 and B2 , intercepts A1 and A2 and the mean values for a
specified x0 .

Comparison of Slopes:

The two regression lines y 1 = a 1 + b1x and y2 = a 2 + b2x have been

determined from two sets of data with comparable variables, the test
can be used to test the significance of the difference between the
 29

slopes. The slopes must be equal to allow further comparison of the

regression line. The t test can only be used if the population standard
error of estimate for the two relations are equal. This assumption can
be tested by forming a F ratio of the two values of S2 y
·x , with the
larger S2 y•x in the numerator so that the computed F is always greater
than 1 ,

(23)

and comparing it with the critical value for the F distribution for
n2-2 and n -2 degrees of freedom found in most texts on statistics. The
1
2
F ratio for the two values of Sy·x is

F = 1.4278399

which is less than the critical value taken from the tables so we do not
reject the hypothesis that the ratio of the variances of the two popu-
lations is 1 at the 99 percent significance level and are therefore
justified in obtaining a common estimate of variance.

With the population variances equal then the pooled variance

(24)

is an unbiased estimate of this common variance.

 30

Based on the pooled information from both samples, the estimation

of the variance of the regression coefficient b; is

(25)

and the standard deviation of the difference b1 - b2 is estimated from

s:.> 1
y·x·p + (n -l )S 7 -- (26)
2 x2

which for the data in appendix E becomes

To test the null hypothesis that the difference b1-b 2 between the
true population regression coefficients has a va-lue of zero by comparing

t = (27)

= 2.113441546

with the t distribution critical value on (n +n 2-4) degrees of freedom

1
which is 2.617 from a 99 percent level of significance (taken from
reference 12, appendix A).
 31

Since Jtl does not exceed the critical value t. 99 the hypothesis
H0 : B1-B 2 = 0 (or the slopes are equal) would not be rejected at the
99 percent confidence level.

Comparison of Performance:

The primary purpose of this report was to verify the hover perform-
ance guarantee of an 8.7% increase in hover performance (thrust) at a
specified power setting, for the improved rotor (K747) over that of the
standard rotor (B540) by the use of statistical hypothesis testing of
the hover performance data. Since the coefficient of power was
specified as that of military rated power under the ambient conditions
of 4000 feet pressure altitude and 95°F temperature, and is independent
of the rotor system, therefore a constant of 1185 shaft horsepower or in
nondimensional terms a coefficient of thrust to the two thirds pm'ler
(Cp 213 ) of 66.04862.

For this value of cp 213 , which is a given value of X, say X*, a

point estimator for the expected value of Y(CT) is given by:

Y* = a+bX*

Since the value of the independent variable was specified in the

preceeding paragraph, the point estimator for both the standard and
improved rotor is respectfully:
 32

y1* = 3.385163+0.8925123X66.04862

= 55.56304375 and

and
y 2* = -4.01195+0.9331791X66.04862
= 57.62319677

To test the null hypothesis that the difference in hover' perform-

ance d, has the stated value of 8.7% of the standard rotor's mean thrust
value (Y 1*) at the specified power level (X*), the t-statistic is
calculated from:

Y2*-y 1*-d
t = (28)
sy·x·p (X*-X )2
1
(n -l)S 2
1 xl

where d is: d = 0.087XY

1
*
= 0.087X55.56304375

= 4.83984806

and

t = . : :. :57:-.::·-=-6=23:. .:1. : :. :96=-o7~7~-5~5=.-;=- ;6~3--;:.,04,:.::3~7

5 -=-5-_:4_:_.8::. .: 3-=..9. :. :.48=-=0-=--6
0.128362369

-21.6093844

For the one-sided test of the null hypothesis that 2 1 d, JJ -p =

against the alternative that )J 2-JJ 1<d, reject the hypothesis if

 33

From the t-statistic tables, for a 1% level of significance the

rejection region becomes

t .m; 136 2.355

Since -21.6093844 < -2.355, the null hypothesis is rejected or the

specified hover performance guarantee of the contractor is not met.

Since the difference in hover performance is not large enough to

satisfy the guarantee requirements, there is some interest as to just
how much of an improvement in terms of percent increase in performance
over that of the standard rotor blades are the improved rotor blades.
This can be done by solving for the difference in the hover performance,
d, at an a of 1% and with 136 degrees of freedom. At the critical
t-statistic value of -t.Ol;l 36 = -2.355, then:

or Y2-Yi-d = 0.30229338

solving for d

d = 57.62319677 55.56304375 + 0.302292338

 34

d = 2.3624464

Stated in the form of a percentage increase in hover performance'over

that of the standard blades the difference becomes

2.3624464
55.56304375 X lOO 4 · 25

or a 4.25% increase in performance. Therefore the improved main rotor

blades (K747) do in fact increase the hover performance over that of
the standard (B540) rotor blades by 4.25% when installed on the YAH-lR
helicopter.
 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis techniques discussed in this report have one purpose

in common. That common purpose is to allow prediction of some
population parameters from sample statistics within the confidence
limits dictated by the statistical data available.

Within this report the sample data from the two hover performance
sample sets were analyzed using techniques based on established
statistical and probability theories. Regression analysis was used to
fit the best linear relationship between the two variables in each data
set. Each data set was then tested for normality, independence and
goodness of fit. Correlation analysis was used to measure the degree
to which the two variables are related.

The data sets having successfully undergone the preceeding tests

were then subjected to hypothesis test as to the significance of the
difference between the two regression lines. The comparison of regres-
sion lines requires the assumption that the population standard errors
of estimate for the two relations be equal. This assumption was
evaluated by the F test of significance, and found to be valid.

The examination of the relationship between the hover performances

of the two different rotor blade sets required testing of the null
hypothesis that the slopes and specified performance guarantees dif-
fered. The test that there were no significant differences ir1 slopes is

35
 36

required because the other tests have little meaning unless the regres-
sion lines are parallel. The hypothesis that there were no significant
differences in slopes was tested using the t test of significance and
was not rejected.

For an improvement on the order of 8.7%, the hover performance of

the two sets of rotor blades would have to differ significantly. This
hypothesis was evaluated using the student t statist·ic, at a 99% level
of significance, and the contractors claim of an 8.7% improvement in
hover performance was rejected. Further evaluation concluded that the
increase in hover performance for the improved rotor blades was 4.25%,
at the same level of significance, when installed on the YAH-lR
helicopter.

The ultimate purpose of any analysis is the summarization or

generalization of available data such that predictions can be made of
unknown variables, based on the value of known variables. This process
was used in this report to provide the information required for intel-
ligent decision making. The decision being to reject the contractors
claim of a 8.7% improvement in hover performance for the AH-1 series of
helicopters by the use of the improved rotor blades.
 APPENDIX A. REFERENCES

1. Final report, US Army Aviation Systems Test Activity (USAAEFA),

Project No. 76-08, Airwor-thiness and Fl-igh-t Charac-teris-tic.s~ Zmproved

Main Ro-tor Blade on -the YAH-IR, unpublished.

2. Detail Specification, No. R-1312-1, Code Identification No. 84955,

IIH-lQ llelic:optcr• uJ-i-th Trrqwoverl Main l!'oLor• !:!lade, n April 197~).

3. Technical Manual, TM 55-1520-221-10, Operator's Manual~ Anny Model

AH-lG Helicopter, 19 June 1971.

4. Technical Manual, H1 55-1520-234-10, Operator's Manual~ Anny Modd

AH-lS Helicop-ter, 17 November 1976.

5. Fi na 1 Report, USAASTA, Project No. 72-30, Enrrineeriny FU:drt Test,

AH-lG Helicop-ter wi-th Model 212 Tail Rotor~ Part II~ Perfcmnc~rwe and

Handling Qualities, September 1973.

6. Letter, AVSCOM, DRSAV-EQI, 14 March 1977, subject: Safety-of-Flight

Release for USAAVSCOM/USAAEFA Project No. 76-08.

7. Engineering Design Handbook, Army Materiel Command A~1CP 706-204,

Helicopter Performance Testing, August 1974.

37
 38

8. Flight Test Manual, Naval Air Test Center, FTM No. 102, .11. licopi 'P

Performance Testing, 28 June 1968.

9. Bowker, A. and Lieberman, G., Engineering Statistics, Prentice-Hall,

Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972.

10. Dixon, W. and ~~assey, F., Intr•oduct?:on to Stat;,tstica! ili~<:•:'JS'is,

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 1969.

ll. Ostle, 13., Stat,istics L.rt Research, Iowa State Universi L.Y [lress,

Ames, Iowa, 1963.

12. Crow, E., Davis, F., and ~1axfield, M., Statistics Manwrl, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1955.

l3. Pl ackett, R. , Principles of Regression Analys'l:s, Oxford Un i vers it.Y

Press, Amen House, London, 1960.

14. Snedecor, G. and Cockran, l~., Statist'icul Mc~Liuxls, lowe~ SLdte

University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1967.
 APPENDIX B. AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION

FUSELAGE

1. The YAH-lR fuselage is identical in outward appearance and dimen-

sions to the AH-lG helicopter. Internal modifications to strengthen
the fuselage structure to accept the higher stresses due to increased
gross weight, power, and tail rotor power include strengthened trans-
mission mounts and associated structure and strengthened tail boom.
AH- l S wings were ins ta 11 ed on the YAH- l R in order to acconunoda te
simulated TOW launchers. External dimensions of the AH--IS winy are not
changed from the AH-lG except that the hard points for jacking are
located at Fs 200.55 instead of Fs 197.85. The nose section of the
YAH-lR was not modified with the TOlv sighting system.

ENGINE

2. The T53-L-703 engine installed in the YAH-lR helicopter, is a

growth version of the T53-L-13B engine. The T53-L-703 engine is a
turboshaft engine with a two-stage axial flow free power turbine; two-
stage axial flow turbine driving a combination five-stage axial one-
stage centrifugal compressor having a nominal 8:1 compresshHI ratio dt:

the thermodynamic limit and incorporating compressor interstiloe air

b·leecl; variable in-let guide vanes; and an externul annuL1r .tlontizinq
combuster. A 3.2105:1 reduction gear housed in the air inlel housinl
reduces power turbine speed to output shaft speed (nominally ~00 rpil

39
 40

·----i- ------·
--
 41

.~
t5
E
Cl.l
.£:.
u
V)

...
0l...
s
u
output shaft speed). The engine reduction gearbox is limited to 1175
ft-lb torque for 30 minutes and 1110 ft-lb torque for continuous usage.
The engine achieves this power growth over the T53-L-l3B engine through
increased gas producer speed and increased operating temperatures made
possible by improving the air cooling of the first-stage gas producer
nozzle and by incorporating air-cooled blades in the first-stage
turbine. New materials are employed in the second-stage gas producer
and the power turbines. A T7 interstage turbine temperature sensor
harness has been incorporated for measurement of interstage turbine
temperature, giving a more accurate indication of engine internal
temperature than the T temperature (exhaust gas) sensed in the
9
T53-L-l3B engine. T temperature is displayed in the cockpit in place
7
of T . This is noticeable in the higher temperature limit on the gaqe
9
and in the shorter temperature rise time on starting the engine.

Transmission and Tail Rotor Drive

3. An updated transmission and tail rotor drive system is installed in

the YAH-lR helicopter. These systems have the following limits:

a. Transmission:

(l) 1290 horsepower for 30 minutes.

(2) 1134 maximum continuous horsepower.

 43

b. Tail rotor drive:

(l) 260 horsepower for 4-second transient limit.

(2) 187 horsepower maximum continuous power.

Engine Oil Cooler

4. The cooling capacity of the engine oil cooler has been i11creased
by enlarging the bleed air orifice which drives the turbine on cooler
fan, allowing higher cooling fan speed and cooling air mass flow.

Control System

5. The control system of the YAH-lR is basically the same as the AH-lG;
however, two new features have been incorporated. The cable controls in
the AH-lG antitorque system have been replaced by push-pun tubes. A
collective control rate limiter which limits the rate of collective
control movement to 115 percent of full throw in 1 second has been
incorporated.

Main Rotor Blades

6. During this test two sets of rotor blades were evaluated, the
standard B540 rotor blades manufactured by Bell Helicopter Textron and
the K747 rotor blades manufactured by Kaman Aerospace Corporation. The
 44

B540 blades are of all metal construction and utilize a symmetrical,

constant chord airfoil section with a 2024 T4 Aluminum spar and nomex
honeycomb core. The K747 blades utilize a multicell filament wound
fiberglass spar, a nomex core afterbody and a Kevlar trailing edge
spline, all enclosed by fiberglass skin. At the inboard end, cheek-
plates carry blade loads to an aluminum adapter which attaches the blade
to the current AH-1 rotor hub using the standard hub pin. The K747
rotor system has the same radius and essentially equivalent solidity as
the standard B540 rotor (.0625 as compared with .0651 for the B540)
although the blade planform is changed. The blade twist is increased
and a nonsymmetrical air foil shape is employed. The blade weight and
stiffness distribution for the K747 were designed to match the dynamic
characteristics of the B540.

7. The K747 blade airfoil shape is based on a family of airfoils

developed by Boeing-Vertol. Planform dimension are shown ·in figure
and a typical cross-section is shown in figure 2. The outer 15 perc('nt
of the K747 blade is tapered in thickness and planform with a tip chord
of .83 ft. The airfoil design varies from blade tip to blade root as
follows:

y/R (fl}ade Radius Stn) !-\JrJ'oi]___Q_es i g__r~

From Tip to .85 8% thick Boeinq-Vertol Vl~--( 1,

From .85 to .67 Linear Transition to 12':.', th·ick VR--7

From .67 to .25 12% thick Boeing-Vertol VR-7
From .25 to . -18 Gradual buildup to 25% by cheekplttes
 45

The current AH-lQ hub with hub pin located at y/R = .15 is retained.
There is an attachment adapter fitting and drag brace between the pin
and the end of the blade.

PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS

8. The principal dimensions and general data concerning the YAH-lR

helicopter are as follows:

Overall Dimensions
Length, rotor turning 52 ft, 11 in.
Width, rotor turning 44 ft
Height, tail rotor vertical 13 ft, 9.5 in.
Length, rotor removed 45 ft, 2.2 in.

~1a in Rotor K747 8540

Diameter 44 ft 4t1 ft

Disc area 1520.5 fe 1520.5 fe

Solidity 0.0625 0.0651
Number cf blades 2 2
Blade chord See fig. 1 2.25 ft, consta11t
Blade twist -0.556 deg/ft -0.455 deg/ft
Airfoil See para 2 9.33 percent thickness,
special symm(~trical section
 -·T-·---·-
"P'!
!:''i

-~
'
...IE ..,.
r-:
'

0
00

§
ic ..1:!
!! ..

(_l __ _....

:g ::!
--
c

"
"-
o:.t
"'
(
r:
01.
"'
d~ c
0
 7

'0
1::
g,. .....
-&
f E
E o
I
.!.!
..-::~
Ebl.
.>oC
Vl
u

l]
'f:
,,.,J
......
,.._
-
l i
~
..
·~
!
~
~ !
3,[
--
e E
0
u
..·-
t-

)//.

~a
N

l____ ~
....
~
:0

..,1J
c,

l
 48 (

Tail Rotor
Diameter 8 ft, 6 in.
Disc area 56.75 ft 2
Solidity 0.1436
Number of blades 2
Blade chord, constant 11.5 in.
Blade twist 0.0 deg/ft
Airfoil NACA 0018 at the blade root
changing linearly to a
special cambered section of
8.27 percent of the tip.

fuse~

Length, rotor removed 45ft, 2.2 in.

Height:
To tip of tail fin 10ft, 4 in.
Ground to top of mast 11 ft, 7 in.

Ground to top of transmission

fairing 10 ft, 2 in.
Ground to bottom of chin turret 1 ft, 2 in.
Width:
Fuselage only 3 ft

l~ing span 10 ft, 8.24 in.,

Engine cowling 3 ft, 6 in.

Skid gear tread 7 ft, 4 in .

 49

Elevator:
Span 6 ft, 2 in.
Area 25.2 ft2
Airfoil Inverted Clark Y
Vertical Fin:
Area 18.5 ft2
Airfoil Special cambered
Height 5 ft, 6 in.
Wing:
Span 10ft, 8.24 in.
Area 27.8 ft 2
Incidence 14.0 deg
Airfoil (root) NACA 0030
Airfoil (tip) NACA 0024

10. A flight control rigging check performed in accordance with

procedures outlined in Tt~55-l520-234-20 demonstrated the cyclic,
collective pitch and directional controls were within prescribed limits.
The swashplate angles which was measured with respect to aircraft axis,
and tail rotor blade pitch angles are as follows:
 50

SWASHPLATE ANGLES

Control Position Lateral Angle Longitudinal Ang_l_§_

Neutral 1. 5 deg L down 1 deg nose up
Full Forward 5 deg R down 10 deg nose down

Full AFT 5 deg L down 12.5 deg nose up

Full Right 7 deg R down 4.5 deg nose up
Full Left 7.5 deg L down 3.5 deg nose down

TAIL ROTOR BLADE PITCH ANGLES

Pedal Position Blade Angle

Full Left 19.9 deg

Full Right - ll . 0 deg

Weight and Balance

11. The aircraft weight, longitudinal center-of-gravity (cg) -locat"ion,

and lateral cg location were determined prior to testing, and checked
periodically throughout the tests. A fuel cell calibration w~s also
performed prior to testing. All weighings were accomplished with
instrumentation installed, without external stores or chin turret
weapons installed. The TOW missile pods were ballasted as necessary to
achieve desired take-off gross weights. Tables l and 2 show typical·
take--off loadings to achieve aft and fwd centers of grav-ity, l'espec--
tively.
 51

12. The fuel loading for each test flight was determined prior to
engine start and fonowing enging shutdown by using a calibrated
external sight gage to determine fuel volume and by measuring specific
gravity. Fuel used in flight was recorded by a sensitive fuel-used
system and verified with the pre- and postflight sight gage readings.
 52

Table Bl. Aircraft Loading for Aft Center of Gravity'

Longitudinal
Item Weight Center of Gravity
(1b) (FS)
Basic Aircraft2 6339 204.6
Fue 1 3 26 234.6
1703 199.4
Pilot 191 135
Copilot 185 83
Outboard External Stores 4 1068 201 .8
Ballast
Ta i1 Light 50 472
Tail Boom 50 305
Aft Batt. Compt. 100 283
Wing Station 0 185
Pilot Stn 5 120 135
Copilot Parachute 20 83

Turret 150 76
Fwd Batt. Compt. 0 40
TOTAL 10002.4 199.6
1
NOTES: Lateral cg (BL) = 0.1 right.
2
Includes instrumentation with aircraft battery located
in forward compartment FS 40.
3
258 gallons at specific weight of 6.6 lb/gallon.
4 0nly TOW missile racks on the outboard stores WPre used.
5
100 lb removable ballast plus 20 lb parachute.
 53

Table B2. Aircraft Loading for Forward Center of Gravity 1

Longitudinal
Item ~~eight Center of Gravity
( 1b) (FS)
Basic Aircraft:!_ 6298 204.6
3
Fuel 1717 199.4
'Oi 1 26 234.6
Pilot 191 135
Copilot 205 83
Outboard External Stores 4 1068 201 .8
Ballast
Tail Light 50 472
Tail Boom 50 305
Aft Batt. Compt. 100 283
Wing Station 0 185
Pilot Stn 5 120 135
Copilot Parachute 20 83
Turret 300 76
Fwd Batt. Compt. 150 40
TOTAL 10301.8 195. 17
1
NOTES: Lateral cg (BL) = 0.1 right.
2
Includes instrumentation with aircraft battery located
in forward compartment. FS 40.
~58 gallnns at specific weight uf &.6 lb/gallon.
'
1
0n lv TOll'l mi ss.i1 e. racks ~,on tbe outboard stores we<re .useci ..
s·l:JO lb removable ba]last·p1us 20. lb parachute~ .
 54

APPENDIX C. INSTRUMENTATION

1. The test instrumentation system was designed, calibrated, installed,

and maintained by USAAEFA. Digital and analogue data were obtained from
calibrated instrumentation and were recorded on magnetic tape and/or
displayed in the cockpit. The digital instrumentation system consisted
of various transducers, signal conditioning units, an eight bit PCM
encoder, and an AMPEX AR 700 tape recorder. The digital data was also
telemetered to a ground station for inflight monitoring. Time correla-
tion was accomplished with a pilot/engineer event switch and on-board
recorded and displayed Inter Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) time.
Analogue data were recorded on two separate tracks of the AR 700
recorder through the use of two Voltage Control Oscillator (VCO) chassis
of 6 vco•s each. Various specialized sensitive indicators, displayed
data to the pilot and engineer on board the aircraft continuously during
the flight. A flight test boom was mounted on the nose of the aircraft
with the following sensors: a swiveling pitot-static head, sideslip
vane, angle-of-attack vane and a total-temperature sensor.

2. Sensitive and/or calibrated cockpit monitored parameters and

special equipment were:

Pilot Station
Airspeed (boom)
Altitude (boom)
 55 i.

Altitude (radar)
Rate of climb (ship's system)
Rotor speed
Engine torque
Measured gas temperature
Gas generator speed
Control position:
Longitudinal
Latera 1
Directional
Collective
Cg normal acceleration
Angle of sideslip
Outside air temperature (ship's system)
Event switch

Copilot/Engineer Station
Event switch
Control fixture
Airspeed (boom)
Altitude (boom)
Rate of climb (ship's system)
Rotor speed
Engine torque
Measured gas temperature
Gas generator speed
 56 ~_·

Outside air temperature

Attitude gyro (ship's system)
Fuel used (totalizer)
Instrumentation control
Time of day
Record counter

3. Parameters recorded on tape were:

PCM Parameters
Time code
Pi lot/Eng event
Rotor RPM (digital)
Fuel used
Run number
Airspeed
Altitude
Altitude (radar)
Longitudinal stick position
Lateral stick position
Directional stick position
Collective stick position
Twist grip position
Angle of sideslip
Angle of attack
Main rotor speed (analog)
Gas generator speed (N )
1
 57

Longitudinal stick force

Lateral stick force
Directional stick force
Engine speed (N )
2
Pitch attitude
Roll attitude
SCAS act longitudinal position
SCAS act lateral position
SCAS act directional position
CG normal acceleration
CG lateral acceleration
CG longitudinal acceleration
Engine torque pressure
Main rotor shaft torque
Tail rotor blade angle
Measured gas temperature
Fuel flow rate
Total air temperature
Fuel temperature
Pitch rate
Ro 11 rate
Yaw Rate
Magnetic heading
 58

APPENDIX D. HOVERING PERFORMANCE

GENERAL

It is essential to determine the maximum weight that a helicoptt~r

can lift, out-of-ground-effect, for various conditions of rotor speed,

altitude, and temperature. Hovering tests are performed to determine
the power required to hover at various gross weights for particular
atmospheric conditions.

The total hover power required for a single main rotor helicopter
is normally measured directly at the power plant output drive~;haft

(engine shaft horsepower). The total pm-Jer required is the 2.LHil of the
main rotor power, tail rotor power and the transmission and qear box
losses involved in transmitting this power. Torque and shaft rotational
speed is normally used to determine power requirements. Torque is
measured at the engine output, and shaft speed is measured at the main
rotor.

The helicopter hover performance test data were generalized by use

of nondimensional coefficients as follows:

a. Coefficient of power (Cp):

SHPX550
Cp = pA(!JR)3
 59

b. Coefficient of thrust (CT):

Where:
SHP = Engine output shaft horsepower
'550 = Conversion factor (ft-lb/sec/shp)
p = Air density (slug/ft 3 )
A = Main rotor disc area (ft 2 )
Q = Main rotor angular velocity (radian/sec)
R = Main rotor radius (ft)
GW = Aircraft gross weight (lb)

Figure of Merit

The efficiency of a lifting rotor is determined by comparing the

actual power required to produce a given amount of thrust with the
minimum possible power required to produce that thrust. The minimum
amount of power required to produce a given amount of thrust is obtained
with an ideal rotor where the induced power is minimum (uniform flow),
zero profile-drag exists, and there is no rotational or tip losses.
Therefore, for an ideal rotor, the rotor efficiency would be unity or
it is said to have a figure of merit (FM) = 1.

The ideal rotor power required to hover will always be less than
that of the actual rotor for two reasons. First, profile power
 60

requirements are non-existent for the ideal rotor and second, the
induced power requirements are underpredicted because of ·losses incurred
by the actual rotor. The figure of merit in coefficient form:

Generalized Hover Performance

Utilizing the nondimensional relationships for main rotor power

required and figure of merit, generalized hover performance data can be
established.

(Main Rotor Power)

~~here:

K
1
= l//2

K be C
2 'ITR d
0

b = blade length
c = blade cord
R = rotor radius
cd = profile drag coefficient
0

The figure of merit relationship implies that at a constant figure

2
of merit, Cp 3 / will vary linearly with Cp· The main rotor pmver
coefficient relationship further implies that cT¥ 2 will vary linearly
 61

with Cp as long as the profile drag coefficient (Cd ) remains constant.

0
This assumption, that Cd is a constant, must be made to generalize
0
hover performance data since Cd is in fact changing over the normal
0
operating range of the rotor and the figure of merit is therefore
changing.

The faired lines in figure l and 2 in the text of this report

represents rotor operation at a constant figure of merit and is the
bases of generalized hover performance. In other words, a cross plot of
CP vs CT o/ 2 will be a straight line when plotted as CT vs Cp 3 / 2
only if
a constant figure of merit is assumed.

This method of generalizing the data is relatively accurate until

the profile drag coefficient begins to vary significantly. At this

point (high CT range), the faired line generalization can no longer be

used and caution must be exercised when extrapolating data of values
of CT not obtained during flight test. Since the thrust equals the
weight in a hover, generalized hover performance is expressed either in
terms of gross weight and horsepower or more often in nonclime11Sional
terms of coefficient of thrust and power.
 APPENDIX E
TEST DATA
Hover Performance Test Data for YAH-lR Helicopter
When Equipped with the B540 Rotor

LINEAW qFURF9qi~N
~~~TIAir7S1ff:'.FFTrH-~'f-FriP f"IYiiA"fle\-,..- v-.t. +~>'(
A • -.Jjf15tli.\f ul
..
~--~--p;~·!)-,·r-·l-;n----------------- --- ----- ·-
~aPRFLarr~N C0FFFT~JFNT ~ .QQ?~~?~F nn
---r-.:VAt lJF ·~Tflf'r--;)7-------------~-------------· ·- ---------··
9TANOARD ERNHR -•F ESTJMATF • ,h7]nH?1E nn
-·sTTJ.T--~r-!!"ijUTRFS--l~-r- l\t' 'HI\TTfilllS-r~~M -~nliiF<;(:·r ·'~ ~- , ji':?~ 'lhr ., ?
9T4NOAR0 OfVIAliiW l'J Y,. ,F,11lfio4::>F tll
------v-AIHTI'ITIT--Ttrra- - -~"lT:?""tl ;- r~t~ r· fi? - ---- --
ST4Nf1ARD PFVJATI!(~: 1'1 Y = ,':i<l91Jt1HF •IJ
--vTRT 4 NCE I N T • ~ITl"" 7i'ir-rr7 ---------------- ---- ·- -- ____._ --·- . .

LINFAR ~ERRFSSI~~

l Afq_F f<l'" f?f.<; T lliifll~

-"TJ"1tiljn:P>1U-rTr-11ltllr77!r-,-:rr--vv""~~li"Tt_>IT1H:-- ---- ·rnrnv-------rT"S"TTF~ n----- ---------p-r-~-i!'lT cr ----

t ,ftA1~7'1~r -~-- -~~""l~IT7·---.~ lfl'm"R ~ 1 r· fT? .1 n·r,-.rn?r n 1

~ , 6 2 'i I J 'l !' E n ? • c.; ;:> " '' ~' 11 F n ;> , '1 ;:> <1 n Hq "F n? • 1 <l '· 1 H ;:> :n " ,,
---~--, olTTn~l'lf------,-?--·--;e:;t"F.,_if?1'----n7 -; !)ITR!i'..J:t';F n? .~TTJTn? rl' 'I r
4 ,fit'-lt>;>;:>;>F 1'1::> ."-tllf17H 1•2 ,'-11'-llll'lnf o? -,1117?!-tr,J· q,,
!i ,f\n~"lldAf ,, ,"-f'ilt:J~tltF n2 ,---.;r,-;r~--r'l'- .?n6t;S;r;; np
6 o 59 7 4 fl ~ 7 f n :::> , ,., 'I I 1A t H f , A'' Cl] <1 '' 1 F
r1 /' fl :> • I A 1 I ~' f>. \ t: il (I
7 • 58 1;1P:j"l)n'- -n-r-- -:--~-Q~I ;J1; ~TF"-·n;y.---. --~~ 4 0 ri rl 0 ,·, r n'> ...r;T('rl II ·I r 'I n
R ,lin'-lohnOF n? ,'-.h7.\Ao'iF ,,;: ."fdf>.Jllff n:> • 1">7nr1r,li 11•
Q • t;TIJ<-!ii•;r -;;?--->.fi;, ~-.,7-r----r,;_.; • •,tifi :> 11 ~~~ il? . 1 4 1;; H;,,., ",,
t0 , r'i <1 :? I Mil q f· '1 / , ._, <1 \ ",-1 '1 1-t t' () 2 , h . I <i ,' H f1 If r1;.1 • rll'i 1 7 <It·, ,·" '1 r~
t i ·"b'iQ<l!>!r 0:> ,".1Dt)111 f ,,;s .-ITT:'>'i0ir-n·;;-----. TfTT""T"SI i nn
1? , 5 ~.., <l.i? A f ., 'J • ~ h , !-t 1 ll? F n ~ • _, h ;:> :\? •, If· n ;' • 'I o ~ n ~.; ,11 "n
--~,---~-47T)I;"\f- -,-, ~--1s-~;> (,ilif-r·,-- • ,.,;,,,pi>~ o/ • tt<-;ii/::>1> 11- ''"
14 • 'i ill 4 0 ~I ;.> f- ') :> • I!.., r, h ;:>.,>If- n ;J • ~ ~ •,)?.., h 1F (I? • 4 l 'i q h !-. ,, r.· ! I r
---.,1,.-;,--, ..,~n,f~-4F-,-,- - .-t.-~"."<,i;;r~r-ri;r---~-4-;l:di,? .1 ;,r- n:> • qii'fi'i-.i:.>r;, .. ,, •
1h • 'i 4 "; I j '> <, F n? ll ·L' '--'A o> II f- [1 ;.> -1 ._, ;.> h H P, ·H n? - Q 7 l'l h II;.' II
t7 ,'i4::S71li;i1~. ,::, -:-:1-·r?fiT/'Iiil? n:> -:--r"n"()JI)F~fi?--:~1?7,13T:ii- r\1
111 • !'; j ;>II) 'i 1 r n ;:> , d ;:>'I,, fl F fl ;> '1>
, ·1-11 -11 -1 H- 11 ;:> - , II 7 {) 1-> ;.> rJ' I< 1
\ Q ;1\4l'J.f7:r3T_i'i,- ;;;;·111 [ 7r1llr --i'\ :;r·--;-'i]7 77 iH;T (Y?" -. 1';-if""i-nr.; 1 i r\ n
;;> n
21
• 1\ ll'l Q ~" 1 r r.) • , 1 • r, <-; 1 1 r r?. • ~· 1 1 <1 'II.? r' n?
,6:?"1'ITI1tfi"r-·r.J -- ·;o:,Tro.;·{nnr-·i'\2" ---:·,,-,-,?.:;1M"
• 17 1
n' -, "? ;>"..,
,.,i;ii;i:;-4i:;>11
''
nn
n

?? .llY"\2~)hflr •1'.> , 1--tt<.,>l'l?tif n;> , '1Hnh7'i H fl) , I Q? 1 1 ~1-lt n 1

23 • 'dflnh? at 1\ ::> -~ o,"l"\F ,, ;r· • '>,,'if' '"">11"~-~ 1;71171 pqr-:rr;--·
;>4 ,f>91 O•.J?HF ,,.) • "<;•l,r\.1 jF n;..> • ''t<?ll~·71 ~ n? • 11 .;-1/1 ,lf. •11
----.,2n:5:- .~rt1T"f?"" ---~7'nll'J7l'IF-l"fr--,.,--,TT:!7~'~F 7\'? --. '.Y77r~TI~--:.t1-f.

?r'i ,lionAL-I<lf" ,,;> ,'"11·174\lf r.? ·"""';'?'IF n:> -.lf1<l1:>t>r n1

------zr~'51/1fif3i!f"'1--.,- --·-;--r:;-r'-;t~;:n;;;-v-rz --:'>"1!>FI FlT--rY7 ..• fiH:Pf;')c I\!
<' 1-1 , 7 f) 7"' j ::>-iF " ) , F. .-1 l H n 7 M n2 , 1-> 'i I 1 '1 n '1 f ()? - , 1 1 ' l J (, ll 1- n1
7q • Fl8 t .PI:> t F '" • q;<.7 12! ?F (,;> , 'i7•r:<t; HiF~-. f\"l?f'l.1!·A~ on·
3n ·">6-"~4<'~nN l'l? ,'·" lq:>,.,4f nt> ,"<'i1-1?11::>PF n? 'H' -,<lV>..,n?:n
----:n·-·---;n.r·nrr;7Ar-·r.-;r-·--;o:·p ,c,_,~"nr f\"!) • ~il"l I! 1 "ill:F fi' -. 47n?R?:5• <ii'>
:1;> ,7ht1711-10f <'? ,"-;:.'11'\IIH ~~~~ ,h1Q7.t11Jf o::> -,II~H<lOJr n1

62
 63

~CC -;ii4ifif~QrYF n-? ·,'11ti<·,.-~,, '•? .'•!''""'''~ '') .tAn,•hd7F-''1

j4 fltA4fi4'1F r'\J <-;')' ··'"l''lr 1,,) '•1f11"Ht 11~' <11nl'o4f>r: lln
3~ :n4~Tq~.,--~._-;r,p,...,-::•-r-r7·-->;nn~~'rllT---;-.,7T~nr-n7i-·
3 fi , fJ 7 I I 4 9 Qf n? , o; I'> 7 ll n J'H n 2 , •·, f• 5 1 •; 7 "F ():' • 1 A ~ I'> n 0 AF fl n
----:rr-;7?·P.i7R'ltrr::r-· -~-~;Tn·pn 1 r·rr2-···- :n 111 p; :,n- n;; • il-1 ::>su ;Tq"F;;.-n 1-
311 ,62FI161Qt' nl' ,'-2?"i4A7~ ro;> ,<>::>li7Qni>F o? -,421"'li2F on
-""311- • fi IYRti75Tf--/l?--, t;"(fifi\ 'l".fl}f Ti? ---. :iiY(f14 ~ 1f ri ;r·-. "'>).,-jYI)fil!';;.ryt
40 ,ti]Q447Qfc •1':> ,r.,,"\1':>71Af P2 .... :H>flf':I4F il? -,"o?O!l~OF nn
41 •~ t T-'tlt~r-rrr-;-.,T'1Trrw-·rr? . •, t~"T---rrr·--~~~n
42 .6429700F n? ••• 4 ~1n]Hf n:.? ,..,,onn,.,<Jf n? ,R?'1t>'11)nF nn
-•J-;~ffl,?.Vnrro · -~,.,R>l?7''Trr--·n:r- ;·o;rlf7'1::>flr 07 • t ..,.,~::>rn~--o 1
44 ,fi0575Jof n::> ,"~ORH?7?~ n:? ,..,n67<ln-'F o? ,::>n1f'A96F on
-40·-~-nu:nz~nr ro - :•m c. :n /IQ"F -n:r --."11 n44t~-fl" 4r n? ·; Rfl"i\ s ss-ilF .;;n-,-
.:Hi , ti I 7 A 0 7 n ~ n? , 'i I '' ') n flfi ~ n?. , .., I 7 'i .1 CJ If
4 o7 1 1 F n fl f1 ;> -,? 0
11 1 n n
• 1'1 :-5 till 4 1P • •· ll1~7f1'1TIT?"~J1'1'f1TRr--ur-~':nl ?ri F on -
4'1 ,F,794757E I'J;:> ,r,H)4~79f t,:,J .~7?5Hf1Af 0? ,Ofi.:;QliAOF On
4~ • o"9"?-t1t"9or--n,.-- ;~:>-t~rr- nr·--;~~q-"\~"'E -rr,--- ;1 ?YQomrr -un
50 ,7119DJ7f n;> ·"""275fiF n;:> ,hnl..,l11F n? -,1?~"o4'l4F on
~;7~-·q~-n-7--- ;-7;"11 ~tt~--nr--;-,; -zro n; 7'7f- ·n-::.-· -- • 711 , 7?·cl7-r-rrn-
5? ,fltt900'lf n~ .~R751n7F n2 ,1'>9077n7r o? -,1?~on44F on
'!13 .7~q~!I!'1P 11'·~-~"''F 117 .~'~l1::'1~1f7~~~--un--
54 ,730fi825f n;.> ,,;2•l4R4?1 II?
,FolA4fi'lHE 0? ,?f11tlii]F On
-~-;M-'17~~---n~--~1'!"1-;>'1:ot'Tt-·-rr~ ---;-,.7tr~7l1 F rr7·· ","11 n7 Hlfcn::--nr
56 ,7351tn!'if ,,;.> ,f'J·lo'>!'iH n:> ,ti??;.>tl""llf n? -.11 °tlll?flf on
-~-;c;-,>nrttll}1'"-.,~---~rr,t~or>T· · n-;c-·---: 'iFRl11711F'- n? '-. n•1" 1 1o<rr -on
58 .~47~">7Q~f n? .~~,~~~fiF n:> .~44?1n?F n? ,')0~"4:>tF nn
--sv--. 'i 1ti fi9 2 R~ i'i? • c;'
~ 7 \'1Tir n~---~~-J;'!ff"--··:l'fl ~ 1?? r n n
fi o • t. I ll o7 4 ~ n:> • <1 :> :' il Q .1 ? f o? • ~ 1 .u .., 4 ;> f n ;> • ~ 7 ' " n I 4 F n n
···01--,lll f?gnof--lj·::,r--~~rili! p; fT ·r;-,- ·-;-'i1f71?"'i F. fi !'-" • f> 1'\ ztl5-if~F' tl'n
6? ,ti20tl0fi4F n? ,"iJ7f>ltJ')~ n; .~?A:>'17H' n;> ,ol"?fi30F on
td • ti .1147.Q7Jf-f\,----:-.;~.-jJf 1\ AT" 1;-;; -~i;-4Tf:-~i nr
fl4 ,fl7tfi;:>HI'If n::> ,•;n'J~1f,<\f r,;,. ,">r"o7""'-'F n? -. n~r.ltl~- nn
n' -.
;>1;; i n1 .;-r nn

(1•, •
'1 r;r<f<!Anl"f'0?---;r.n~.,-q-r·fi'T- • Ar: 3 7 o 1\TFn,---~:T'i< r;;' ~---on- -
66 ,70207~~~ n? .~H~?~J~F n~ .~u27~Ahf fl? -.~~1HH02~ nn
-r;r-:-,""S"lllT.:rq4[-·n.,--~--~-1!71fif7TF --ii?-- ;·r.;-,ft'l1 jFitff: h? -. 1 !">in?h?i= ·nr,
flA ,1)2tifi290F n? .·~::>'->t.Jt~~ 02 ,'">:>~i4)?\f n? -,.]flnofl]4F-fl1
- 0 Q- • "i9-!5U73Trn,----; ii-~lil'l ii/\F ·rY?" -- ;-.rfJ7''1" ·1r- o-, .:·:
t:1 o? 1 .<~6?r nn
70 ,57~Q7t7F n:> ,17~1d~~t n?. ,4R!\n?7F n? -.?o~7j07F n~
---,-r-~ 591\il 35"\F n? •.1 <i->' 11-i111-- n 2 • a 6 7'\ A 1 >lt n' ..:-;~~All n 1 F on··
7 ;:> , 0 ] " 1-1 'L~ n ~ "? • •u t' :1" f' 1 F n ;.> - • ";.> ·> '-> q H 'iF n n
, !d 1 1 11 ;::o 1 r r' ;.-
-n·-;62RhS5it-·i"?"·--:~:nU"!TP~F- r,-,- ·--~~?·n Ti'H" ·n? -,,-'>;; ri!lnrF-nn
74 ,h;.>;:>7"i40E. n::> ,.,,-\.1f1"'df ro;> ,'-o:::OIQI'iV•t •l? ,11114t•nr nn
75 • fi/.1 rrl)",1f.(" --,-:r·-;r,·~,-,-l'jfqi) f' "(\ ,---- ~ '-,f-;77 ... ~ ~ r o:?" ;,. .... (> n) to :?"<)i' ·n"
7ti ,l)o!l4!'i1nf t1::> • "i'->·11 .<;,; 1~ n? · • !"o'·!>nn<"'' n;> -. 'i~ 1?1'>hfll= nn
17 ,6\A;:J/ARF II? ,hl·i'171JRF r.? ,')lf\l'\lf7F n? -=·.•,?rol\4?1\r nn
71\ ,1)024ti41if n::> ,'->rl·7"i7~1d~ f•<' ,'>li.3f1'1~llF n? • l717<l!'i 0 F fln
-,rr-· • 57"lQi107t·-,'\Y~1>iP""IflF (i;:> , i! A0 f grrr ·o/ ::-,11 h (l74RF---1Yi'"
Rn ,5!->077Cilt q::> .~h140t!RF n::o ·''""7'1R?f u:> -.1 ;>nJd::>AF llfl
----ar- ,fi5nl) 17"'F """""717-,-ifT'f;rif]"T-ll?-----: 11"!';71\lf oi 'iF Tl? ·;.. ;P.:'Iii]flti jl'-nn -
A:> ,53?4463F " ' .~"''/';~nt n? ,114\:ihl?F n::> -,11"n"?JF 01
 64

Hover Performance Test Data for VAH-lR Helicopter

When Equipped with the K747 Rotor

LINEAH ~FGPFSST~~
-"R"fl"fPFSST~I'i ·-r;tTfFFTl''TPlr F 1R T'Jlf!TTl-lrJ T' ii HI-< Y -
A • •.4011995~ 01
-,.--,.--~-QJ-:ff7VTF -iin_____ -- -- -- -----
CIIFHIF:LAllloJN C0f~FTrlH1T c ,•J4;.> 1·ttA?F nn
--r-vlit:UF·-.--;:rnrrral17W-nr --------------------- -
8 l A I' f) A R ) E: R R tl R ~~ f' ~ S T! ; I ~ T~ : • flo I <1? >11 p f (In
~iJl't 1'11" ·--sl)U~ES_l"F_ itfVPTT rl'l'l. f" P r'M rrrr;nr· '>"' T flN z: • ~ 1i ??4o 1 F 1, ;c'
STI111Jf1,U-Il) OF.VIATJ!l• ~~~ li ~ ,~'><l•l<1,14.\F 111
--v1\PT~J:-·-pr ·x · .-----~-.,1\7?'1 ~ <Jf- iYT
V J (1. TJ o> ~ I II Y ~
S T A~~ fl A fl ) I) F • li '-\? 0 ;> 1 •, f I' 1
-v-~ntrtr:-1!'1l<f"1' ... • • 21 ;:n••-:rr•tnrr-n::r- ------------------- ------ ------- ---------
----- - - - - - - --------------

T ilt-ll_F I<F IH 'i I "HIAL <;

l "l P t1T !<I~ .--r-n-r::rrr---r-v:n::m T~;-rnrATr __ _ R t ::; J [1 0 ~I_

----r--;nl')"l'trrr n-7- --~_,._, i"ll'll'lr-- n-;7- ---;'I ;rRrr:;q·lf r n·?' ,.; . "i rn .rf!·1n' n r,
~ .li6.'3h81if n? .~.7•l;>'i•llf- ftC' ,'-\71-l<l;>;'llf· (l;.> -.4"'1??hl!F •ln
-------J-~7?/?"t?Trl'T?---~ .;-:n11n rr--·rr;:r-·---;·r;-~"i'?7?T ·n?-.;.. 7:~1'1!)Wi:H·- r~i'\--
A ,l'i!J71'01i?E rt2 <;7-:>3~'-i It- (I;> '-\7 .\"'J l!jF (l? - 1 I <lQ I PHF 11(1
5 • 65~!),r::; 1F '1; -~;:,-r;;--qof-fj-~i~Q'?;i''i"1Fii? ___ :-i O?tlfl?lir:---,-,,;-
f) ,l)llfl?.IQOF_ '1? ,"n"l!A4t 11? ,hfl?ll?tlf n::> ,l'lf;nr,47f-ol nn
--~---- ,1>1{Q'1)('1T' "11? -;.-~')'14M~--;n:--i~2 ----=-5t-;S? I ;;·sr rl?- -<:5"" liTtl ;~- "n
ll , l'i 0 fl 0 7 fJ f> F n ? , 'i ;.> 1/tl ;> ? F fl ;.> , 'i ;;> 7 l ;> I' ;> f t1 ;> - , f) ? <n 'I o1 A'' 1, n
Q ,!'i7n7IT<JT'n'---~t;'fj~f'l"«'-i4F ri2-~~<l<lnn<\~i,f n?' .li"inil,)i: Ill)
1G , 57 P'o Q 0 :1 4 E t1 ? , " P ::> 1 7 11 I r n ;.' , 4 4 H ;;> H ;> f n ;> , 1 o n-; ti "> ;> •' n n
It ,ti,l1n3qr "' ,r,;n 1 qn:u-'(';V----:r;~~o-,--:T?'I~-.-i-;:;n
t:> .ot>!iPOP'H '1;> ·""'ol4!7F fl? ,'-if'11•P;fiF n::> ,1711fofJ<I~->f ron
---rr---:nrr·rn-,-r-~'::r- --~-r:1Tii '"~"'·7r--,,-,-----.-.,-~ni •i o.1 fF 11:> • 1 d:R o.1S?ill: 11"
14 • 57 7 7 ;.> H 1 ~ ,, ? • " n 1 o ,, ? q f 11 ~ • 4 Q 'i " n 1 7 f n ::> • ::> o H1 ;.> 1::> F-. 1 n
----nr-~7>5ii;nr,-.;rr;-,-----.-·~7TinTF n::> .<;7:J1il';~"lr n? -.1"1<>;;7<-,::>~ ''"
to ,"i040071if n;> ,"1H41V1f n2 ,'l;:>J"-:->7:-'F o::> -,!'if)'l~JflAI' fin
--.......-1'7'7-. ~"i l'iF , ;> •'7,'q? 1111 " f ri;J • 4t:ll IT'?F>r~w--=·;-,-Tirtr?riT-.:-1-,--
1A , 55 7 1 H b d f II? , ~A ol" 1 I 1f I •;.> • d H II 1 <1 t1 f-.~ n ;> , •11 1'. '-\ 1-> 4 <,1'- -1 1 I
--n-·-;-,-lJ1TT'fT,-F--il,-- -. '- J?;rl kil:F -~.,,--- :·•:qqqo I:"F -i1? -,;.·. ::>!i7'4-;:>t;~ no
2 f1 , o;> F, ~ o9 t> ~ "';' , ._,I);:> I !1,; 1 F I;? • '> t1 ~ I 0 <, l)f (l --· • 7 7 F. 1 3 H.H ,-, n
--'7r---,--q-5TJrro;~r ,.----- -:;;;l'f:'o F,n<rr· n-T-. ~-o" 11 ;.;':" i'.of r1.'Y- •-,;,, ofTii?~ n n
£~ , "\75000/lf:. n? • <;rJ 10~? 1 11- lo? • d(jh 4'iR7! 1''J , 7 d042il?~ nn
----....,...
3- • 56tlRQn9F. 1\7 • nllnvr:rr··i'f:r'~1iliTi~·,--.:-;-r _p;.;nFt;>r r:,
24 .':i90l-'01'f 1'1? ,4<n?Ril1F fl? ,!'>\W• 7 7'iF (12 -,13?Q74~F f'1
25 • 'i l'fJf'.!V6ffr i'f'Y ---:~ Ttr~l\-,---;~n-r;r-,r -, ,--- . !' pq·5h Jf' n n
2n ,!1Jil<ll9nf 11~ ,llAn;.>d<14F n2 .4~4fl'>"in n? ,It flo:.'7nr Pn
-------,r--~Oj-,fKIT/.HF ~T-.-.;-,;;'7f,7i~Tt-i''2- :4i;'0'4h<llr (1? -.l-!7tru-J~F"- ti1
21\ ,5341-oQHF-f ~"~? ,ll<1' 1 '>1!1'lf n;:> ,t1"8RAO/-of 0? -,Oin7/1Jf (In
20 ,5201.,07F ~;:? ,AIJOI'i"HHIF It? ,45.fh'h'1f p? .:;;rJ;1?1!;>1· !ll"
311 • ':i!lf>n53 If n? • ~ ,1'1;>? 1 HF (l;> ,47A4fl \pF n? ,I H 1 RflH!l~ f'l'
- - - y r • n4<:136P"'T"-n--,-~-i-;f,'4''ffi1>~r f);l---_-.;,-sPr:.)r;r: -~i,- · • ;><;iiJ:Y'L\'i:'- ,,r;
3? ,I'Hni1l'll14f r.? ,'-'klf411\?f' n;> ,f>Otllfnfltf n:-> -.tnn;;>tqHF 111
 65

·:L\ ~-ltJll'l_"ll~f r•;J ,_•,··~o:'t'll· 11/ ,'>IP''If ,;; -.tl"·l•

Jt1 .fl7Rh'Jr•HE n? .t...tJ,.flfl')ttf tl,·' .~.u ~.)~>if~~ ~~~) -.:..... ~·J 1 1f•/? .-~~--
--.. :ni--:·;,--;~,;;;,-,.,r,.,.----~f,li"T1 .1"7r·-r\;r----:·ro_-l··i i"1 T ,r ,c;;; · ·:.:·;-;,;:G;t;·:•.;;. ~;~,; ·
:'\ f> 0 t\ j 'l Q ') 4 (I ~ >1 ? , <., "> ·I <l f H 0 f. I) ~~ • '"l '· '• 1 I il I • f 11 ;> ·• • 1 ~~ '> f I ,., '· I ; I li '
---·:r7 - -~-6 3 I If s·;.. :'1 r -,) ;;· • "., n 1 f ~. "· ( (, ;> . . • <,j ' l ! l r'? ~ il ;> •
7 II": - \i \ i) 17 ,j

J fl • fi I) 7 :;1 I 7 5 E n? • ".'1 r, ,'j "i '\, r '1 :.> • .., ;>I>:>;>:' 1f .I • I ('
il ., • C) \~?I
---~f9-·:J: :l1 J:r~n: --n·::r -. ,<:>·>· HT>" o? >•
.1.-~ Pfin >if o:.> -. i if:\ ·1 7 1 , n
40 ,7357RrJQF '1:.> ,f-\'-1;>-t'> IF n:' ,ht!n~<J".If fl~' -. l?<!f'll••lt,r Pr:
--;n---.J"~'/IT. f1T·--:-;; ~;-y;:i;:l'Q~til~i-·-:- i,'i 'i'1 r:i')-iiT....ii?." -- ~ ,-,-~';T,- j .. -· i; , \

42 .7t9n.IJQE n? .r,?t~·:.>r•H n;> ,n:ltd?"'iF n;' -,Qlln!d·:,,, n·

--.r:r·---~7n7Tafif''7\:T---.;q?p;;~;r n~ .f';Atn'f7q~ It::> --.tl!fll3nr,], n1
44
----,s----~70
46
• 7 (I "i I 4 I 31- "? • -. ~· 1 <1 H II 7 F
rqq:qT -r; ,- ----: J,? 1 T PTl r --;~~·
,7;>72n(1f>f n~' , · 4 ;.\~>,..?1- 11/
(I?
'i'
• F> 1 7 9 n ~ I F fl :>
--.. t' 'i .r, & :-~ F 11"
,fJ'l,pP\•·r
, 7 !) ll "i ~I I r: fl r,
~ ::'l n 1'\R t ',,
n~·
1 , I

.•Pl7Ci7,,J'· nn
---4r-. ~57ir 11"7 --·;-~.-i"~rr-mr-~rrT7lfl ;;rrr?-~'R"..,·p;:' l J" n. ·
4A ,tin,nnntr- n? ,,l,f•llf(,,lF- n? ,'iR'IlHlr.~ n~> .tfi~n-'tr:r n,
-.,q----;7U7TQI5·nr-l'l ;r-----.~') <r:r:;rr.;q-r·- n;r --; l;"?n TJ'Hr?r ·n ~ · .7q~7 il <Jr n.·i
50 .74••n44flf :1::> .f,h:>otl)<liF n? ,~>'11\n.P-'lf. o? .•;.111\a/.,~ :1n
-!5\·-·-;;gt'fT'Jt"3 7tr17.·----; FIT'Tll'JtTrF-n·;.r--·-: 7f!?7"if3T n ;r -;;;. Tn?"47ti () r· f1 ;•
~2 .7J?442Qf n? ,l<tl:'HI,7f>F f•? ,f,4Y1Rn4F n? -,"i7?Al'11!-0!
-~ • 71 Q::>1Q !\f. 1'1) • p'l-;r"n-:r.,.F·-n')·--.(,"TT ~-!IT- -~~. 7 r n 1
54 .1'17406461: 11? ,A(11t14nf'lf' f.? ,'>HHQO]f>f ()? ,!'104J6i1F fl!
-~~-~'15"61'i?1~7'Rt:··-n7-·--;r;-·nr:>~l'l-rr7F··n-7 ---;-~R n>ifn-nT ·n-;> ·;Tv-nll7or o·1
5f> .70?779Af n? ,r.ll40fihF o; .~l~haadf n::> -.??n;:>910F nn
---:57 • 7 t h41"9VF'fl7 - ~--J;-:H7"rJTF--n-:r--·;n77<F1dl'F 11? ~157Wi?711 f.' n"
51l • 'I 0 !i7 9fo 2f n? • ~.!2~~.! n? ,l.!.J_~U,?_Ql___!t_:~-- • '1 n 7;> 11 ~~U :~I_!)
 66

APPENDIX F.
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols

A - Main rotor dis area

A - Regression coefficient (intercept)
a - Estimation of the regression coefficient
A&FC -Airworthiness and flight characteristic
AFT - Aft center of gravity
AVSCOM - The United States Army Aviation Systems Command
B - Regression coefficient (slope)
b - Estimation of the regression coefficient (slope)
B540 - BHC designation for the standard main rotor blades
BHC - Bell Helicopter Company
BL - Butt line
°C - Degree centigrade
CG - Center of gravity
Cp - Coefficient of Power
CT - Coefficient of thrust
d -Difference between regression lines
E.1 - Expected frequency
F - F distribution
°F - Degrees Fahrenheit
FS - Flight station
Ft-lb - Foot-pound
Ft4D - Forward center of gravity
 67

GW - Gross weight
H0 - Null hypothesis
H1 - Alternative hypothesis
IMRB - Improved main rotor blades
K747 - KAc•s designation for the IMRB
KAC - Kaman Aeros pace Cot'pora ti on
LT - Left
OGE - Out of ground effect
o.1 - Observed frequency
Q - Torque
R - Main rotor radius
r - Correlation coefficient
RT - Right
RPM - Revolution per minute
S - Standard deviation
S2 xy - Covariance
Sy·x - Standard error of estimate
SHP - Shaft horsepower
t - Student t distribution
USAAEFA -The United States Army Aviation Engineering Flight Activi~y
X - Dependent variable
y - Independent variable
a - Probability of a type I error
s - Probability of a type I I error
p - Air density
n - Main rotor angular velocity
 68

JJ - Mean
E - Summation