' c ■

USAAVLABS TECHNICAL REPORT 66-17

/ V

HIGH-PERFORMANCE ÜH-1 COMPOUND HELICOPTER

MANEUVER FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM

By

J. F. Van Wyckhou^e c L ^THYH O I E

FOR FEDhJiiAL SfUENHFlC A^D
__ TBCHmCA'. l-y.-^iMATlr.N
Hardcopy Microfuahei

February 1966

Ct-rt?^ /
U. S. ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL [^ORATORIES
FORT EÜSTIS, VIRGINIA

CONTRACT DA 44-177-AMC-162(T)
BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY
A DIVISION OF BELL AEROSPACE CORPORATION
FORT WORTH, TEXAS

Distribution of this
document is unlimited.
 ·•·

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
PAGES WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCE LEGIBLYo
 Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Depart-

ment of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized
documents.

When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used

for any purpose other than in connection with a definitely related Govern-
ment procurement operation, the United States Government thereby
incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that
the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied
the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded
by implication or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder or
any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission,
to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way
be related thereto.

Disposition Instructions

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the

originator.

|
..:■•

1 iV: -;
1
',■

«
-, | f-'i'.

f
v |
. t:l 1 t ''

m
r
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U. S. ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL LABORATORIES
FORT EUSTIS. VIRGINIA 23604

This report has been reviewed by the U. S. Army Aviation

Materiel Laboratories and is considered to be technically
sound. The report is being disseminated for the advance
of knowledge and stimulation of ideas.

The work described herein was conducted under the Army's

continuing exploratory development effort in support of future
high-speed rotary-wing aircraft. As such, it contains reliable
flight test experience directly applicable to design criteria of
future Army aircraft.

I.,:
 Task IPL2140IAIU31I
Gontracc DA i+4-I77-AMG-L62(T)
USAAVLABS Technical Report 66-17
February 1966

HIGH-PERFORMANCE UH-I GOMPOUND HELICOPTER

MANEUVER FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM

(Bell Helicopter Report 533-099-025)

by

J. F. Van Wyckhouse

Prepared by

BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY

A Division of Bell Aerospace Corporation
Fort Worth, Texas

for

U.S. ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL LABORATORIES

I FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

Distribution of this
doaument is unlimited.

r
 SUMMARY

\ The high-performance UH-1 compound helicopter was repowered

with J69-T29 turbojet auxiliary engines, and flight tests
were conducted to extend, the vehicle's flight envelope,
particularly with respect to maneuvers. A standard UH-1B
rotor and one modified with tapered tip blades were the
principal rotors tested during the program. With the
tapered tip blades, the compound, helicopter was flown to
a true airspeed of 221 knots and significant reductions
in power and control loads were obtained. The rise in
power required and the rotor controls load associated with
compressibility were delayed by about .05 Mach number with
the tapered tip blades.
Approximately 55 maneuvers, encompassing a velocity-normal
acceleration envelope exceeding 2g,s at 190 knots, were
accomplished to define the maneuver capabilities of the
test vehicle. Various types of maneuvers were investigated.
The cyclic turn was the principal maneuver tested, as it best
represents how compound rotorcraft will be flown. The lift
of the various components of the machine is defined herein,
and. it is shown that the rotor provides the largest incre-
ment of normal load factor during a maneuver. For a rotor-
controlled compound helicopter, rotor lift capability will
establish the maneuver characteristics of the machine.
The rotor and control loads and. cockpit vibration data
were evaluated and used for trends to define rotor limits.
Although the measured loads were well below structural
limits, the chord load was characterized by an "abrupt
rise" after which a small increase in rotor lift would
have resulted in structural damage. This characteristic
of the chord load provided a basis for defining the maximum
limits of the test helicopter. A normal maneuver limit and
a structural limit thrust coefficient are defined as a
function of advance ratio and. airframe drag. The normal
maneuver limit is a design value which assures nondamaging
loads and. acceptable vibration levels. The structural
limits are based on load levels that would be considered
acceptable only for structural demonstrations or in case of
extreme emergency. Although rotor system dynamics, blade
twist, planform, airfoil section, etc., will influence the
values of limiting thrust coefficients, it is believed that
the effects of these will be small, and with proper inter-
pretation the limiting tc shown herein is- generally
applicable to all rotorcraft.

in

.iu^nmrtiK"
 FOREWORD
This report summarizes the results of a flight research
program conducted to obtain test data on the high speed and
maneuver capability of rotary-wing compound, aircraft. The
program was accomplished by Bell Helicopter Company under
USAAVLABS Contract DA 4i+-177-AMG-162(T) (Reference 1). The
work conducted under this program is an extension of the
high-performance helicopter (HPH) flight research program
conducted under Contract DA 44-177-TC-711 (Reference 2)
and reported by References 3 and k.
Design and fabrication of the auxiliary engine installation
and control system modifications commenced upon receipt of
the contract on 14 April 1964. Ground and flight tests of
the engine installation began on 25 July 1964. The flight
test program as originally contracted was completed 7 April
1965. Additional flight tests as authorized under modifica-
tion five were completed 20 August 1965.
The program was conducted under the technical cognizance
of Mir. G. N. Smith of the Applied Aeronautics Division of
USAAVLABS. Principal Bell Helicopter Company personnel
associated with the program were Messrs. W. Cresap, L.
Hartwig, W. Jennings, R. Lynn, L, Rohrbough, and J. F.
Van Wyckhouse.

■;.

'^^l9IK'r'^™'v""
■■f'lv
mm.
aim

u
a)
a
o
o
•r-l
r-l

X
X)
c
o
e
8
a)
ü
c
CO
e
o
u
a)
i
.d
bO
•H

VI

-
, l-t-
 , r*- " "*«nff«»Mw

CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY iii

FOREWORD v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS xii
INTRODUCTION I
DESCRIPTION OF TEST VEHICLE 2
INSTRUMENTATION 5
FLIGHT TESTS 7
FLIGHT TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .... 9
Performance ........ 9
Steady-State Structural Loads and Vibrations 10
Maneuvers ......... 12
Stability and Control 18
CONCLUSIONS 23
REFERENCES 2k
DISTRIBUTION 87

Vll
 ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
Frontispiece High-Performance Compound Helicopter vi

1 General Arrangement of the Test

Helicopter , , . . .... 28

2 J69-T29 Auxiliary Engine Installation . 29

3 Auxiliary Thrust vs ToNj Jet . . . .30

4 Tapered Tip Main Rotor Blade . . .31

5 Airspeed Calibration . .... 32

6 Total Power and Distribution - Level

Flight 33

7 Shaft Horsepower Required - Test and

Calculated 34

8 Main Rotor Yoke Moments ..... 35 i

9 Control System Loads . . . . .36

10 Tail Rotor Loads and Flapping . . .37

11 Vibration Characteristics in High-Speed

Level Flight . 38

12 Airspeed Range vs Auxiliary Engine RPM . 39

13 Test Velocity - Normal Acceleration

Envelope .... .... 40

14 Rotor Lift vs Steady Yoke Beam Bending

Moment 41 ■

15 Lift Distribution Durim; Maneuvers at

186-Knot Entry Airsp-ec" 42

16 Time History of Right Cyclic Turn, 95%

Nj Jet 43

Vlll

_ar.i--fc. -■
Figure Page
17 Time History of Right Cyclic Turn, 98%
Nj Jet 47
18 Maximum Rotor Thrust Coefficients . . .51
19 Vibration Characteristics During a High-
Speed. Maneuver ...... . . 52
20 Vibration Level vs Rotor Thrust
Coefficients . 53
21 Control Load vs Rotor Thrust Coefficient
98% Nj Jet 5k
22 Main Rotor Beamwise Load, vs Thrust
Coefficient 8k% Ni Jet 55
23 Main Rotor Beamwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 87% Nj Jet 56
2k Main Rotor Beamwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 90% Nj Jet 57
25 Main Rotor Beamwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 95% Nj Jet 58
26 Main Rotor Beamwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 98% Nj Jet 59
27 Main Rotor Chordwise Load, vs Thrust
Coefficient 84% Nj Jet 60
28 Main Rotor Chordwise Load, vs Thrust
Coefficient 87% Nj Jet 61
29 Main Rotor Chordwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 90% Nj Jet 62
30 Main Rotor Chordwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 95% Nj Jet 63
31 Main Rotor Chordwise Load vs Thrust
Coefficient 98% Nj Jet 6k

IX
Figure Page
32 Limiting Rotor Thrust Coefficients . . .65
33 Limiting Rotor Thrust Coefficients . . .66
34 Roll Control Response ...... 67
35 Loc.a Factor Control Sensitivity . . . .68
36 Longitudinal Response, 152 Knots,
Forward Pulse ........ 69
37 Longitudinal Response, 159 Knots,
Aft Pulse .... .... 70
38 Longitudinal Response, 169 Knots,
Forward Pulse . . . . . . . .71
39 Longitudinal Response, 170 Knots,
Aft Pulse 72
40 Longitudinal Response, 183 Knots,
Forward Pulse ........ 73
41 Longitudinal Response, 184 Knots,
Aft Pulse 74

42 Lateral Response, 161 Knots, Right Pulse . 75

43 Lateral Response, 159 Knots, Left Pulse . . 76
44 Lateral Response, 174 Knots, Right Pulse . 77
45 Lateral Response, 174 Knots, Left Pulse . . 78
46 Lateral Response, 185 Knots, Right Pulse . 79
47 Lateral Response, 184 Knots, Left Pulse . . 80
48 Directional Response, 162 Knots, Right
Pulse 81
 Figure Page

49 Directional Response, 162 Knots,

Left Pulse . 82
50 Directional Response 171 Knots,
Right Pulse . • • . 83
51 Directional Response 171 Knots,
Left Pulse • • . 84

52 Directional Response 180 Knots,

Right Pulse . • • . 85

53 Directional Response 182 Knots,

Left Pulse . 86

XI

rsxa ■ •"■• ■%:

 SYMBOLS

b Number of blades
c Rotor blade chord, feet
GT Thrust coefficient, L/nR2 p (0 R)2
L Rotor lift, pounds
NR Rotor speed, rpm
N-j- Engine speed, rpm
R Rotor radius, feet

t Rotor thrust coefficient, 2 G^/a

V Rotor forward speed, feet/second
V,p True airspeed, knots
VE Entry airspeed, (V-p)
A Increment
M Advance ratio, V/ÜR
p Air density, slugs/cubic feet
a Rotor solidity, bc/VR
i// Blade azimuth angle, degrees*
(2 Rotor rotational speed, radians/second
r Convergence time constant **

* (Measured from downwind position in

direction of rotation)
** (Time to reach 63.3 percent of final
value)

Xll

^f
 INTRODUCTION
In August 1961, a high-performance research helicopter
program was initiated, which substantiated the validity
of predicted trends with respect to increased speed, range,
and productivity and rotor Loads reduction (Reference 3).
In late 1962, the program was extended to include the flight
test of the high-performance vehicle with a wing and auxil-
iary J69-T9 engines. During these tests the compound heli-
copter was flown to a level-flight true airspeed of 186
knots, and mild maneuvers and simulated power failures were
investigated at speeds to 177 knots. It was found (Reference
4) that the structural loads, vibration characteristics,
and stability and control of the vehicle were satisfactory
for all conditions tested and that, with the exception of the
control loads, the rotor system loads and cockpit vibrations
were lower than those of the UH-1B at its power limit speed.
During these tests a standard UH-1B rotor system was used.
The UH-1B blades were subsequently replaced with blades
having tapered thickness over the outboard 20-percent
radius. With these blades, the compound helicopter was
flown to a true airspeed of 193 knots, and significant
reductions were realized in the control loads and power
requirements as compared to the standard blades. It was
concluded that higher speed and increased load capability
can be achieved by compounding the helicopter and that
this can be accomplished without increased vibrations and
structural loads, or compromise of the autorotational
safety characteristics of the helicopter (Reference k).
In April 1964, additional tests were contracted (Reference
1) for the exploration of the maneuver flight envelope of
the test vehicle. For this program the high-performance
UH-1 compound helicopter was reconfigured with J69-T29
turbojet engines. The major portion of the program was con-
ducted with a set of the tapered tip blades installed in the
UH-1B hub. During these tests a maximum speed of 221 knots
was obtained in a slight dive and the maneuver envelope
was defined for airspeeds to about 210 knots. To allow a
meaningful definition of rotor capability, this was accom-
plished with the rotor carrying a significant portion of
:■

the machine gross weight and providing a large contribution

to the net propulsive force. The results of this work are
reported herein.

••,
1-1

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST VEHICLE

The basic test vehicle used for this program was the high-
performance compound helicopter as described in the Phase
II High-Performance Helicopter report (Reference 4) except
for the auxiliary engine installation. The general arrange-
ment of the test helicopter is shown by Figure 1. Following
are brief descriptions of the various components of the
aircraft.
FUSELAGE
The basic fuselage is YH-40 (Serial No. 56-6723) with UH-1B
dynamic components modified into a high-performance con-
figuration. The principal modifications include a tilting
pylon installation, new fixed and rotating controls, exter-
nal pylon and aft body fairings, and a cambered vertical
fin. A detailed description of these modifications is given
in Reference 3,

WING INSTALLATION

The wing installation consists of airframe-mounted support

structure, incidence controls, and right- and left-hand
removable wing panels. The wing panel incidence controls
are coupled with the main rotor controls such that the wing
panels move differentially with a lateral cyclic input, and
together with a collective input. A full lateral stick in-
put produces a 6-degree (±3 degrees from neutral) wing inci-
dence, differential. The wind incidence is coupled through a
slip clutch with the main rotor collective control such that
the wing incidence changes 20 degrees for a 50-percent col-
lective input. The wing incidence increases to +10 degrees
with a 50-percent or greater up collective input and reduces
to -10 degrees with a 50-percent or greater down collective
input. The reduction in wing incidence with reduced col-
lective was provided to maintain satisfactory rotor rpm
control during autorotation.
AUXILIARY ENGINE INSTALLATION

The previously used J69-T9 jet engines were removed and

replaced with the more powerful J69-T29 jet engines. The
modifications required for installation of the J69-T29
engines consisted mainly of fabricating new forward mount-
ing rings, new aft engine mounts, and new engine cowling.
 The engine-mount pylon fairing and the fuselage-installed
engine-mount structure for the J69-T9 engine installation
were used with only minor modifications. The aft cabin
door's width was reduced k inches to provide opening clear-
ance with the engine air inlets. The engine control panel
on the pilot's pedestal was modified by removing the
mechanical throttles and installing electrical switches for
the electric throttle controls supplied on the engines.
During the initial flight tests of the installation, slats
(eyebrows) were installed on the engine pylon fairing.
These slats had an approximate 8~inch chord length §.nd were
installed parallel to and k inches above the contour of the
pylon fairing. The purpose of these slats was to .prevent
airflow separation from the engine pylon during autorotation.
A more detailed discussion of this is found on page 19.
The J69-T29 engine is a limited-life drone engine with a
Military power rating of 1700 pounds' static sea level
thrust. The throttle actuators supplied with the engines
have electrical limit-switch stops for the 84-percent and
100-percent rpm settings. These actuators were modified
for the helicopter installation to provide an idle (~ 50-
percent rpm) and a 95-percent rpm maximum derated power
setting. The engines were originally derated to 95-percent
rpm (1400 pounds, thrust) to assure satisfactory operation
and adequate l^'fe for the conduct of the test program.
After sufficient test experience was obtained with the
installation, uprating was justified and the engines were
rerated to 98-percent rpm (=1600 pounds, thrust) for the
remainder of the test program. Figure 2 shows the engine
installation on the helicopter. Figure 3 shows the net
thrust available from a single engine as a function of
forward speed and percent of maximum engine rpm (%N,).

MAIN ROTOR
The UH-1B main rotor used during the initial phase of this
program was modified by the addition of the tapered tip
blades and root fairings. Figure 4 shows the tapered tip
blades installed on the test helicopter. The basic para-
meters of this rotor as listed on the following page are
the same as those of the standard rotor. The rotor system
is basically a UH-1B system with the stabilizer bar removed.

r
 Number of blades
Airfoil designation
Root to .8R NAGA 0012
Tip NAGA 0006 mod.
Chord 21 inches
Diameter ki4 feet
Blade twist -10 degrees
Blade area (total) 77 square feet
Disc area 1521 square feet
Solidity .0507
Rotor rpm at a600 engine rpm 324
Tip speed at 324 rotor rpm 746 ft/sec
TAIL ROTOR
A UH-1B tail rotor was used throughout the test program.
The parameters of this rotor are given below.

Number of blades 2
Airfoil designation NACA 0015
Chord 8.41 inches
Diameter 8.5 feet
Blade twist None
Blade area (total) 5.96 square feet
Disc area 56.8 square feet
Solidity .105
Rotor rpm at 324 main rotor rpm 1654
Tip speed at 1654 rot(Dr rpm 736 ft/sec
 INSTRUMENTATION
Instrumentation was installed to record and/or monitor the
test helicopter's performance, stability, controllability,
rotor and control loads, fuselage vibrations, and other
information as desired during the flight test program.
The information was recorded on two oscillographs installed
on the wing support structure in the cabin area.
INSTRUMENTED ITEMS
Specific channels of instrumentation were provided for re-
cording the following information:
Airspeed
Rotor azimuth
Differential torque pressure
CG vertical acceleration
Pilot and copilot station vertical acceleration
Pitch and roll attitude
Pitch and roll rate (stability and control test only)
Yaw attitude (stability and control test only)
Cyclic, directional, and collective control positions
Main rotor flapping and feathering position
Main rotor hub assembly (beam and chord) moments
Main rotor blade (beam and chord) moments
Main rotor control (pitch link) loads
R.H. cyclic boost tube loads
Pylon lift link load
Tail rotor flapping
Tail rotor hub chord moments
Tail rotor blade beam and chord moments
Horizontal stabilizer moments
Horizontal stabilizer position
Wing beam bending
Wing position (angle of incidence)
Wing angle of attack
To reduce the possibility of reading errors in data reduction,
only the specific channels necessary for a particular test
were connected into the oscillographs. If postflight in-
spection of data indicated an area of particular concern,
additional channels were connected to provide a more com-
prehensive evaluation of the area in question. In general,
vibration, fuselage attitude, power, rotor flapping, main
rotor yoke loads, control loads, control positions, wing
loads, and wing angles of attack were recorded for each
flight. Additional information was recorded as necessary
throughout the test program.
AIPSPEED CALIBRATION
Airspeed calibration was accomplished by pacing the test
helicopter with a T-28 aircraft from the Army Test Center
at Edwards Air Force Base. The observed speeds (I. A. S. )
of bot^ aircraft were recorded at various speeds, and the
T-28 observed speeds were corrected for instrument and
position error and plotted against the observed airspeeds
of the test helicopter. Figure 5 shows the airspeed cali-
bration obtained with the T-28 pace aircraft and also the
calibration obtained with the Cessna 310 pace aircraft used
during the previous program.
 FLIGHT TESTS
The initial flight of the high-performance helicopter re-
powered with the J69-T29 engines was made on 21 July 1964.
The preliminary tests were conducted with a UH-1B rotor in-
stalled. The purpose of these tests was to shake down the
new engine installation and to obtain baseline performance
and loads data. The auxiliary engine installation required
much more development time than had been originally antici-
pated. Approximately 5 hours of ground and flight time was
required before two acceptable engines were found. During
this period three (two right, one left) engines were removed
and replaced and numerous engine components were changed.
Two acceptable engines were obtained late in September 1964,
and. no major engine problems were encountered for the
remainder cf the test program.
Under the original program plan, a contractor-owned Model
540 "doorhinge" rotor was to be the basic rotor for the
maneuver tests. This rotor is described in Reference 5.
The rotor was installed, and testing commenced on 18 December
1965. Preliminary testing was conducted with cold jets,and
the rotor operation was found, to be satisfactory throughout
the speed, range. With the addition of auxiliary propulsion,
however, high control loads and fuselage vibration levels
were encountered. The maximum speed, attained with this rotor
was 162 knots. The cause of the high vibration level is
believed to be due to a blade frequency and control system
coupling at the blade pitch and loading conditions required
for trim flight with auxiliary propulsion. Higher control
loads also result from the wider chord of the 540 blades.
(The control load component associated with the reverse flow
region is strongly influenced by airspeed and the blade chord
length.)
The controls coupling causes an imbalance between the control
moments in the fixed, and rotating systems at the higher
speeds. The existence of this phenomenon was established
by resolution and comparison of the fixed system loads to the
rotating system loads in terms of swashplate rolling moment
during a complete revolution of the rotor. These moments
were found to be equal during helicopter flight with cold
jets. However, with increased speed and. the addition of
auxiliary thrust, the moments were found, to be unequal and
also out-of-phase. The abnormal phasing caused high oscil-
latory loads in the hydraulic boost cylinders and. resulted
in fatigue damage to the non-rotating controls components.

,**.■ '
It was determined that a major modification of the test
vehicle's control system would be necessary to obtain an
acceptable configuration for the full speed range required,
for the test program. In order to continue the program, the
rotor was replaced by a UH-IB rotor hub with the experimental
tapered tip blades evaluated during a previous program
(Reference 6).
The maneuver tests were started on 11 March and completed
8 April 1965. The program was later modified (Reference 7) ■

to include additional flight tests for the extension of the

maneuver envelope and evaluation of the dynamic stability of
the test helicopter. These flights commenced 19 July and
were completed 19 August 1965. A total of 21.9 flight hours
was expended in performance of the contract. During the
program, 2.9 hours of ground run and 9.7 hours of flight
were accumulated on the auxiliary engines. Additionally,
13.8 hours (including 5.1 hours with auxiliary engines) of
flight time was recorded during the contractor's independent
research and development programs conducted in parallel with
the contracted work.

'5-

1
 FLIGHT TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PERFORMANCE

Hovering

Hovering performance data for the UH-IB and tapered tip

blades are given in References 4 and 6. There are no
significant differences between the UH-IB and tapered tip
blades in the measured or the calculated hovering perform-
ance .
Level Flight

The total power requirements for the HPH with UH-IB (standard)
and. tapered tip blades are shown by Figure 6. Total power is
defined as the sum of engine shaft horsepower and equivalent
auxiliary jet thrust horsepower. The estimated distribution
of total power at an airspeed of 217 knots is also shown.
The advancing blade tip Mach number and rotor advance ratio
for this condition are .958 and .505, respectively. For the
distribution shown, approximately 15 percent of the total
power is attributed to compressibility even with the tapered
tip blades. Comparison with the power curve of the standard
blades indicates the power savings resulting from the modi-
fied blades. During these tests the rotor carried about
30 percent of the weight of the aircraft.
Calculations of power required were made for both standard
and. tapered tip blades as shown by Figure 7. NACA 0012
airfoil section data (based, on UH-IB and HPH correlation
studies) were used for the standard blade computations.
For the tapered tip blade calculations, the 0012 section
data were again used, but the drag divergence Mach number
was increased in steps. Correlation was obtained with the
drag divergence Mach number increased by 0.05. In the
subsequent section it is shown that the compressibility
effect on the control loads of the tapered tip blades
becomes apparent at the same increment in Mach number
( AM = .05) above that of the standard blades.
\

STEADY-STATE STRUCTURAL LOADS AND VIBRATIONS

Main Rotor Yoke Moments
The compound HPH main rotor yoke beam and chord bending
moments for the UH-LB and tapered tip blades are shown as
a function of velocity by Figure 8. For the data shown,
the rotor lift equals approximately 30 percent of the gross
weight and the auxiliary propulsion thrust varies from
approximately 1300 pounds at the low speed to 2800 pounds
at the. high speed. For comparison, the. corresponding beam
and chord moments for the UH-1B at 120 knots are approxi-
mately 30,000 and 110,000 inch-pounds, respectively.

The beam moments, with a frequency principally two-per-rev,

appear to be primarily a function of forward speed (or
advance ratio). The chord moments with frequencies princi-
pally of one-, three-, and five-per-rev are. primarily in-
fluenced by blade dynamics; however, for a given system
the moments are reduced, significantly with a decrease in
drag (or increase in auxiliary thrust). No sharp rise in
rotor chord, load was found; however, the reduction in the
chord, bending moments between the standard, and tapered tip
blades indicates the significance of compressibility effects.
Control Loads
Figure 9a shows the HPH pitch link loads as a function of
speed with the standard and tapered tip blades installed.
With the tapered tip blades there is a significant reduction
in load. The control load at higher speeds is comprised of
two major components: a positive pitching moment at approxi-
mately ^= 270 degrees which is associated with the reversed
flow region, and a negative pitching moment at approximately
<A = 120 degrees which is associated with compressibility
effects. The positive moment rises steadily with increasing
airspeed, and. is influenced by the rotor advance ratio,
rotor thrust, and auxiliary jet thrust. Figure 9b illus-
trates these effects.
The negative component of control load shown by Figure 9c
is nonexistent below a Mach number of .875 for the standard
blades and .925 for the tapered tip blade. This load, com-
ponent, which is responsible for the abrupt rise in the
control load with speed, is the most positive evidence of

L0
.• V:.^~-

t:he onset of compressibility. It is with the reduction in

this load component that the most significant benefit of the
tapered tip blades is obtained.
With the tapered tip blades, the onset of the rapid rise in
control loads is delayed approximately 35 knots ( \Mach
number ~.05). As noted previously, this increment in Mach
number matches that obtained during the performance correla-
tion .
During the tests with tapered tip blades a maximum advancing
blade, tip Mach number of .985 was obtained. With the excep-
tion of the increase in control loads and power requirements,
no adverse effects were noted and there is good reason to
believe that supersonic blade tip operation is possible.
Tail Rotor Loads and Flapping
The envelope of the steady-state tail rotor loads and flap-
ping obtained during this program is shown by Figure 10.
The loads (blade, beam and chord bending moment) are primarily
a function of airspeed. Flapping, which is influenced by
both airspeed and auxiliary thrust, is shown as a function
of equivalent airframe drag area. It is seen from the figure
that airframe drag (or jet thrust) is the stronger influence.
The tail rotor loads were not critical, and flapping was with-
in acceptable limits for all combinations of airspeed and
auxiliary thrust tested.
Vibration
The vibration characteristics of the test helicopter with
tapered tip blades are shown by Figure II. The envelope of
pilot station over-all vertical vibration and the principal
harmonics of that vibration are shown as a function of speed
for the various usable combinations of rotor power, jet
thrust, wing lift, etc., tested. Figure 11 shows the usable
range of airspeed, associated with auxiliary jet throttle
settings. Flight could be maintained at somewhat lower
speeds than shown by the control limit of Figure II; however,
below these speeds the fuselage angles were excessive, con-
trol of the aircraft became sluggish, and the load and vibra-
tion levels increased.
The over-all vibration level remains nearly constant to about
190 knots and rises abruptly thereafter. Generally, the top
of the band (Figure II) is associated with lower jet thrusts.

II
It should be noted that the over-all vibration level is not
the summation of the various components due to the phase
relationship of the harmonics. The pilot's comments rela-
tive to vibration level were that the ride was good up to
180 knots with the standard blades and to 200 knots with
the tapered tip blades.
The major rotor excitation, two-per-rev, is seen to remain
nearly constant throughout the speed range. The four- and
six-per-rev vibration levels rise rapidly above a speed of
about 190 knots. The one-, three-, and five-per-rev com-
ponents of the vibration levels are not shown,as in all cases
they were less than -r-.05g. Longitudinal and lateral vibra-
tions were determined, by pilot's comment to be insignificant
and therefore were not recorded.
MANEUVERS
The principal objective of the subject test program was to
extend the flight envelope of the machine, particularly
with respect to maneuvers. To accomplish this,approximately
55 maneuvers were executed in a progressive buildup fashion,
within a speed range of 151 to 209 knots. From these tests,
the characteristics of the research vehicle during maneuvers,
including the effects of the wing and auxiliary propul; '„n
system, are defined.
The maneuvers included, cyclic pull-ups, pushovers, and turns,
and collective pull-ups. The cyclic turn was the principal
maneuver investigated, as this best represents how a high-
speed, rotorcraft will be flown (i.e., with cyclic control
and auxiliary propulsion throttle).
As the. electrically-adjusted throttle system of the J69-T29
engine did not provide adequate response for precise in-
flight control of the auxiliary thrust, all maneuvers were
flown with a fixed throttle setting of the jet engines.
Consequently, there were small variations in airspeed during
the maneuvers. To account for this variation in airspeed in
the data presentation, maneuvers were made at five auxiliary
jet throttle settings throughout the speed-range capability
of the machine with each of those settings. Phis provided
a 10- to 20-knot overlap of speed for the various throttle
settings., and. this, in turn, allowed a complete mapping of
the effect of the jet thrust throughout the over-all speed
range. As noted earlier, Figure 12 shows the useful speed
range of the test aircraft.

12
 Figure 13 shows the test velocity - normal acceleration
envelope. All the maneuver points are shown on the plot.
The entry airspeeds, maximum load factors, auxiliary engine
throttle settings, and the flight and counter numbers for
' all maneuvers are given in Table I.
Lift Distribution
In evaluating the maneuver performance of a compound heli-
copter, it is necessary that the distribution of lift be-
tween the rotor and airframe be known. With this, a true
assessment of the rotor performance and limits can be made.
To obtain this distribution, the lifts (normal force) pro-
duced by the rotor, airframe, and jet engines were obtained
independently and their sum was compared to measured accel-
erometer data.
Airframe Lift - The airframe (wing) lift is defined by wing
beam bending moments. During the previous program (Reference
4) good, r urrelation of measured and. calculated lift data was
obtained, for the individual wing and auxiliary propulsion
configurations, but not for the full compound, (wing and jet)
configuration. The discrepancy between the measured and
calculated airframe lift for this configuration was attrib-
uted to wing-engine-nacelle-fuselage interference effects.
It was noted, however, that good agreement was obtained, if
total airframe lift was defined in the same manner as used
for the wing-only configuration. Subsequent wind tunnel
tests (Reference 8) also indicated that the airframe lift of
the wing-only and full compound configurations could be based
on wing bending moment. The wind, tunnel data show that the
lift angle-of-attack curves for two configurations are
essentially the same except at extreme fuselage angles of
attack.
With the test results and. theoretical wing lift distribution,
the airframe lift is defined with reasonable accuracy from
the wing bending moment data. The technique for determining
wing (airframe) lift is described in Reference k. The air-
frame lift determination can be further simplified, when the
wing incidence is fixed, and. the fuselage angle-of-attack
variation is small. This was the case for the majority of
the maneuvers accomplished, during the subject program. Under
these, conditions, an adequate determination of airframe lift
is obtained, by multiplying the measured, bending moment at
the wing root by a constant. For the maneuvers flown with a
10-degree wing incidence, the value of this constant is .06.
This value defines the airframe lift of the UH-1 compound

13

.s;2!._ .*....i'j*^
V

with reasonable accuracy for fuselage angles of attack to

about 5 degrees (15-degree wing angle of attack). At higher
fuselage angles or lower wing incidence, the value of the
constant must be reduced.
Rotor Lift - Rotor lift is determined from the steady yoke
beam bending moment. Data were obtained in hover at various
gross weights and rotor rpm to establish the relationship
of the yoke beam bending moment to rotor lift. Additionally,
data were obtained at various rotor rpm during ground runs
with the rotor in flat pitch. Figure Ik shows the variation
in rotor lift (tapered tip blades) as a function of yoke
beam bending moment and rotor rpm.
Auxiliary Jet Engine Lift (Normal Component) - The auxiliary
jet engine centerlines are located at an angle of +7 degrees
(nose up) relative to a fuselage waterline. Additionally,
certain combinations of auxiliary thrust and airspeed result
in high fuselage angles of attack. Under these conditions
the component of lift produced by the auxiliary thrust can
represent a significant percentage of the total lift. This
component is defined as the jet thrust t les the sine of
the fuselage angle plus 7 degrees.
Lift Summation - Representative samples of maneuver time
histories showing the component lift distributions, their
summation and a comparison with e.g. accelerometer data are
shown by Figure 15. Over one-third of all maneuvers per-
formed were evaluated in this manner, and in all cases good
agreement was found between the accelerometer data and the
summation of the individual lift components. The lift
distribution is thus substantiated, permitting valid assess-
ment of the rotor performance during maneuvers.
Rotor Lift Contribution During Maneuvers
From the lift distribution and other data, it is found that
for the test aircraft, which is designed, to use the rotor as
the primary control element, the rotor provides the most
significant increment in load factor during a maneuver. In
level flight, the rotor provided about 30 percent of the
required lift and the wing about 70 percent. During the
high load factor maneuvers, the rotor lift increased about
300 percent and. the airframe lift increased about 20 percent.
The rotor lift contribution to the load factor is shown
by Figures 16 and. 17. It is seen in the figures that the
yoke beam steady bending moment (rotor lift) variation
roughly approximates the load factor variation, and. that the

14
 wing beam bending moment variation is small. The airspeed,
controls input, rotor speed, oscillatory main and tail rotor
loads and flapping, and the elevator-stabilizer loads are
also shown to illustrate the time variation of these items
during typical maneuvers.

Rotor Thrust Coefficient

With the lift distribution defined, it is possible to describe,
the performance of the rotor during a maneuver in terms of
its lift, rpm and physical parameters, or, nondimensionally
in terms of the rotor-thrust coefficient, tc. The maximum
rotor-thrust coefficients obtained during the subject pro-
gram
ö are shown as a function of advance ratio, ^ , on Figure
18. For comparison, ^ milar data for the UH-1B, obtained
during structural demonstration tests (Reference 9), are also
given. In all cases, the structural loads obtained during
the HPH maneuver tests were considerably lower than those
obtained during the UH-1B structural demonstration.

Structural Loads and Vibration

To establish rotor capabilities during maneuvers, the rotor

and control loads and cockpit vibration level were plotted
as a function of rotor-thrust coefficient for the various
maneuver entry airspeeds and jet thrust conditions tested.
With the exception of the control loads, the resulting
variation of rotor loads with thrust coefficient provided
a means of defining the useful range of thrust coefficients
for the subject rotor. The following paragraphs discuss
the loads and vibration data thus obtained.
Vibrations - A time history of the pilot station vibration
level during a high-speed turn (2g's at 189 knots) is shown
by Figure 19. The mean load factor at both the pilot's
station and the aircraft e.g. is shown in addition to the
total vibration level and the major harmonic components.
The one-, three-, and five-per-rev harmonics are all less
than ±.05 and are not shown. From the figure it is seen
that the major increase in vibration during a maneuver is
due to the four-per-rev component,with the six-per-rev
contributing to a lesser degree.
Figure. 20 shows the pilot station vibration characteristics
as a function of rotor thrust coefficient for a speed range
of 180 to 200 knots at 95-percent auxiliary engine rpm.
These c\ita show the same characteristics discussed above;
V
n that is, the two-per-rev harmonic remains nearly constant

■;..

15
with increased load or tc while the four-per-rev shows the
nost significant increase. The predominant vibration input
is the result of the three-per-rev inplane loads in the main
rotor. These are the result of operating near a blade
natural frequency and. can be controlled by changes in blade ^
dynamics and damping. By comparison with Figure 11, it is
seen that increases in velocity and lift (or tc) have much
the same influence on vibration characteristics.
These data are significant in that they show that the two-
per-rev beamwise input, long believed to be the most critical
item with respect to a two-bladed semirigid rotor, is ^'n
fact not critical. This rotor system has demonstrated its
capability to operate at high speeds with high values of
rotor thrust and. power.
Control Loads - The main rotor control loads (pitch link) are
shown by Figure 21 as a function of rotor thrust coefficient
for the 98-percent auxiliary engine throttle setting. The
trends shown by the figure are typical of those obtained for
all throttle settings. In the case of the control loads,
the effect of airspeed, decay (i.e., reduction in advance
ratio and tip Mach number) during the maneuver is much more
significant than the increase in rotor thrust, and no trend.
toward, a limiting thrust coefficient is apparent. It is
believed that a deep penetration into blade stall would be
required, to reverse the trend, shown, and that other loads
will become critical at lower values of thrust coefficient.
Therefore, while the rotor system control loads increase
significantly with speed, they do not increase appreciably
during a maneuver and. do not constitute a basis for defining
a limiting rotor thrust coefficient.

Main Rotor Loads - The rotor loads were plotted, as a function

of rotor thrust coefficient for the various thrust and entry
airspeed, combinations tested. The oscillatory yoke beam
bending moments are shown by Figures 22 through 26. From
these figures it is seen that the beam load increases at a
fairly uniform rate with increasing rotor thrust coefficient,
and. generally there is a trend toward higher loads with
increasing entry airspeed. The beam loads (individually and
in combination with the chord loads) are well within the
structural capability of the test rotor and do not con-
stitute a basis for defining a limiting rotor lift capability.
The oscillatory yoke chord, moments are shown by Figures 2 7
through 31. These loads are characterized by an abrupt
increase in load which occurs generally at values of thrust

16
 coefficient beyond, one-tenth. Although no structural limits
were exceeded during the tests, it is apparent from these
data that a small increase in rotor lift (Atc "=.02) beyond
the maximum values tested could easily have resulted in
damaging structural loads.
The characteristic abrupt rise in the chord, load provides a
good basis for establishing the maneuver limits for the test
helicopter. In defining these limits, a constant 7 load-thrust
coefficient curve slope (Atc/.\load. = .2 times 10~' ) was
used, to define the "abrupt load, rise" for each condition of
airspeed, and. auxiliary thrust tested. Although the value of
this constant is arbitrarily selected, the slope occurs just
above the "knee of the curve" and at a load of 150 to 200
percent of the level flight-trim load for all cases evaluated
Limiting Rotor Thrust Coefficients
Using the slope as defined in the preceding paragraph, the
corresponding value of rotor tc was obtained for each of
the airspeed-auxiliary thrust combinations tested. These
values were then plotted as a function of rotor advance
ratio and auxiliary jet thrust. These data were then
cross-plotted to eliminate the airframe drag variation
with airspeed that results with a constant value of aux-
iliary thrust. The final data thus obtained define the
approximate thrust coefficient beyond which damaging loads
will occur as a function of forward, speed (or advance ratio)
and. net fuselage drag or non-dimensionally in terms of rotor
propulsive force and lift. These values of thrust coeffi-
cient are shown on Figures 32 (in terms of net fuselage
drag) and 33 (in terms of rotor propulsive force and lift)
and are defined, as the normal maneuver limit.
Use of the normal maneuver limit in design or test planning
assures nondamaging loads and acceptable vibration levels.
For the test helicopter, these limits are conservative and
provide a margin of error in the execution of the maneuvers.
For design use, these limiting values should, be used, in con-
junction with infinite life stress allowables.
In addition to the normal maneuver limits, the maximum
theoretical rotor lift capability and. a "structural limit"
area are shown on Figures 32 and 33. The maximum rotor lift
V is based, on peak lift values calculated by the contractor's
aerodynamic computer program. The "structural limits" are
based, on extrapolations of the previously discussed. load.-tc
data to oscillatory load levels which would be considered
acceptable only for structural demonstrations or in the case

17
V-

of an extreme emergency. Consequently, in establishing a

fatigue Life spectrum, only a small percentage of the time
would be assumed at those load levels.
The "structural limit" data are shown as a shaded area due
to the large extrapolation in the test data required. It
is estimated, however, that these limits are within 5 per-
cent of the values shown for the high and low equivalent
drag areas noted.
These limits, as defined herein, are based on the results
obtained with the test helicopter and theoretical con-
siderations such as those defined in Reference 9. It is
recognized that such items as rotor system dynamics, blade
twist, etc., will influence the values of the limiting
thrust coefficients; however, it is believed that their
effects will be small and that with proper interpretation
these data will be found to be generally applicable to all
rotorcraft.
On the basis of the limiting uirust coefficients and further
considerations of performance, it becomes apparent that
future compound, rotorcraft should be designed such that
more effective use of the airframe lifting surfaces is
made during a maneuver. Additionally, it is equally obvious
that some means must be provided to restrict the lift and
the related high loads and vibrations that the rotor can
develop during the maneuver.
STABILITY AND CONTROL

Throughout the flight research program, the stability and

control of the vehicle were evaluated both quantitatively
and qualitatively to provide an improved understanding of
helicopter operation at increased forward speeds. Addi-
tionally, specific flights were conducted to record and
evaluate the test helicopter's dynamic stability at high
speeds. The general handling and control characteristics,
the dynamic stability, and the correlation of responses com-
puted by the contractor's dynamic maneuver program with
the flight data are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Control Response Characteristics
The control characteristics of the flight research vehicle
were found to be good even in the very high speed, range.
No difficulty was noted by the pilot in flying and maneuver-
ing the aircraft. Control sensitivity in the upper speed

L8
range oi the vehicle was found Lo be quite acceptable. This
is of si gni f icance, as it; had previously represented an area
of considerable concern for high-speed rotorcraft.

figure 34 illustrates the rull control response of the test

aircraft as a function of spe-.o for vari.ous conditions of
jet thrust and wing trim. All conditions resulted in
acceptable Levels of response. This is primarily a result
of the wing's contribution to the roll damping and to the
total lift of the machine. it is seen that the effect of
increased jet thrust is to reduce the magnitude of the. ship's
response. This arises from the decreased rotor inflow and
the decreased rotor lift required. The wing incidence is
shown to have a small effect on response. This occurs
because the airframe-rotor lift sharing is not a strong
function of wing incidence. The rise in the roll response
magnitude, with speed as shown by the figure indicates the
probable need to decrease the wing aileron function at
speeds higher than those tested.
Although the pilots reported excellent pitch response of the
aircraft, subsequent to the stability maneuver tests some
concern was expressed with respect to the maneuver stability
of the machine. The final normal acceleration per inch of
longitudinal control increased excessively with speed.
Figure 35 explains these qualitative impressions. The ini-
tial and final normal load factors resulting from a displace-
■:ent of the longitudinal control are shown for two values of
wing incidence throughout the speed range tested. The
initial acceleration/inch of longitudinal control does not
increase markedly with speed; in fact, with low wing inci-
dence the test data show a decrease in the initial pitch
response. As this initial acceleration is the primary cue
that the pilot receives in response to a control motion
during normal flying where the controls are not displaced
and held (but, rather, moved to make minute corrections
continuously), it is understandable that no significant
pitch response changes were noted during the early flights.
The final normal load factor/inch of longitudinal control
shown on the figure, which better defines the over-all
maneuver response of the aircraft, is seen almost to double
in the speed range from 170 to 190 knots, thus confirming
the pilot's impression. The increase in the final normal
acceleration/inch of longitudinal control with speed is
excessive, and this indicates the need for an auxiliary

19
V

device to reduce the maneuver response of high-speed rotor-

craft (e.g., pitch acceleration or normal load factor
sensitive bob-weight or pitch-cone coupling).

Dynamic Stability
Initial flights of the test aircraft with the J69-T29 engines
and cowling installed showed good level-flight characteris-
tics; however, a severe short-period oscillation was encoun-
tered during autorotation. Following the qualitative evalua-
tion, the ship was tufted and the flow pattern was observed
from a chase aircraft. The stalling of the nacelle-pylon
and the subsequent flow changes were apparent. In auto-
rotation, the engine-pylon fairing stalled and thus created
moments on the airframe which pitched the machine down. At
this point the flow would reattach and the ship would pitch
up. Then the process would repeat itself. The "eyebrow"
attachments (described on page 3) were installed on the top
surface of each pylon fairing to prevent stalling. This
change resulted in a stable configuration for the autoro-
tation flight condition with no change in the good level-
flight characteristics of the machine.
A series of flights were then conducted specifically to
evaluate the dynamic stability of the test helicopter at
high speeds. All data were obtained at a constant value of
auxiliary thrust (1600 pounds), a density altitude of approxi-
mately 6000 feet, a gross weight of 8568 pounds, a main rotor
speed of 324 rpm, and a neutral center of gravity. Pulse
control inputs were used to excite the basic rigid body
oscillations of the helicopter. The response to inputs in
both directions for each axis (pitch, roll, and yaw) were
measured to determine if significant nonlinearities were
present. Records were obtained at nominal speeds of 160,
170, and 180 knots. These time histories are shown on
Figures 36 through 53. The initial control inputs used to
disturb the vehicle and the recovery motions (where of
interest), are shown. All control positions shown in these
figures are given in percent of full throws.
Longitudinal - Figure 36 shows the longitudinal response to
a primarily fore-and-aft cyclic pulse input with the machine
at 152 knots. Displacements and rates about all axes are
shown positive in accordance with standard NASA notation .;
(positive nose up, nose right, and roll right). It can be
observed from the figure that the short-period pitch oscil-
lation is well damped and that the long-period or phugoid
motion is present and has a period of about 24 seconds.
The maneuver was terminated (note recovery) because of the
I
20 I
increase in roll attitude; however, pilot comment indicated
the vehicle to be adequately stable. The damping was esti-
mated to be such that one period (24 seconds') was required
to half amplitude. This same test was flown with the pilot
attempting to control roll attitude but was unsuccessful
because of the introduction of inadvertent pitch inputs.
No further efforts were made along these lines, as the data
obtained do help demonstrate coupling effects and allow
sufficient stability measurements to be made.
Repeating the input in the aft direction produced the time
histories shown on Figure 37. It can be seen that the
phugoid is considerably more stable when disturbed by an aft
input than by a forward input. The response appears to be
such that half amplitude would occur in about 12 seconds.
Also, the short-period oscillation is so heavily damped that
it is, for practical purposes, not present. The more stable
condition for aft inputs is a result of rotor nonlinear char-
acteristics that are a direct function of inflow.
Although the auxiliary thrust reduces the inflow condition,
the rotor angle-of-attack stability contribution is de-
stabilizing. For aft inputs the inflow is decreased and the
short-period oscillation, which is primarily an angle-of-
attack and pitch attitude oscillation, is destabilized to the
point that it becomes oscillatory and apparent on the pitch
attitude response. Figures 38 through 41 illustrate the
longitudinal response up to a speed of 184 knots. The
general trend was for the phugoid to become more unstable
as spped increased. The basic characteristics are summarized
in Table II. It should be noted that these characteristics,
which were reported as satisfactory by the pilots, were
obtained without the aid of any artificial stabilization
equipment and without the standard gyro stabilizer bar.
Lateral - Lateral cyclic pulse inputs disturb the research
vehicle as shown by Figures 42 through 47. The most pro-
nounced effect with respect to roll is the tendency of the
aircraft to seek a left roll even following a right control
disturbance. This left rolling tendency has been charac-
teristic of all configurations of the HPH and is apparently
due. to aerodynamic flow effects caused by the fuselage
fairing and afterbody. The addition of wings and jets has
lessened the strength of this tendency, as reported during
Phase II of this program, but the condition remains. Noting
Figure 42, it can be seen that a right lateral pulse causes
the machine to roll right, but also excites an oscillation.
This oscillation is a result of coupling between roll and
pitch and is essentially the manifestation of the phugoid

21
In the roll axis. The period can be seen to be icentical
to that measured with the longitudinal pulse inpuls Also,
the pitch attitude trace indicates that the :)!; .^ ),(. ---as
dis turbed.

Figure U3 shows the lateral stability following a left pulse

with the machine at 159 knots. For this case, it is apparent
that the basic roll response is a pure convergence with a
time constant of about 2 seconds. ['he wing's effect and the
reduction in inflow made possible, by the auxiliary propulsion
act to provide strong damping for the roll mode. "he trend
of damping for the roll convergence is generally ■-w rd
reduced damping as speed increases. rime h's;,or..c :. .re snowi;
for speeds up to 185 knots, and this trend car. be ■..■oserved .
fable II summarizes the basic roll characteristics of the
test aircraft. Pilot comments with regard to roll stabilijy
point, out that although the machine is adequate in this area,
increased roll damping is desirable and would make the air-
craft easier to fly.

Direc tional - Directional dynamic stability was invescigated

in the 160-, 170-, and 180-knot speed ranges by pulsing the
pedals and recording the resulting directional oscillations.
Figures 48 through 53 are tue results of these tests. ['ho
oscillation can be observed best by noting the yaw rate trace.
It can be seen that in each case the 'notion is strongly
damped. As speed increases, the period decreases from some
2.3 seconds to about 2 seconds at 1.82 kn 'ts. In is arises
from the tact that trie i in and tail rotor c .i • r ' bu t i ^n ;:o
the directional ang 1 e-ot'-a t tack stabil i'y <'::.(■ ;;ro-" icnal
spring effect,) increases with soeed . Thv cyc.es ' , aa L :.
amplitude likewise decrease wiin speed, going from aboui I
at 162 knots to 0.7 cycle at 180 knots. the results of the
directional stability test are summarized in Table 11. Lt
is interesting to note that the tail rotor input, being off
the princioal axis in roll, creates a roll reaction. This
effect can be seen best by following the roll rate trace.
This characteristic of the HPH was noted by the pilots only
after the subject pulse input flight tests, and is not con-
sidered to be a problem during normal maneuvering flight
because only slight lateral stick motion is required to
correct the tendency.

The research vehicle did not evidence a strong basic yaw-

roll coupling in that no tendency to enter into a ''Dutch
Roll" oscillation was noted. The dihedral effect of the
wing was not great enough no contribute significantly to
interaxis coupling.

22
 GONCLL'S IONS

a",:. L_.' reduce rotor power require-

10::' s aI n .' u n s DO ed s . A 'aa x ': muTi ad va nc i n G
D M; 1CI 9S5 wa s a c ' ned durinc; 'he subject test
p r-i.. LMT, , a:
a:\ii otaer i'.i^n coniroJ ! )ad and oowcr increases re-
ported herein, ri'> adverse effects were n ed due to hi eh ' ic
Mach nu'nber operation. '['here is every reason to :JP i. . ^ve na
supersonic advancing tip operation is possible.

• •> e n c i s der i ved frcn aux i ar ■ropu Ls '. on n eve

increase:! speed .und or reduced rotor Loads and
or ';'.>ckp ! i brations.i are also obtained durinc maneuvers.
i- 'i r a ii i vc a ; r s pc?ed , i nc re a s ed au x i iary propuLs i on w i1 1
aid ow i' gher nor'na oad t ac tors tor :: h e s a Tie rotor s t r u c -
Le ve ': . L i'?.' ' ng ro tor L i ft cauabii i ties can be
d ! ''nod as a function ot equivalent fuselage drag and advance
. io.

For a fixed-wing ccn u ,<: helicopter that is designed to u e

the rotor /is vhv pri nary control eletient, the rotor provides
the TIOS! signil icant i nci'^'iien t rn load factor during a 'uaneu-
ver, and ' lip Tia'.K'Uver '"ao ibil iiy of the vehicle will be
1 '■•d'^o ds i tic rotor. .-! conoound he 1 i confer that uses
u i : .i . ri;:, i nc vi'roi. , ce nus: l)e !:aken to prevent
; i-: ■/er ' en ! • /e r id i ng -•!' 'die ro'^r dur'nc: a Tianeuver.
.':>■;.■ : < >n s!i"U i d c'.^ec'.ed t:oward : inding means ay which
c 'n • r )U; '. on ■ in,1 w. n-J, dur:;ai a Tianeuver can be
c ia ,: sed .

Acceptable stability ana control characteristics, including

responue, can be achieved for a coTipound helicopter through-
out the flight envelone and in all regi.mes of flight without
imposing demands on tne flight path of the vehicle during
ai ■^rotation. Additional researches are required to investi-
gate further and develop means of reducing the high-speed
load factor control sensitivity (maximum load factor/control
displacement) of such machines.

The directly-controlled two-bladed semirigid rotor is

capable of high-speed flight with low vibration levels and
acceptable structural loads while providing a significant
amount of lift and propulsive force.

23

.im.'
 REFERENCES

L. Hlsh-PerEormance Helicopter, U. S. Army TRECOM Contract

DA i+4-177-AMC-162(T) , April 4, 1964.

2. High-performance Helicopter, U. S. Army TRECOM Contract

DA i+4-I77-TC-7LI, July 31, 1961.

3. Van Wyckhouse, J. F., and Cresap, W. L., Summary Report,

Hig;h-Per£ormance-Helicopter Program, Phase I, TRECOM
Technical Report 63-42, U. S. Army Transportation
Research Command,* Fort Eustis, Virginia, September 1963.

4. Van Wyckhouse, J. F., and Cresap, W. L., Summary Report,

High-Per£ormance Helicopter Program, Phase II, TRECOM
Technical Report 64-61, U. S. Army Transportation
Research Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, October 1964.

5. Military Potential Pest o£ the Model 540 "Doorhinge"

Rotor System, ATA-TR-64-2, U. S. Army Test Activity,
Edwards Air Force Base, Lancaster, California,
February 1964.

6. Van Wyckhouse, J. F., Company-Funded. Flight Researches

Conducted in Conjunction with the High Performance
Helicopter Program, BHC Report 533-099-015, Bell
Helicopter Company, Fort Worth, Texas, February 1964.

7. Modification No. 5, Supplemental Agreement to U. S.

Army TRECOM Cont-act DA 44-177-AMC-162(T), July 16,
1965.

8. Oldenbuttel, R. H., A Low Speed Wind Tunnel Test of a

.200 Scale Modified 533 Bell Helicopter Model Investi-
gating Aerodynamic Characteristics, LTV Low Sf _ed
Wind Tunnel Test No. L85, Ling-Femco-Vought, Inc.,
Grand Prairie, Texas, July 30, 1965.

9. Wettengel, W. 0., UH-IB Component Load Level Survey,

BHC Report 209-099-959, Bell Helicopter Company,
Fort Worth, Texas, January L6, 1961.

10. Drees, J. M. , and McGuigan, M. J., "High Speed Helicopters

and Compounds in Maneuvers and Gusts," Proceedings of the
Twenty-First Annual National Forum of the American
Helicopter Society, Washington, D. C, May 12-14, 1965.

Now U. S, Army Aviation Materiel Laboratories

24
 TABLE I

MANEUVER TEST FLIGHT LOG

Flight Gtr. Jet RPM Airspeed Load

Number* No. XNj VE-Knot3 Factor-g Type**

635 426 84 151 1.31 Right Turn

hll 151 1.57
428 151 1.89
431 163 1.30
635 432 163 1.60
638 561 84 169 1.88
635 429 87 151 1.30
635 430 151 1.58
636 454 155 1.88
456 167 1.30 (1)
458 169 1.29 (2)
457 169 1.60 (1)
459 169 1.61 (2)
460 169 1.88 (2)
636 455 169 1.88
638 563 171 1.64
638 564 171 1.78
638 562 171 1.99
636 461 183 1.32
636 462 184 1.57
6 38 565 87 186 1.69
635 433 88 163 1.31
635 434 88 163 1.55
638 568 90 169 1.32
638 569 169 1.57
570 169 1.92 Right Turn
576 186 .63 Pushover
575 186 1.60 Pull-Up
571 187 1.34 Right Turn
572 187 1.60 Right Turn
573 187 1.92 Right Turn
6 38 574 90 188 1.37 45° Bank

25
\

FABLE 1

(Continued)

Flight Otr. JeL RPM Airspeed Load

Number* No . '/oN-r VE-Kno Ls Factor-g Type--'''-

654A LL5 95 L85 L.62 Right Turn

65i+A LL4 L86 L.3L Right Turn
636 463 L86 L.3L
638 566 L86 L.68
638 567 L86 L.92 Right Turn
658 3L0 L88 .78 Pushover
654A LL9 L89 L.96 Right Turn
6540 L26 L89 2.00
654A LL6 L90 L.92
658 3LL L90 L.99 Right Turn
658 309 L9L L.43 PuLL-Up
6540 L28 L94 L.73 Right Turn
654A LL8 95 L96 L.43
6540 L27 98 L96 L.53
6540 L30 L92 L.69
6540 L29 L96 L.39
6540 L3L L99 L.22
654A LL7 L99 L.39 Right Turn
658 3L4 200 L.74 Left Turn
6540 L32 203 L.60 Right Turn
658 3L2 203 L.93
658 3L5 98 209 L.5L Right Turn

* FlUght Number Gross Wei.ght, Lbs

635 8360--8260
636 8300--8125
638 8380--8050
654A 8143--80L3
6540 8275--8190
658 8378--8200

** ALL maneuvers at LO0 wing incidence except as noted ■

(L) 0° wing incidence -

(2) 5° wing incidence

26
 TABLE II
PERIOD AND DAMPING OF CHARACTERISTIC MODES OF MOTION

True Control Oscillation Characteristics*

Airspeed- Input Period - Time to Half
Knots Direction Seconds Ampl.itude-Seconds

Longi tudinal
152 Fwd 24,0 24.0
159 Aft 24.0 12.0
L69 Fwd 26.0 CO

170 Aft 24.0 24.0

183 Fwd 15.0 -7.0
184 Aft 26.0 20.0

Lateral
161 Right 26.0 -20.0
159 Left X (r = 1.3)
m Right X C = 3.0)
m Left oc (r = 3.0)

Direc tional
162 Right 2.5 2.1
162 Left 2.2 2.8
171 Right 2.0 1.0
L71 Left 2.0 1.0
180 Right 2.0 1.4
182 Lef t 2.0 1.4

* Approximate

27

SjW»
 Fixed Stabilizer
Area 10.2 Sq Ft

Feet
i
0 10

Moveable Stabilizer
Area 24.8 Sq Ft
Including Garry Thru

Wing Area 64 Sq Ft
Including Garry Thru

bweep

J69-T29 Turbojet
Engine Nacelle Area
74 Sq FJ Including
Carry Thru

Figure 1. General Arrangement of the Test Helicopter

28
 c
o
•r->
0-1
CO

0)
u

c
•r-l

cd

•H
X

<

CN
H
i
c^

CN

bO

29
\

1800

1600

IU00

1200

1000
M
c
o
CM
800

w
U
600
4-)

400

200

% NT Jet

Figure 3. Auxiliary Thrust vs %N-r Jet

30
 CO
n-l
CO

u
o
-M
O
cd

TO

3L

|
200

120 140 160 180 2 00

Indicated Airspeed - Kno'^s

Figure 5. Airspeed Calibration

32
 3.0
Dive 221 Kn-
I I
Level 217 Kn—

Wing Incidence +10°

2.5
Tip Speed 72U fps
I Sea Level Standard Day
O
Gross Weights9,800 Lbs

u
o
o

4-)
O
H

160 180 200

True Airspeed - Knots

Figure 6. Total Power and Distribution - Level Flight

33
 Wing Incidence +10°
8 _Tip Speed 72k fps
Sea Level Standard Day
Gross Weight=9,800 Lbs
CM
I
O Jet Thrust
r-i 2900 Lbs
X

X
00

U
QJ

O
c.
■p Jet Thrust
4-1
2k00 Lbs
00
CO
LO Blades
Standard
Tapered Tip

0 5rV
o 160 180 200 220
True Airspeed - Knots

Figure 7. Shaft Horsepower Required

Test and Calculated

3k
 i ■'

60 i—Beam

40
I
CO 20
XJ
c
g i 0
S r-l rV160
0
180 200 220
c
•r-l W

C J UH-IB Blades
0) I
CQ C
Tapered Tip Blades
M
a)
o
,— Chord

v
0 160 180 200 220

True Airspeed - Knots

Figure 8. Main Rotor Yoke Moments

■

35

i
 ;

20
a. Over-all Lo

160 180 200 220

True Airspeed - Knots

20
00
b. Reverse Flow Effect
i ^ ^ ~rf= "270°
o
15

S io
c
H
i 5

c
g 0
o .4^ .48
Advance Ratio
c
•r-l

o
•H 12
Oi

1 S
CQ

o 4
-U
o
cd
0 HV
0 v .85 .90 .95 1.00
Advancing Blade Tip Mach. No.

Figure 9 Control System Loads

36
 15
iJ
c
10
3e; im
ym
^^^j^i^^lllll
fjj
] 1111111;
& 11 tZiüiw
bO
C(N
•H I
X) O
C r-l
OJ
CQ X
0
0) jQ

CO I
r-l C 15
cq H

U +i
o 1C
a-)
O
Pi

•■-I
cO
EH

50
Flap»ping +4
bC
c e 0
aß
40 s^/
CVr-J
+2
cö X ^
r- CO
30 y

^ CM
o o ^ -^ -2
O J-) 20
a! c
a) -—^ E quiva lent 4
r-) o
Fus elage Drag
co a) 10 •■Sq
H PL, Ft

0
160 180 200 220
True Airspeed - Knots

•
r
7
*'■■,■
Figure 10. Tail Rotor Loads and Flapping

37
t-i

CO
c
o
•H
u
cd

tü
n-l

o
Ü

cd
o
•r-l
4-1

0)
>
C
o
•H
J-J
cd
J-J
CO

J-J
o
•H
CM

160 170 180 190 200 210

True Airspeed - Knots

Figure 11. Vibration Characteristics

In High-Speed Level Flight

38
 f

100

■J)
a)
c
b0
C
CJ
>,
u
CD
•r-l

•r-l
X
3

^r'Vo L60 180 200 220

True Airspeed - Knots

fe
Figure 12. Airspeed Range vs Auxiliary Engine RPM

39
\

2.0
^
1^
<^
^

1.5 F "V7

I
z <■>

^^ \
C fe
o
•r-l
-^1
u
0) 1
r-i 1.0 ^^ST '^
a)
ü
ü
< -S3ZL
^
Sym % N] Jet ?■*-
r-l

□
o
O 8i+ Z^

0.5 87
88 Tip Speed 72k fps
90 Gross Weight
95 8400 to 8600 Lbs

o 98

0^V
0 v
140 160 180 200 220

True Airspeed - Knots

Figure 13. Test Velocity - Normal Acceleration Envelope

U0
 40
5 o o o
&
20 ^i^x^LRotor RPJA

0 i / / 1 i

m
40 00 8000 // 000 1 16, 000
-U
Re5tor Lift I
I
/ 1
c -20 i /

B
1
£
c
•r-l

c
OJCO
pa i
-40

-60 I
%
1
o
e^

V
-80 ,
cd

'1
0) ^
CQ
CO

h
-d c -100
03 ^3
d) O

00

Q) Ci
I
xi -L20
'1
^5 c
O M

u
-140
1 1

1
o
XJ
o
oi -160
,/ '1
1
-180
///
\
/%
-200

-220

Figure 14, Rot^r Lift vs Steady Yoke

earn Bending Moment
-U
jd
bO
•H

^ 1
w
w
o
u
Ü
-U
(4-1
•H

Component of Lift
Normal Jet Thrust
Airframe
Rotor
Total of Above Components
Total (Accelerometer)
1.8 1
k.H. Turn y- ^
Ctr. 566
-U
\
bO
•r-J
0)
_.. --—^ s^yS
/
/
N
i.o
w ^^'
w ■■^>
o
u
Ü
\ \
-U /
U-l ^t*
\

HM^^ ^B « _ - —.
0 10
Time-Seconds Time-Seconds

Figure 15. Lift Distribution During Maneuvers

at L86-Knot Entry Airspeed

42
C/l
2.0
oO

1 1.8 / V

\J
U L(3 .id : ^act:^3r /
o
0-1
1.6 y \
u
CO
P^ /
l.U \
TD
03
O
/
KJ

n
»
0
1.2

■^^"
X
1.0
u

-6

P
e.
CO
OJ
CO -U

>,
-ö
0)
e o
i
-8

-10
1 i \

\
CO
0)
-U
CO b0
«

c
,-i

*
-12
M€ian Iloto]r Locäd 1 s.

\
CÜ •H
^ id i
o C c
>H 0) M
3 -14

-16
y j
/ N
y
cy 1
cd ■

-18 /
^^MIHMim »^^^^^^

-20

Ik
.u
CO (1) I /
13
cu g o
CO O r-A MGtan V7ing Loaci / N
b0
C b0
^
•--1 C JO

X) I
■P c c
cd a) M
12

11
"
^^ N
\

10
012 345 6 7 89 10 11 12
Time - Seconds

Figure 16. Time History of Right Cyclic Turn,

95% N-j- Jet (Sheet 1 of 4)

43
 L90 ■ ' '«• :

>
EH
180 - Air■• "t^^-^
cr-\o oH ^-
^
^
L70
330
^"
Di ^ ^
320
Ro :or 1RPM '

310 1
L0
a.) 1 1 1
<
bü Pitch Attitude
■ i i i ^
xi <ü 5 S*
u Q
0-1
I «^
•H
04 0
X)
90
o S. — — —. ^
•H 80
J-J
00
f^
1
70 p /A C ycli C
— -^
/
S
<
N w
P^ o "" —
y
c^
60
c
jd o
-U •r-l Tip Path Plane I nclination
03 XJ
PH 03 bO 0 >v With Resoect to Mast 1
C QJ
a-r^ Q \
•r-J >—1 , —
H O '
a
H

XJ
XJ
< bO
0)
n-l p
r-J
O 1
a;

^ H
ü cd
•r-l
-U ft?
C/J

4-) m
03 o
-1 CU
4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12
Time - Seconds
Figure 16. (Sheet 2 of 4)

4U
 a
50 1
P 1 Gc5lle(ztivii Po siti on
kO
CJ
•H I —- -_ -^. „
OJ
30
o
20

d
L2
CO
■^
o
II ^N
I
M O v
C n-l ^ —

r ^A
\
•H
^1 ^
10
Xi X) ^ a in Rote r \
o J 9 \r
u Co ntro I Lc ad.
•r^ +1
P4 .
8

100
4-)
C 1
Q)
S 80 Main Rotor \
Gh ord Mo me nt
/ \,
bO 60
C \
•r-ICO
-d I /
c o kO \
a
a) n-i ,
- — N
a) 20
X JO
o HJ
>H i
c 80
^ H
O
■U +1
o 60 Main Rotor
B earn Mo me nt
.s\>
/'
cd »
c
•l-l kO
.^
1
CO
1 ^-
20
01 2 3^56 789 LOLL 12
Time - Seconds

Figure L6. (Sheet 3 of U)

45
 60

1
C
•r-l 40 T13.^ il Rotor Fla pnin g
"
r-l
20
^^ — ^-.
--
0

bO
CCN
•H 1
-d o
C n-l
0)
CQ X
m JD
. hJ
f-l I
CvJ C
H
CO LO
■P +1
00 I

(Ü c
-d a) Tail Rotor Chord Moment
co ß
0 I,, I I l i L_
CQ S

w
o
90|—
CM

r-i a! 80
co
Rudder PeaaL Position
a) i
CM 70
j-i
c
i
O
bün-J
c
•H ^
-d
C XI
>D J
CQ I
C
-U H
0
O I'

Figure 16. (Sheet 4 of k)

46

"T
 1.8
!
U
1.6
Lo ad. F acto r
O
XJ
o IA / "N
03
tu
-d
co
o
1.2
^^
■ —
. . — """
/] /
\
V
^J
1.0
a
a 0.8

i
a)
-10
pq 4J
-12
>, a) i
x) 6 o
CO O r-)
-14 /
^N v
a) S ^
/
Me an R otor Loa d
ry
00 bO
\
a) -H ^ -16 v 1
^ -d i
o c c /- —■ ^
^J
>H QJ M

I
PQ I -18
H
-20

14
4J

d Q) i 13
a) S o
cq Or-i Mean Wing Load
bo ^ 12
C bO

■u c c
11
Od 0) H

10
0 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12
Time - Seconds

Figure 17. Time History of Right Cyclic Turn,

98% N-j- Jet (Sheet 1 of 4)

47 ■

■i^'S^^J "~_ ■• ' - •" l~

 210
hHAirspeed —■— ——.
--
i . . •
\
200

190
330
Qi
Rotor RPM -^■ "^ ^
320
4.»
4-) 5' I

■ss
___
0 ■

4-)
•i-l
I
P itch Att itude
-5 i i . i

90
XJ
80
■< w
\ o F/A Cyclic
70 _J I L_

C
x! o Tip Path PI ane Inclination
4J -r-l
CO -1-1 With Res pect to Mast ^^
CM cd b0
c Q)
0 ^-
—
(X'rA Q
•H r-l "^
En u I -5
c
H
4-1
XJ
<; to 40
a)
r-l Q Ro II A ttit ude ^ -^
■

I ^
O 20 ^
Pti
■^

o oi
•r-l
4-) 6?
CO i
4-1 W
CO O
hJ PM

8 9 10 II 12
Time Seconds

Figure 17. (Sheet 2 of 4)

48
 60 1—1 1 1
P
1 CcDllet:tiv(i Position
50 i i
a
]
o

30

8
X) i 1
CO
O
Main Ilotor
T 3
i^l CN 1 U X. u. U J-lU au.
I
X O ^
C r-l

r^ /• ^N. y NJ
•H

X! X)
ü hJ
OJ
/ \
V
— y V. ^ ^sJ

•H +1
a. ,

c DU i i i
a)
B Main Rotor
i /+o Chord Moment. /
*y
c
•r-ICO 20
— ' "H
V I
co
QJ ,-1
oq n
a)
r« X)
^ i
c
u H
o
■U +1

10 11 12

Time - Seconds

Figure 17. (Sheet 3 of 4)

49
 bü
c
•r-l

a
i
CO '
r-J

bO
C(N
•H I
10 —i r i 1 1 1—
'Ü o Tail Rotor Beam Moment
0)
PQ ^

0
(N
CO 10 —i i i i 1 1—
i-) +1 Tail Rotor Chord Moment
CO i

OJ c
-d a)
cd S
r-) o
0

w
o 90 —1 1 1 1 1 r
Rudder Pedal Position
CO 80 ■

a) . ■

P4 ' 70
4-1
C 0
a)
S
0(N
S I -20
o
c
-40
tJ
C XI Fixed (Fin Mounted)
a) .J ■

eq i -60 i—I—t
c Elevator-Stabilizer Moments
■u H
O I -80 _J _J 1 1 I l I
5 0 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12
Time - Seconds

Figure 17. (Sheet 4 of 4)

50

7
 o3

ü "■\
\

.2
INv
T1H -LB S trunturalJ uvmm^^m^mm
^*^
D amonstration .J
( Reference 9)
i i \ \
N

I
Maneuver Test Progr am HP
(Tapered Tip B iades )
i
- u

0
0 .2 .3 .4 .5
Advance Ratio, //

Figure 18, Maximum Rotor Thrust Coefficients

51
'-44-

w
2.5
I Right Turn - 189 Knots
Jet Thrust -2500 Lbs
^ 2.0
sX
ü
cd
1.5
Pilot's Seat (Mean)^,. C.G.(Mean) ^
«£.
o 1.0 H I I I I-
cd

.4

w
b0 ^
1
^^
1
X \
+i
I
w OVGir-all Vibrat ion
c i i
o
•t-l
J-)
cd

CD
r-l >
0)
o
o ■

<J
.1
n-j
cd 2-Per-Rev Component
ü
•H 0 \ I _J I L_
-P
U

§ .3
c _
o .2 ^
/
cd 4--Per-■Rev Com sone nt
4-) / \
oo .1 i
S :
-U . -— ^
o 0
r-l

i—i—r~i—r-
6-Per-Rev Component

0
0 ^68
Time - Seconds
Figure 19. Vibration Characteristics
During a High Speed Maneuver

52

T
 w
bO

+i
I
m
c
o
•H
J-)
CO
U
a)
n-l
Q)
o
a
<

o
•H
■U

a)
>
c
o
•H
4J
CO
4J
00

JJ
o
r-l
•H
CM

,0k .08 .i2 .16

Rotor Thrust Coefficient, t

Figure 20, Vibration Level vs Rotor Thrust Coefficient

53
 Sym VFi-Knots
16 O 192
D 196
199
|> 203
< 209
.JL
< ■ ■

15 ■

<
I
O
0 <
Ik 1
M

+1
jIj>>
Ii
I
E> | >
01 13 P

C
•H z
> >
o 12
] 1
•r)
04
[> t
\
> r1
(>
C
11 V/ V

0
v. \) ■

0
()

10

0
4

0
r .02 ,0k .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, tc

Figure 21. Control Load vs Rotor Thrust

Coefficient 98% Nj Jet

5k

i S ' r .'it

T . ^ -..:.-
 80 l

Sym. y. -Knots
70
o 151
CO
o 163
i D 169
o
n-l

60

I
c
D3
+1
I 50 LJ

c O C
Q
e
3 < >*
>l;
<
<
C 40 ^!
•H
C
pq
e
1 '
C) (
O ()

3
n
c
r
PQ 30 C> < [>
QJ
O < b>
< p
20
1

1
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, tc
-

.18 .20

Figure 22. Main Rotor Bearawise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 84% N-j- Jet

55

WW "F •"
UI^BI i ■!. !■ n^pn^n^f^^ppp. i iiuwt.U'iUpasss- ■ ■i ii>iiv»i iiaMi( wmMm. i^, U..11 .i^,,»..,i,-.,., niimpmn
mpHnpii

80

Sym VE-Kriot s j
<•> 151
CO 70 " O 155
I
O H 169
^ 171 *
" v 183 ^
^ 184
I > 186
c fiO <fl
N
r
I
^
M
A
+1 &3 >
I>
c
a)
e 50 l <1 3 1
o
? ^
£± /.

c
•H I>
a
&
]
.
c
CD
40
< r ]
0
G
c) ■

PQ .»! ) (
s
0) o
CQ <
a)
O
<

30 <
\ i^c )

<
f ' i) 0
i

20

r
<

0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, t

Figure 23. Main Rotor Beamwise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 87% Nj Jet

56
 • fumv i fnuii'i i iiAn.iwtmmpmmmemimfmim*' l
"1" ' — »- ■ ......... .... ,
"-■
• '■•■■>-•>>• m mm

80

-■

CO 70
1
o Sym VE-Knots
r-J

■
Ä X 0 169
^57 ^
JD \J7 L87
J ^?
1
C
M
60
^7
+1

I ■^7-

4-) ^
c
0) H
6 50 -v -E}
o V ^ ^
-■
S
b0
c
H
7 -B—EJ^-nr
•H ^ ^ []
TJ
■■ c ^
0)
m 40 f3-
Q
e
CO
a)
CQ
Q
0) /.\
^
0
!H 30
[]

v.

20

ol0 .02 .Ok .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, t

Figure 2k, Main Rotor Bearawise Load va rhrust

Coefficient 90% N-,- Jet

57

FWff
CM»!
 - c

80
\
Sym
<^ 185
o 189
B 190
CO
I
70 ^ 194
o ^7 196
H []
C]

X)
I
□
c 60 -E3-
^^ ()
+1 o
^^

c
<> §
50 ü—e-
o o o
[]
c
•H ci
-d
c
a)
PQ ^0
[] m
[]
s
cd
0)
PQ

0)
<> ir
o
30

20

i 0 .02 .0k .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, t

Figure 25. Main Rotor Beamwise Load vs rhrust

Coefficient 95% N-j- Jet

58

n
fym
 90
n 1 1—
Syrn V^-Knots
O 192
H 196
80 199
203
<] 209

70
CO
I
Q

l>
XI
>
I 60
c
H
<
+1 I>
4J
I ()
0 <)
d ^
50
o 1$
c
•rl
o
C
a) 40 I
ß O

pq
[]
QJ

o 30

0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .Ik .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, tc

Figure 26. Main Rotor Bearawise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 98% N-j- Jet

59
 Ai

140

L20

I
O

100
X)
I
c
H

-U
c

C
•H
c
0)
DQ

O
XJ
U
0)
^5
O

0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 ,14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, tc

Figure 27. Main Rotor Chordwise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 84% Nj Jet

60
 140

Sym VE-Knots

o 151
o 155
120
□ 169
171
CO 183
o
I 184 1"
186
LOO >-

I
c

+1 ^
80
4-)
c
0)
B ^
^
bO /£>.
C 60
•r-i "f /^
c
0) m
cq 1L_4L Tftl-
</»
X)
U
o <>
O
it 4 [] O
i+0 -^^ -m-
^r
<>
<>
„it ^
0 $
O
Y ^ n
20 M

0
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, t

Figure 28. Main Rotor Ghordwise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 87% Nj Jet

61

"W
 ^■V ■

140

120

CO
i
o
Sy]EL YE -Knots
100
169
•<; 7
I 187
c
H
+i

80
u \7
C
Ü
i 7

b0
C 60 •*7
•H
t) V7
C
a)
CQ
r

o □
^7
6 40
[] 7 LJ

O r ] H
T H
P 0 $\ ■

[]
20

0
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, t

Figure 29. Main Rotor Ghordwise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 90% N-j- Jet

62
 CO
I
o

JO
I
c
H
+1

C
e
bO
C
•H
c
PQ

O
o

0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18

Rotor Thrust Coefficient, tc

Figure 30. Main Rotor Chordwise Load vs Thru*

Coefficient 95% Nj Jet

:
:•■,

63
V

80

Sym vE-Knots
70
■ I
O L92
196
CO
I
L99
o <1 203
209 ■ ■

60

+1

50
4J
C

i
i
bO
c 40
•H
X)
c <l
a)
cq t
/^
o
6 30
()
a)

20

at0 .02 ,0k .06 .08 .10 .12 .Ik .16 .18 .20
Rotor Thrust Coefficient, tc

Figure 31. Main Rotor Ghordwise Load vs Thrust

Coefficient 98% N-,- Jet

6k

—..l«.^.!- vi^-

"T
 o

-P
C
0)
•H
Ü
•H
4-1
(U
o
o
-p
m
u

^
0
4-)
O
Oi

0 '—Vv
0 .3if .38 .42 .46
Advance Ratio, /x

Figure 32. Limiting Rotor Thrust Coefficients

65

T.T
 ~ ?m&

'

.38 .42 .50

Advance Ratio, M

'■?•
Figure 33. Limiting Rotor Thrust Coefficients

66
■•■ «i
r
i:-

20
Wing Incidence
10° /
0° - /

c /
H r
u
0)
y/
\
bO /
Q)
Q
-130C) Lbs ^

o
•H n ^+00 L :)S
4-) 15 / —
00

CO
U
a) /
XJ
cö
-160C i Lbs
»
o
c
M
\
a)
s
/
o
,/
10 *
1600

0 L 0
\ - Jet Thrus t

160 170 180

True Airspeed - Knots
190

Figure 34. Roll Control Response

67

-—r;~ ...fix-**
 1.0
o
•r-l
n-l
O

05
c 8
•H
id
j-)
•H
bO
C
o

Ü Wing
c Incidence
H
\
U
o
4J
Ü Max. Acceleration
cd

cO
o

.2
o
Initial Acceleration

0 I—V
0 160 170 180 190
True Airspeed - Knots

Figure 35. Load Factor Control Sensitivity

68

L
 1.2 ^-i
<u
0
L.O o
<
bO
r-l
0.8 m
o o
■-I -U 0.6 z
ox:

LOO
o
r-J •
90 uxi

80

70
4J

<
bO

0)
JJ u
a a)
^ DO

u
<
JC bO
o <u
rt o U Q
o2 o)
W
x:\
O bO
iJ Q)
•rJ Q tn
a* CM
O •"
x:
bO

a) to cd
u u
nl tt) (UBS
erf M
\
U bO
nl a)
X Q 4-)

X < bO
u
•H
iJ
nl
8
M
a
• =>
o
(UBS
nJ
r-4
L2 16 20 24 28
0
u
Time - Sec

Figure 36. Longitudinal Response, L52 Knots,

Forward Pulse

69

:
^.^ -r
 ü

o x;

oi
0)
ü
u
<
bO

S
U
o
2

<

O X)

01
i-> u
(fl 4)

r-l M

o Q
cd
<

CO

n) o OH
Di OJ

ü bO

w
O -l-i
a, x!
bO

nl oi
x>
0) a) r,"
cu
ni <ü

u
■r-l < bO
C/7 2ä
a
• P
o
0) s"

o
o

Figure 37. Longitudinal Response, 159 Knots,

Aft Pulse

70

J-.--- •
 o 60
^- 4-J (1)
ox: o
50 o
<
oo
XJ r 0
uo
E
t

o
2

o
cd 90 r-4

^^
80 <■"
\
DL,
70

1-1 o
«1 a)
rrf 'O
\
^-i bll
^-ia)
o a
cd

4-1
<
£ bC
Sä
a)
ni u
o2 Ql
on
x:\
u w)
u aj
•rJ Q
80 w
O iJ
fcx:
bC
/o ^-1 -rJ
cd oi
X)
ale?
iJ u bU cu
tfl <u
oi r/3
x
^ bü
m ft)
>i Q

^
u JJ
■rJ
i-1
< bC
171
a
• p cfl
O
a) ft?

o
o

Figure 38. Longitudinal Response, 169 Knots,

Forward Pulse

71

ft
■rJ 60
r-J J-)
U JC

^ 50
at
■UB5 a)
kO o
.3 o
<
to

B
u
o
z

r-l 0)
r-l Q
o
a!

(J X)

a) fa
4J u
a) a)
a! on
^ bb

JJ
JJ
<
x; bo
u a)
JJ Q

JJ
a,
(0 O
cd a)
on
O b0
jj a)
•rJ Q
O JJ
OUX!
bO
^J -rJ
to Qi
■a
fa
u
a)
ä
3 W)
5S <: bo
0)

u (Tl

oo
a
• 3
u

o
o

Figure 39. Longitudinal Response, 170 Knots,

Aft Pulse

72

T -
 o
•rJ
^-1 -U b('
o x:
^
d 50 L.i+
l->y°
►J uo 1.2 0)
a
ü
<
L.O 00

0.8 u
o
2

< -|0.6
(II
Q
C
cd
90
a -a
80

- 70

a)
u o
to a)
cdco
L0
i-)
u
5 < ■
UO
■sa
0 i-l

a,
a)
4-) -5
n] u
ai a)
V
80 ,
X: N.
o bO U)
0 i-i
a^
/() bO
—1 TJ
nj cd
X)
60 0) 6S
cu
a) 5
■u o
ni a)
U
S M
to a»
>H Q
-b
u •
60 < bO

a) o a
50 -1 5
5
O r/) B
O
40
6 8
Time — Sec

Figure 40. Longitudinal Response, 183 Knots,

Forward Pulse

73
•r-l
60
U JC

so - l.h
U t°
i+0 a;
1.2 Ü
o
<
bO
1.0 r-4
CD
F=
0.8 o
4-1

ÖD

O
a;
u
90 •rJ
^-1 •
O X)
80 0^
<:fio
70 ^r
a)
4J Ü
nl a)

r-J
S
'OO

O Ö
Cd 5 j-i
'
u
<
0 £ bO

a)
US
•r-*
JJ 5
n) ü
a! a)
on
U bO

80 co
0 JJ
c^x:
M
70 —i -ri
en oi
■a
(1) 60 a,
4J O

(0 0)
>- Q

0
u < bO
i-l
-L a)
oo 3 Q
a
•3 H -2
o

Figure i+L. Longitudinal Response, 184 Knots,

Aft Pulse

74

T;
 /()
—1 XJ
ox:
>> 00
60
JJ ,9
50 Ü
o
< bO

O
2
<
bO

o
cd

OX)
ÖS
a) \
JJ o tu
erf c/j
r-4 W)
\
r-( a)
o Q
Di 10
u
4.)

5 <
x: bo
a) o a)
u 0
ni ü
a a) cu
x:\
O bO
u a)
•rJ Q

to
o JJ
cux:

a 0)6?
J->o
q a)
a oo
\
3 bO
ni a)
>- Q

u
4J •

u < Ü0
&
a
• 3
u

o 2U 32 kO
u
Time - Sec

Figure 42. Lateral Response, 161 Knots,

Right Pulse

75
 70
ü
•rJ
60
ox;
>. bO 0)
U 50 L.2 ü
S o
<
■ÜB? bO
m k() Hl.O
iJ
U
0.8 o
z

u
<
bO

90 o
5 •H
^-1 •
O T)
80
O S,
70
^
fc
<U
J-i ü
tfl 0)
cd M
\
--i bO
-i 0)
oa
cd
<
bO
■g^
4-1
m u
o2 o)
x;\
o bO
•H Q
04
w
O -U
bO
(0 cd
■a
0)
u u
m tt)

3 bO

i-S
i-l .
u < bO
•rJ 0)
iJ 3Q
:
a
•3
o

o
u
12 L6
Time - See

Figure 43. Lateral Response, 159 Knots,

Left Pulse

76

JU-w
 70
u
•rJ
^-1 -LI 60
o x:
>. bO
O—' 4)
a: 50 O
O
■Ufr0 <
bO
uo
6
u
o
2

J-J
J-J
<

o
cd
o
•rJ
~l •
O XJ

u S.

a)
u u
n! a)
a! en
\
r-l bO

a: 4-1
<
x: bO

•rJ
0^

Cfl CJ
ai QJ
fO
x;\ 90 •
a w;
O u
•r-l & CUJC
a, 80 bO
^1 TJ
Cfl Oi
T)
70 a) &s
a) a.
u o
ffl(i)
OS w

^ bO
cfl (l)
>. a < bO

^
u >4
•H
iJ
W a
p

Ü s?
a)
^
^-4
n
o

Figure 44. Lateral Response, 174 Knots,

Right Pulse

77

r,
i

mmm mm— -—^—-— ■MM«

 u 60
■r-l
^ u
Ü £ 50 (U
>. Ö0 L.2 Ü
UTJ Ü
Qi <
• uJ 0 so
<13
J E
0.8 o
2

a) 9J •w
Q r-t •
o o -u
cd 80 u£
^r"
7;) U.

■u o
nj a)
Di r/1

^-J (1)
O Q
cd

£ bO

JJ 04

cd a)

x;\
o bo O i-i
bO
a, r-l TJ
m cd
T3
a) RS
cu,

a)
u o
« 0)
cd w

3 bO
>> a

o < oO
•H ■

u
00 cfl
a
• P
ü
a) F^

o
o

Figure 45. Lateral Response, 174 Knots,

Left Pulse ■

78

- if ■ iLniiff'iMVii'n -iiV-'-iVniif-
 •r-i 60
r4 i->
ox:
>, bO
U'W 50
a:
J-) 1 "
CD 40 o
J
o
<
bO

O
2

bO

o
cd

(1)
4J U

^-i a)
o a
oi

<
x: bo

a)
US
•rJ

K a)

4J a)
•H Q
Pn 90 Ul
O i->
a.x:
bO
80
(0 Oi
•o
a) 70
J-i o
n) a)
cd "3
\
3 bO

JJ •
< bO

ü
5
V)
a
•3
o
a) 65

o
U

Figure i+6. Lateral Response, 185 Knots,

Right Pulse

79

,«r^r-

i .
 a:

o
3 o
<
bO

o
2

OT)

a)
i-i o
en ai
cd oo
\
,—i W)
r-l a)
o Q
a!

u
<
£ bO
Ü QJ
JJ Q
0) •rl
m o
d a)
oo
o bO
■rJ Q
a,
O u
CUJ:
bO
70 r-l T-l
nl oi
•o
0)^
1) 5 bU fc
i-l o
(fl OJ
OJ 00

3 bO
s 0
ca <u
>H Q
-5
i-l
u •
< bO

o
u
CO
a
• 3
o
a) &s

o
o

Figure ^7. Lateral Response, L84 Knots,

Left Pulse

80

!"'.--

— ----.-■-^^- '-:. ...«a.- * "—T • ITiiif ■ MM ■ ^—"r. 'i... L_i ü ; ■■-^*- ' ■" — ■' ' ^ " ^^^^
•r-l
60
ü Ji
>, DO
50 a)
ü
ü
4J , o <
« UO bO
J

i-J
L0
o
U z
< •
60 0
^
0
a! -L0

Ö tu

a)
u u
nl a)
cd C/5
\
r-l QO

Cd

J u
j-j
<
0 Sl bO
u a)
i-> a
(1) •rJ
J-i b d,
n) ü
cd <U
on
u bo
u n)
•rJ Q
90 U)
0 4J
Okx:
bo
80 r-l TJ
n) cd
X)
<U fr0
/U a.

a)
•u u
cfl a)
cd i-o

u < bO
u a)
00
a
• P
u
a)&5

o
u

Figure 48. Directional Response, 162 Knots,

Right Pulse

81

*"■■'■■ -'■"■•"■•■ ■ ■.■.-,., | ,.......:„■..^ Ml—1——■—«MI I mmiiiiii.mi—^—Mi—wilMa« ■«—.*?■*■!■

 'rJ 70
^-1 i-1
or
>> M
U-^ bO
rt
U f,0
m 50 o
J a
<
bO
CO
e
u
O
2

J-l

bß

O
o
•rJ
r-l •
O TD

0)
J-) o
rt 0)

\
.-I W)

O Q

a)
j-> x; bo
nl ü o a)
Dd a) ■u Q
oo
a.
ü t>0
•rJ Q

w
o J->
pLix;
bO

nl od
■o
a)
XJ Ü
n] a)

? bO

< bO

en

o
•r-l
XJ
on
a
■ D
o
0)6«

Figure 49. Directional Response, 162 Knots, i

Left Pulse

82

3aeBK^----i»---""-.-rwT«u«M! Tii««i^A.
ir-- i ^^Imy^gn M.faiKH
 o .d
>, u

QJ
CJ
Ü
<
DO

o
2

<u
Q
O (J

SI
a)
■u o
a! a)
cd '/]
—i bO

o Q
ai
<
Jd bO

^^
•rJ
a)
co a
ix a)

CJ bO
j-) a)
•rJ Q
Oi

80 en
0 iJ
Oix:
70 bO
^-1 TJ
co cd
■o
60
J-l o
co a)
a; ro
\
3 bO
co a)
>> a

< bO

u
•H
0-1

a
• P
o
OB«

5 Time - Sec

Figure 50. Directional Response, 171 Knots,

. Right Pulse

83

T.X-V
'

«-^"°*-°~—^■' -*-"■-■- wm>mmmaKKie~fr—~ZBzrr?~:~,-r-

\l

•f-l 60
r-i u
O £
fr$ 50
ct
a)
<5 40 u
u
<
bO

u
u o
z
u
<
00
&
o

u -a

0)
u o
m o)
oi in
s
s u
i.1
<
0 x; t>o
ü^
•H
a) -b a,
u
a] u
a a)

d W)
u a)
•rJ a
a*

O iJ
bO

-d
Q) (UBS
CU
ni a)
cd w
3 bfl

J-i .
< bO

TO
a
• 3
o

o
c

Figure 51. Directional Response, 171 Knots,

Left Pulse

8k
 •r-'
60
u x:
>. b£
50
a:
0
j-i 1,
a) ■■ )
J o
o
<
bO

o
i-J z
<
bO

O o
oi
u -o
Ö1

a) 5
cd 00
\ 0
.—i bO

^S
a; -5

s JJ
JJ
<
0 £ bO
z&
■rt
a) -b a.
0-1

OS 4)
on
x:\
o to
jj <u
•H a
w
o ■"

oO

Cfl Di

a)
•u o
<« a)

? b0
5^
< bO

u
4-)
CO
a
• =>
ü
(ÜB?

Figure 52. Directional Response, L80 Knots,

Right Pulse

85

.
 >, to
u ■-'
cd
u
ü
ü
<

u
z
u
<
0)
a
c

ü XI
o£
a)
u o
(JL,
ctf on
r-4 00

o ö
cd
4-1

<: •
bO

(1)
i-1
m o
cd a) CM

O bO

O i->

bO

cfl rd
0)155
tu

< M

o
■r-l

a
•3
o
DB«

o
o

Figure 53. Directional Response, 182 Knots,

Left Pulse

86

brf
 Unclassified •
Security Classification
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D
(Security ctaaaitlcatton ot titlo, body ot abstract and mdextntf annotation muat be entered when the ovtralt report in c lassilied)
1 ORIGINATING ACTIVITY (Corporate author) 2« REPORT 5ECURI TY CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified
Bell Helicopter Company b CROUP
Fort Worth, Texas
3. REPORT TITLE
High-Performance UH-1 Compound Helicopter Maneuver Flight Test
Program
4 DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type ol report and inclusive date»)

Final
5 AUTHORCS; (Last name, lint name. Initial)

Van Wyckhouse, James F.

6 REPORT DATE 7a TOTAL NO. OF PACES 76 NO OF REFS

February 1966 88 10
8a CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 9a ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBERfSJ

DA44-177-AMC-162(T)
6. PROJECT NO. USAAVLABS Technical Report 66-17
1P121401A14311
9 6. OTHER REPORT NOCS.) (A ny other numbers that may be maaigned
this report)

BHC Report 533-099-025

10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES

Distribution of this document is unlimited.

11 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12 SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

U. S. Army Aviation Materiel

Laboratories, Fort Eustis, Virginia

is. ABSTRACT xhis report presents the results of flight tests conducted
with the USAAVLABS-Bell High Performance Compound Helicopter to extend
its flight envelope, particularly with respect to maneuvers. Rotors
with standard UH-1B and tapered tip blades were evaluated. With the
tapered tip blades, the compound helicopter was flown to a true air-
speed of 221 knots and the rise in power required and rotor controls
load associated with compressibility was delayed by about .05 Mach
number. Approximately 55 maneuvers, encompassing a velocity-normal
acceleration envelope exceeding 2g's at 190 knots, were accomplished.
The distribution of lift between the wing and rotor is defined and it
is shown that the rotor provides the largest increase of normal load
factor during the maneuver. The rotor and control loads and cockpit
vibration data are evaluated and used for trends to define rotor
limits. The chord load is characterized by an "abrupt rise" after
which a small increase in load factor would have resulted in struc-
tural damage. This characteristic of the chord load is used as a
basis for defining the maneuver limits of the test helicopter. Normal
maneuver and structural limited rotor thrust coefficients are defined
as a function of advance ratio and rotor propulsive force. Although
rotor system dynamics, blade twist, planform, airfoil, etc., will in-
fluence these values of limiting thrust coefficients, it is believed
that with proper interpretation the limits shown herein are generally
applicable to all rotorcraft.
DD FORM
1 JAN 0< 1473 Unclassified
Security Classification

.-■
 4

Unclassified
Secunlv Chissificilion
LINK B LI NK C
KEY WORDS
WO.. E AT "OL L

Compound helicopter
High speed helicopter
Tapered tip main rotor blades
Maneuver capability

INSTRUCTIONS
1. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address 10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lim-
of the contractor, subcontractor, Rruntee, Department of De- itations on further dissemination of the report, other than those
fense activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing
the report. imposed by security classification, using standard statements
such as:
2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION; Enter the over- (1) "Qualified requesters may obtain copies of this
all security classification of the report. Indicate whether report from DDC "
"Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accord-
ance with appropriate security regulations, (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of this
report by DDC is not authorized."
2b. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di-
rective 5200. 10 and Armed Forces industrial Manual. Enter (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of
the group number. Also, when applicable, show that optional this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC
markings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- users shall request through
ized.
3. REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all (4) "U. S. military agencies may obtain copies of this
capital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified. report directly from DDC Other qualified users
If a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifica- shall request through
tion, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesis
immediately following the title.
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appropriate, enter the type of (5) "All distribution of this report is controlled. Qual-
report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or final. ified DDC users shall request through
Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is
covered.
If the report has been furnished to the Office of Technical
5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of authoKs) as shown on Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indi-
or in the report. Enter last name, first name, middle initial. cate this fact and enter the price, if known.
If military, show rank and branch of service. The name of
the principal author is an absolute minimum requirement. 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional explana-
tory notes.
6. REPORT DATE: Enter the date of the report as day,
month, year; or month, year. If more than one date appears 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name of
on the report, use date of publication. the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay-
ing tor) the research and development. Include address.
7a. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: The total page count
should follow normal pagination procedures, i.e., enter the 13. ABSTRACT: Enter an abstract giving a brief and factual
number of pages containing information. summary of the document indicative of the report, even though
it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical re-
76. NUMBER OF REFERENCES: Enter the total number of port. If additional space is required, a continuation sheet
references cited in the report. shall bo attached.
8a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter It is hinhly desirable that the abstract of classified re-
the applicable number of the contract or grant under which ports be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall
the report was written. end with an indiratmn of the military security classification
86, 8c, & 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate of the informal ion in the paragraph, represented as fTS), CS),
military department identification, such as project number, (C). or (U).
subproject number, system numbers, task number, etc. There is no limitation on the length of the abstract. How-
9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the offi- ever, the suggested length is from ISO to 225 words.
cial report number by which the document will be identified 14. KEY WORDS; Key words arc technically meaningful terms
and controlled by the originating activity. This number must or short phrases that characterize n report and may be used as
be unique to this report. index entries for cataloging the report. Key words must be
96. OTHER REPORT NUMBER(S): If the report has been selected so that no security classification is required. Iden-
assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator fiers. such as equipment model designation, trade name, -nili-
tary project code name, geographic location, may be used as
or by the sponsor), also enter this number(s).
key words but will be followed by an indication of technical
context. The assignment of links, rules, and weights is
optiona'

Unclassified
Security Classification
1138-66

" '.U