Conceptual design of

Amphibious Tiltrotor for

Rescue Operations : VECTOR
NASA Subsonic Rotary Wing Project

FACULTY ADVISOR: TEAM:

Dr., Full professor, AIAA Associate M.S. Student, Team Leader,

Fellow, Head of Department of Warsaw School of Computer Science,
Aerospace Engineering, Warsaw, Poland
Wroclaw University of Technology, Bart Sitek
Wroclaw, Poland
Krzysztof Sibilski
Ph.D. Candidate,
Tongji University,
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Wei Yang

May 10, 2010

ABSTRACT
A vector is what is needed to "carry" the point A to the point B; the Latin word vector
means "one who carries". [1]

VECTOR - a high-speed, long range tiltrotor designed for rescue and firefighting
missions. It’s capable of carrying up to 54 passengers (+ medical personnel) and a water
tank. Next-gen configuration, materials and advanced rotary technologies were applied into
the design of this vehicle. It’s able to land on a diverse terrain, including water. It can reach
max speed of 684 km/h and go as far as 1720 km, which means saving more lives.

Capabilities of the VECTOR can fulfill the expanding civil requirements and contribute
to the current search and rescue teams in any place of the world.

[1] Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989. and Jeff Miller. "Earliest Known Uses of
Some of the Words of Mathematics"

2
3
4
5
6
7
* http://www.153aw.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123154750

8
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2
3. Design .................................................................................................................................. 2
A. General Design Approach ................................................................................................ 2
B. Seating Configuration and Cabin Design ......................................................................... 4
C. Chassis Design ................................................................................................................. 4
4. Propulsion ........................................................................................................................... 5
A. Power Estimation ............................................................................................................ 5
B. Engine Selection .............................................................................................................. 6
C. Ducted Fan Design ........................................................................................................... 7
D. Power Needed in Flight ................................................................................................... 8
5. Aerodynamics ...................................................................................................................... 9
A. Computational Fluid Dynamics ....................................................................................... 9
B. Flow Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 12
6. Performance ...................................................................................................................... 13
A. Transportation Efficiency .............................................................................................. 13
B. Weight Estimation ......................................................................................................... 14
C. Speed Estimation ........................................................................................................... 15
D. Stability Analysis ............................................................................................................ 16
E. Fuel and Range .............................................................................................................. 20
7. Material Selection ............................................................................................................. 21
8. Cost Analysis...................................................................................................................... 22
9. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................... 23
References ................................................................................................................................ 24
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................. 25
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A. Modelling Action of the Blades ................................................................... 26
Appendix B. Stability Analysis ......................................................................................... 27
Appendix C. Longitudinal Dynamics ................................................................................ 28
Appendix D. On-water Stability Analysis ......................................................................... 30

9
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper introduces the VECTOR - a high-speed, long range tiltrotor designed for
rescue and firefighting missions. It’s capable of carrying up to 54 passengers (+ medical
personnel) and a water tank. Next-gen configuration, materials and advanced rotary
technologies were applied into the design of this tiltrotor. Capabilities of the VECTOR can
fulfill the expanding civil requirements and contribute to the current search and rescue
teams in any place of the world.

Helicopters have always had a hard time going fast. The forward motion of the
chopper adds airspeed to advancing blades, while simultaneously reducing the speed of
retreating blades. So, at high speeds one blade risks going supersonic as it gains lift, while a
blade on the other side teeters on the edge of a stall. High-speed tiltrotors don’t have that
problem and they can be faster than choppers, while maintaining ability to land in hard-to-
get-to places. Compared with wing-based crafts (Figure 1.1.), tiltrotors seem to be the best
candidates for diverse rescue or firefighting operations, especially when lives are at stake.

0
10 Airplane
Helicopter
Seaplane speed gap
E=P/WV

G-K line

-1
10

2 3
10 10
Speed (m/s)
Figure 1.1. Air vehicle transportation efficiency.

The Objectives section presents design objectives and goals that are met or exceeded
by the vehicle. The Design section describes construction of the vehicle and its subsystems
including seating configuration and chassis design. Propulsion section presents power
estimation and all the propulsion related components like engines or fans. The
Aerodynamics section presents fluid dynamics and flow characteristics study. The
Performance section shows analysis of transportation efficiency, stability, speed, weight,
range and fuel consumption. The Material Selection section describes materials used for
construction of VECTOR. The Cost Analysis section presents estimated various costs needed
to manufacture the VECTOR. Finally, the Conclusion and Recommendations section
concludes the document and gives some recommendations for further research and study.

1
2. OBJECTIVES
The team engineered the craft to meet and exceed all of the following design goals:

 Cruise speed: 540 km/h

 Range: 1480 km
 Take-off from water or ground; land on water or ground. Water includes lakes and
oceans
 Carry up to 50 passengers
 Ability to siphon water into an internal tank and expel water while airborne

Construction was based on field tested components and solutions to ensure the best
possible reliability and simplicity of the design.

3. DESIGN
A. GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH

To specify main characteristics the team performed rough estimation, based on

research on crafts like V-22 Osprey, or Bell-Boeing QTR. There was need to include new
types of materials, and to make sure that design meets the given objectives. Here are the
main conclusions:

Main characteristics:

 Crew: two (pilot, copilot)

 Capacity: 60 passengers or 14 tons cargo
 Length: 12 m
 Width without nozzles: 8 m
 Height: 2.5 m
 Disc area: 4 × 2.7 m²
 Body area: 96 m² （top view）
 Empty weight: 11 ton
 Inside payload: 14 ton
 Max takeoff weight: 30 tons
 Powerplant: 4 × Honeywell's T55 engine, 4 × 3,631 kW

Performance:

 Maximum speed: 190 m/s (684 km/h)

 Cruise speed: 162 m/s at sea level
 Power/mass: 484 kW/ ton

Lifting body was introduced to provide enough force to lift itself. Its layout is shown
in figure 2.1. The monocoque body has airfoil-shaped section so as to provide good
aerodynamics and it is wide to give best possible in-air and on-water stability. Water tank is
placed inside the chassis to further improve the stability and weight distribution. Design
introduces ducted nozzles with contra-rotating propellers resulting in high performance and
low induced energy loss. Searchlights attached on the front make looking for people easier
2
and fluorescent orange coating of the unibody ensures great visibility of the vehicle during
rescue operations.

Figure 2.1. Rough body layout.

As a tiltrotor, the craft has characteristics of an airplane and a helicopter. In Cruise, it is more
like an airplane what ensures maximum power and efficiency. Horizontal tail and vertical tail
were also used to further improve stability.

Figure 2.2. 3D presentation of the VECTOR.

3
B. SEATING CONFIGURATION AND CABIN DESIGN

Rescue vehicle like VECTOR needs to be properly designed in terms of seating

configuration, especially because some of the carried people may be wounded. Idea of web
benches in VECTOR is taken straight from the C-130 Hercules. Benches are modular and
economical and what’s important they can be easily converted to stretchers if needed.
Two web benches (6 people each) are attached back-to-back to a support beam. Each pair of
web benches can have 12 people. VECTOR can handle total of 54 people + additional bench
for medical personnel (up to 6 people) and 2 pilots.

Figure 2.3. Seating configuration.

Crew cabin has enough space for 2 crew members (pilot and co-pilot) and holds
standard equipment. It is designed to ensure the best possible visibility for the pilots by
having a wide window in front of them. During night operations, or when there’s limited
visibility pilots can control searchlights attached to the front of the vehicle. They also have
access to infrared and night vision cameras which makes it even easier to find and rescue
people in need.

C. CHASSIS DESIGN

Smart chassis design is crucial, especially in case of a multi-purpose vehicle that

needs to land on diverse terrain. Usually there are different types of replaceable/retractable
gear needed for each mission/surface. For VECTOR though, the team decided to come up
with a special kind of versatile chassis. One that would work like rubber boat while on-water
and suppress the impact while landing on a solid surface. Thanks to this approach there is no
need for replaceable, modular gear of any sort. This type of solution greatly simplifies the
construction, reduces weight and costs in the long run. Main problem here was to come up

4
with an elastic type of chassis that would absorb the impact and wouldn’t be easily
punctured.

Chassis’ inner structure is pretty much based on a Non-Pneumatic Tire (NPT) made of
polymeric web and designed by Resilient Technologies, LLC [1]. VECTOR’s bottom though,
won’t be airless like in those tires and the structure will be closed instead. This is because air
sitting in the “tunnels” of the structure helps VECTOR’s buoyancy. Thanks to the polymer
web structure, body of the chassis is well reinforced and reliable. Even if there’s some
structural damage inflicted, vehicle’s bottom can still absorb impact from landing on a solid
surface and keep VECTOR on-water without any problem. The chassis is additionally covered
with a special phenol coating as to protect it from high temperatures during the firefighting
missions.

Water tank is embedded inside the chassis which gives good weight distribution, and
while the tank is empty it additionally helps to keep vehicle afloat. There is also a siphoning
system with an electric pump installed so that the crew can lower a retractable pipe to get
water inside the tank. To save the water and to enable more precise firefighting capabilities
the system allows segmented drops over multiple fires without landing.

Figure 2.4. Chassis prototype idea. [1]

4. PROPULSION
A. POWER ESTIMATION

Targeted cruise status:

 Speed: vcruise=155 m/s

 Takeoff weight Wt= 25 tons

5
 The ducted propeller efficiency is lower than that of open propeller. The total
efficiency  of the current design is 0.7. According to CFD results, the designed T/W was
estimated based on L/D performance of the craft (equation (1) and shown in Figure 4.1.) The
max T/W happens at cruise and the T/W is 0.2685. Consequently, the total needed power of
the engine can be calculated by equation (2). It is about 14500 kW.

T/W= D/L (1)

T, thrust KN; W, Wt  9.81 kN.

T
W ( ) max  vcruise  Pengine  (2)
W

0.3

0.25
T/w

0.2

0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
Angle of attack

Figure 4.1. Thrust to Weight ratio.

B. ENGINE SELECTION

After researching about other similar crafts the team decided on Honeywell’s T55
turboshaft engine that possesses all the necessary characteristics. Very same engine is used
in CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter, which was field-tested during many heavy-duty
military missions all around the globe, in Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Engine Specifications[1]:

Engine type:

 4 × Honeywell's T55 engine

General characteristics:

 Type: Turboshaft
 Length: 1,196.3 mm
 Diameter: 615.9 mm
 Dry weight: 377kg

6
Components:

 Compressor: 7-stage axial compressor and 1-stage centrifugal compressor

 Turbine: 2-stage gas producer and 2-stage free power

Performance:

 Maximum power output: 4,867 shp (3,631 kW)

 Total power: 4 × 3631 = 14524 kW

Figure 4.2. Engine sectional view. [2] Figure 4.3. Engine Air Flow diagram. [2]

C. DUCTED FAN DESIGN

A ducted fan is a propulsion arrangement whereby a fan, which is a type of propeller,

is mounted within a cylindrical shroud or duct. The duct reduces losses in thrust from the tip
vortices of the fan, and varying the cross-section of the duct allows the designer to
advantageously affect the velocity and pressure of the airflow according to Bernoulli's
Principle. Ducted fan propulsion is used in aircraft, airboats, hovercraft and fan packs.

Advantages:

 By reducing propeller blade tip losses and directing its thrust towards the back only,
the ducted fan is more efficient in producing thrust than a conventional propeller,
especially at higher rotational speeds.
 By sizing the ductwork appropriately, the designer can adjust the air velocity through
the fan to allow it to operate more efficiently at higher air speeds than a propeller
would.
 For the same static thrust, a ducted fan has a smaller diameter than a free propeller.
 Ducted fans are quieter than propellers: they shield the blade noise, and reduce the
tip speed and intensity of the tip vortices both of which contribute to noise
production.
 Ducted fans can allow for a limited amount of thrust vectoring, something normal
propellers are not well suited for. This allows them to be used instead of tiltrotors in
some applications.

7
Disadvantages:

 Good efficiency requires very small clearance between blade tips and the duct.
 Ducts are heavy and expensive.

0.68

0.66

0.64

0.62
Efficiency

0.6

0.58

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4
Ae/Ad
Figure 4.4. Duct area effect on thrust [3]

Figure 4.4. shows the duct area effect on thrust. TD, Thrust of ducted propeller; T, Thrust of
open propeller. Ae, Area of duct exit, ¼ × pi × De2 ; Ad, Area of blade disk, ¼ × pi ×De2; A0,
Capture area, ¼ × pi × D02. To pursue best performance, Ae/Ad =1.2 is applied in the duct
design. In our design Ae≈ A0=2.7377m2.

D. POWER NEEDED IN FLIGHT

As the craft can be lifted by itself, the needed power in cruise can be calculated based
on drag performance (equation 3). Figure 4.5. shows the needed power for cruise with
varying speed and angle of attack.

The available power for thrust is Pavailable  Pengine  = 10100 kW.

1 3
Pneed  v sCD / 1000 (kW) (3)
2

8
 15000

=10o =5o

Pavailable =0o
10000

Power (kw)

5000

0
0 50 100 150 200
Speed (m/s)

Figure 4.5. Power needed in cruise.

The engine performance is clearly described in Figure 4.5. with different speed and
angle of attack. This figure also gives an advice for operation.

5. AERODYNAMICS
A. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

The aerodynamic performance was studied by using Computational Fluid Dynamics

method (CFD). A simplified half-model was employed into numerical simulation, owing to
symmetry of the geometry (Figure 5.1.). Nozzles were omitted in CFD study, no propulsion
system was employed into the numerical simulations. The structured-unstructured hybrid
grid method was applied to the simulations. Hybrid grid methods are designed to take
advantage of the positive aspects of both structured and unstructured grids. Structured grid
was specified in the bulk of the domain, and unstructured grid in local regions for complex
craft geometry. For resolution of turbulent boundary layer profiles, a wall normal spacing of
2.0e-4 of the mean aerodynamic chord was used for craft; an average y+ value of 200 for
craft was achieved. Ten layers of cells were clustered towards the walls with a growth ratio
of 1.2 in the wall normal direction. The total number of cells was approximately 2.5 million.
The numerical simulations were conducted at a Reynolds number, based on the mean chord
length of the main wing, of 6×107. The use of computational fluid dynamics codes to
simulate the flow around geometrically complicated shapes such as airplanes, cars and ships
has become standard engineering practice in the last few years. A number of commercially
available codes can be used to perform these studies. The finite volume codes FLUENT[1] was
employed in the present study. It has been performing well in aerodynamic prediction for
craft[2].

9
 Figure 5.1. Model in simulation. Figure 5.2. Surface grids.

The governing equations are the incompressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations

for continuity and momentum:

U i
0 (1)
xi

U i  (U iU j ) 1 P  2U i 
    (ui'u 'j ) (2)
t x j  xi x j x j x j

where  ui'u 'j is the Reynolds stress term. The realizable    turbulence model[3] is used.
The transport equations of  and  are written as,

    t k 
( k )  ( ku j )  (   )   Gk  Gb    YM  S k (3)
t x j x j   k x j 

    t   2 
(  )  ( u j )  (   )   C1S  C2  C1 C3 Gb  S (4)
t x j x j    x j  k   k

This turbulence model has been extensively validated and well behaved for a wide
range of flows, including rotating homogeneous shear flows, free flows including jets and
mixing layers, channel and boundary layer flows, and separated flows. The incompressible
Navier-Stokes equations, Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), are solved by the SIMPLE algorithm with a
second-order upwind scheme applied to the convection terms.

10
 0.08 0.4

0.35
0.07

0.3
0.06

0.25
CD

CL
0.05
0.2

0.04
0.15

0.03
0.1

0.02 0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Angle of attack Angle of attack

6 0

-0.002

5.5 -0.004

-0.006

5 -0.008
Cm
L/D

-0.01

4.5 -0.012

-0.014

4 -0.016

-0.018

3.5 -0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Angle of attack Angle of attack

Figure 5.3. Aerodynamics of the craft.

Figure 5.3. presents the CFD results. The center of gravity is placed at 1/4 mean chord
length. It can be seen that the craft has max L/D at   5 .

Also, we can get:

CL  0.0286 (angle of attack degree)

Cm  0.002065 (angle of attack degree)

L/Dmax = 5.823

11
B. FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 5.4. Static pressure distribution,   5 Figure 5.5. Total pressure distribution,   5

Figure 5.6. Streamline,   5

Flow in takeoff or hovering:

Figure 5.7. Flow in takeoff or hovering, colored by velocity.

12
Flow in cruise:

Figure 5.8. Flow in cruise, colored by velocity.

6. PERFORMANCE
A. TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY

In the following part, the transportation efficiency of VECTOR was compared with
some high speed helicopters. Giuseppe Gabrielli and Theodore Von Karman defined the
specific resistance of a vehicle[1,2], E, as maximum motor output power P, divided by total
weight W multiplied by maximum speed Vmax.

E=P/WVmax (1)

The lower value of E means higher transportation efficiency. The transportation

characteristic Wp/W presents the effective capacity of craft. In order to describe the
transportation performance in high speed, the payload weight Wp is specified with the max
inside payload. The results are shown below.

By Figure 6.1., we can see that the specific resistance of VECTOR is a bit high,
although it can reach very high speed. This is attributed to the propeller system utilized in
VECTOR, the ducted propeller. The efficiency of ducted propeller is lower than that of open
propeller. Figure 6.2. tells another story that the VECTOR has a high capacity in high speed.
That means the VECTOR has more effective payload, furthermore it can carry this payload
cruise in very high speed. This is exactly what we want.

13
 0.34 0.5
Canadair CL-84 Canadair CL-84
Sikorsky X2 AH-56 Cheyenne
0.45 Piasecki X-49
0.32 AH-56 Cheyenne
Piasecki X-49 V-22 Osprey
V-22 Osprey 0.4 VECTOR
0.3 VECTOR
0.35
0.28

Wp/W
0.3
E

0.26
0.25

0.24
0.2

0.22 0.15

0.2 0.1
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Max speed (m/s) Max speed (m/s)

Figure 6.1. Specific resistance of some high speed Figure 6.2. Relative capacity in high speed.
helicopters.

Conclusions:

As for transportation, the VECTOR has:

a) Outstanding speed performance.

b) Excellent payload capacity in high speed.
c) Considerable fuel efficiency.

B. WEIGHT ESTIMATION

Takeoff weight estimation:

Figure 6.3. presents the takeoff weight and total power of helicopter. For the current
design, the effective power comparing with conventional helicopter is Pengine* = 10100 kW.
It is found in the figure that the current design can be specified with a takeoff weight of 30
ton.

14
 12000

10000

8000

Power (KW)
6000

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Takeoff Weight (ton)

Figure 6.3. Takeoff weight and power

Inside payload Wp estimation:

It is specified for the craft that the lift to drag ratio in cruise is L/D= 5.823. The lift can
be calculated by:

L  5.823Dcruise (2)

By equations 2 and 4, we have L= 364.8 kN. That is about 37 tons. It is estimated

above that the max takeoff weight is 30 tons, so the craft can cruise with 30 tones. If the
empty weight We is given, then the inside payload Wp depends on the effective space in craft
or 30-We.

Effective cargo space of VECTOR estimation:

Volume = 6m × 8m × effective height = 6 × 8 × 1.5 = 72m3

Effective cargo space for QTR / C-130 Hercules[3,4]: 12.5 × 2.7 × 3m3 = 101.25m3
Payload of QTR / C-130 Hercules: 20 tons
So, the cargo for VECTOR will be: 20 × 72 / 101.25 = 14 tons

The inside payload is Wp = 14 tons (includes 5 tons of water in the tank and 60 passengers)
Based on these calculations the empty weight can vary between 8-12 tons or more.

C. SPEED ESTIMATION

Cruise speed v cruise estimation:

The max L/D happens at angle of attack 5 degrees, L/D= 5.823. Cruise in this status,
the craft achieves the most efficient flight.

Thrust Tavailablecan be provided by engine: Tavailable  vcruise  Pengine  (3)

15
 1 2
Drag Dcruise in cruise based on CFD results: Dcruise  vcruisesC D (4)
2

Thrust meets drag: Tavailable  Dcruise (5)

By equations 3-5, we have vcruise  162 m/s

Maximum cruise speed vmax estimation:

Thrust in max cruise speed: T  vmax  Pengine   (6)

1 2
Min drag at zero angle of attack: D vmax sCD (7)
2

For max speed, T=D. So, vmax = 190 m/s.

D. STABILITY ANALYSIS

Aircraft longitudinal and lateral flight dynamics are described by a set of 6 Degree of
Freedom (DOF) non linear differential Equations of Motion (EOM). The EOM are based on
Newton’s second law for the behavior of a free body in 3 dimensional space under the
influence of external forces. This paper restricts itself to the longitudinal dynamics which can
be decoupled and modeled separately from the lateral case.

Figure 6.4. Stability axes and body axes.

Static Longitudinal Stability:

Longitudinal static stability is the stability of an aircraft in the longitudinal, or

pitching, plane during static (established) conditions. This characteristic is important in
determining whether an aircraft will be able to fly as intended. The stability axes are shown
in Figure 6.4.

16
 If an aircraft is longitudinally stable, a small increase in angle of attack will cause the
pitching moment on the aircraft to change so that the angle of attack decreases. Similarly, a
small decrease in angle of attack will cause the pitching moment to change so that the angle
of attack increases. That is,

Cm
0 (8)
CL

CL
As for all airplanes, the lift increases with increase of angle of attack,  0 , then a

longitudinal static stable airplane must be,

Cm
0 (9)


Equation 9 is the condition of longitudinal static stability for airplane. It is sensitive to

position for center of gravity. From the CFD study, it is clear that the current project is static
stable and the location of center of gravity (1/4 chord) is rational.

For trim, we also need:

Cm  0 (10)

By CFD we can get Cm and Cmt . Cm is pitch moment derivative for craft, Cmt is pitch
moment derivatives of tail. Then,

Cm  Cm0  Cm  Cmt  e =0 (11)

 e is the elevator deflection angle. Moment trim can be achieved by control the elevator
deflection angle (equation 11).

Longitudinal Dynamics:

Newton’s second law requires that the sum of all external forces acting on the
aircraft be equal to the time derivative of its momentum. To simplify the analysis, the
Newtonian vector equations are recast in scalar form consisting of 3 force and 3 moment
equations.

Due to the complexity of the non linear EOM, it becomes necessary to linearize the
equations. The linearization is based on perturbation theory with the assumption that the
aircraft is flying in an equilibrium condition.

The linearization yields a set of first order Linear Time Invariant (LTI) differential
equations with constant coefficients. The LTI are only valid over a narrow range of flight
conditions. The constant coefficients reflect the aerodynamic stability derivatives, control
derivatives, mass and inertia of the aircraft. These in turn embodies the flight condition
parameters, control inputs, and geometric characteristics of the aircraft. Calculations and
other relevant longitudinal dynamics characteristics can be found in Appendix C.

17
 Figure 6.5. Typical pilot opinion contours for
short period.
Figure 6.6. Control anticipation parameter and
Short Period damping ratio requirements.

The VECTOR is a passenger carrying vehicle, so it should be designed to satisfy the

flying quality of Level I at the cruising conditions. Level I requirements for MIL-F-8785C and
MIL-STD-1797A are given in Table 2 of Appendix C.

The handling quality criterion presented here is based on the research presented by
O’Hara[8]. The flying qualities a pilot experiences when flying the craft depends very much on
the damping ratio and natural frequency of the short period response. It is shown in Figure
6.6. that short period damping ratio and natural frequency are plotted in the center of the
contours of the graph, the craft has satisfactory handing qualities. The control anticipation
factor (CAP) also satisfies Level I requirements.

The time responses are shown in Figure 6.7. The perturbed quantity is the
dimensionless pitch motion.

18
 0.35 1

0.3 0.8

0.25 0.6

Perturbation
Perturbation

0.2 0.4

0.15 0.2

0.1 0

0.05 -0.2

0 -0.4

-0.05 -0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) Short Period (b) Phugoid

Figure 6.7. VECTOR cruise open loop response.

The stability analysis is based on coarse estimation and engines, blades, or nozzles
were not taken into consideration. There are approximations in calculating longitudinal
derivatives. The key point is that the VECTOR satisfies Level I requirements for flying qualities
and shows good static and dynamic longitudinal stabilities.

On-water Stability

There are in fact two Metacentric heights of a ship. One for Rolling and the other for
Pitching. The former will always be less than the latter and unless otherwise stated, the
Metacentric given will be for Rolling. The essence of stability calculations is finding the force
couple between buoyancy and weight. This is the moment of force which a stable ship
develops to counteract the overturning moments arising from external forces.

Figure 6.8. Ship roll motion.

The VECTOR has positive stability for the metacenter is above the center of gravity. (See
Appendix D. for the calculations)

19
 Figure 6.9. Typical stability curves.[15,16]

Stability curves (GZ curves) are used to show graphically the stability levers (GZ) exerted by a
vessel to return itself to a position of equilibrium from the various conditions of heel.
Figure 6.9. shows the typical stability curves. The nozzles of VECTOR should not touch the
water, so the heel angle  is no more than 12 degrees for rolling motion.

E. FUEL AND RANGE

Characteristics of the specified engine[14] :

Honeywell Engines & Systems T55-L-714A

Applications: CH-47S/D & HCMK3 (2)

Max takeoff: 4867 SHP ; 3,631 kW

Max continuous power: 4168 SHP; 3,110 kW

Fuel consumption: .520 lbs/shp hr; 0.1760 kg/kW hr

Weight: 879 lbs

Dimensions: 47.1/24.25 D

Remarks: International Configuration

Power needed for the engine in cruise:

1 2
P   D  vcruise P   vcruisesC D vcruise P = 3100 kW
2

Max weight of fuel: Wf = 6,500 kg ( included in 14 tons inside payload )

20
 Wf
Range: L  vcruise  t  Pt L = 1720 km
4  0.1760

7. MATERIAL SELECTION
Material selection is being a very important part of the whole design process. A
rotocraft used for rescue missions has to be able to work in various, possibly hazardous
conditions (high temperature or moisture). To make sure the vehicle is safe and reliable, it
needs to be constructed using carefully chosen and well tested materials.

The team decided to use composites for vast majority of the construction,
particularly CRP (Carbon fiber-Reinforced Plastics) and FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics).
Main reason for this choice was significant reduction of weight, ability to use much simpler
moulded parts and resistance to fire. Comparing to widely used aluminum, composites have
stronger structure, are lighter, cheaper, faster and easier to manufacture. Moreover, they
have already been field-tested. Composites have proven to be highly successful in the field
of aeronautics numerous of times and much of the fuselage of aircrafts like Boeing 787
Dreamliner or Airbus A350 XWB is made of them.

For example, here are some advantages over a traditional rudder made from sheet
aluminum for Airbus A310[1]:

 25% reduction in weight

 95% reduction in components by combining parts and forms into simpler moulded
parts.
 Overall reduction in production and operational costs, economy of parts results in
lower production costs and the weight savings create fuel savings that lower the
operational costs of flying the aeroplane.

FRP and CRP are corrosion resistant which is great for a vehicle that’s going to have
much contact with water. All the VECTOR’s surfaces exposed to high temperatures (eg.
during firefighting missions) are also insulated with phenol which posseses superior fire
protection and retardancy habits. Some specially filled phenol resins exhibit fire retardancy
features up to 5000 ºC [2].

The advantages of phenol laminates[2]:

 no auto-propagation of flame
 very low smoke development (lowest possible)
 very low toxic fume emission (almost not measurable)
 low heat release
 no release of flammable vapor
 very low loss of strength at high operating temperatures up to 200 ºC
 low thermal conductivity

Polymers have almost infinite lifespan, but they’re also recyclable. They can be
thermally decomposed in a one-step process and carbon fiber can be reclaimed. Then they
can be reused in e.g. consumer electronics [3].
21
8. COST ANALYSIS
For the cost analysis the team used on-line NASA Cost Estimating Web Site, and
particularly the Airframe Cost Model. The airframe cost refers to the cost of the assembled
structural and aerodynamic components of the air vehicle and not just the basic structure [1].
The analysis was based on the assumption that 100 tiltrotors were manufactured (excluding
3 test flight vehicles).

Table 1. Airframe Cost Model for the VECTOR.

Hours (K) Cost (M04$)

Non-Recurring Costs

Engineering 3339 395

Tooling 1879 194

Development Support 98

Flight Test 28

Subtotal non-recurring 5218 715

Recurring Costs

Engineering 1526 181

Tooling 1132 117

Manufacturing 8975 869

Material 311

Quality Assurance 1194 115

Subtotal recurring 12827 1593

Total 18045 2308

Note that costs may be higher due to some advanced materials (composites, polymers) and
technologies used (chassis prototype).

22
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Today, rotary crafts are broadly used in transportation, construction, firefighting,
search and rescue, et al for its operating characteristics. The increasing demand for more
efficient rotorcraft in rescue promotes the design of VECTOR. Next-gen configuration,
materials and advanced rotary technologies were applied into the design of this tiltrotor.
Capabilities of VECTOR can fulfill the expanding civil requirements and contribute to the
current search and rescue teams in any place of the world.

The concept of self-lifting was introduced into fuselage design. Large and airfoil-
shaped body provides not only the lift, with which 30 ton weight is hovered, but also on-
water and in-air stability and spacious cabin for the passengers (including the injured ones).
To meet the speed requirements for mission, rotary systems help the VECTOR cove the
speed. Contra-rotating ducted propellers take the place of open propellers considering harsh
operating conditions, such as cruise approaching the ocean surface in very high speed. Tail
as stabilizer like in a conventional airplane shows good performance for stability of the
VECTOR. As the VECTOR behaves like an airplane in cruise, control of flight could be based
on sophisticated control strategy of the airplane.

With streamlined fuselage design made of light, strong composites and powerful
engines the VECTOR can operate in ample speed, which means quicker ability to rescue
more people at once and fewer families suffering from pain of losing their loved ones.
Fluorescent orange body coating ensures great visibility of the vehicle during the rescue
operations. Innovative multi-terrain chassis and ability to perform segmented drops over
multiple fires without landing gives versatility, necessary precision and reduces the costs.
Simplicity of the design guarantees higher reliability

The unique and well-thought design makes VECTOR show outstanding performance
in transportation efficiency. The VECTOR is supposed to meet the needs of efficiency,
productivity, versatility and to ensure that life and safety comes first.

Optional recommendations

The VECTOR is an efficient and economical combination of a tiltrotor and a wing-

shaped craft, which is reflected in its technologies and characteristics. The team explored
potential benefits of the design and found that some level of refinement and further study,
especially on the multipurpose chassis could be done and may further improve the craft.
Here are some recommendations for further research:

 Testing performance under harsh operating conditions such as over waves.

 Refining the fuselage considering complex flow.
 Conducting a more detailed noise analysis.
 Conducting an aerodynamic study with engine, nozzle and propeller.
 Putting focus on environmental friendliness.

23
REFERENCES
Design Phase

[1] http://www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/11/honeycomb-tire-bomb-proof-bullet-
proof.html

Propulsion

[1] Gunston, Bill (2006). World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines, 5th Edition. Phoenix Mill,
Gloucestershire, England, UK: Sutton Publishing Limited.

[2] http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/engine.html

[3] Ducted Propeller Study[R]. AD - 647299, 1964.

Aerodynamics

[1] FLUENT6.2 User Guide, Fluent Inc, 2005.

[2] Scheidegger T. 3rd AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop, Part 1: DLRF6/F6-FX2B. Report,
San Francisco 2006.

[3] T.-H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, and J. Zhu. A New Eddy-Viscosity Model for
High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows – Model Development and Validation.
Computers Fluids, 1995, 24(3): 227-238.

Performance

[1] Gabrielli, G. and von Karman, Th., What price speed? Specific power required for
propulsion of vehicles, Mechanical Engineering, Vol 72, 1950, pp. 775-781.

[2] Teitler, S. and Proodian, R.E., “What Price Speed, Revisted,” J. Energy, Vol 4, No 1, 1980,
pp. 46-48.

[3] C-130 Hercules Overview,

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/cargo/c130.html

[4] USAF C-130 Hercules fact sheet. USAF, Ocrober 2009.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=92

[5] Nelson, R., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw Hill, 1998.

[6] Etkin, B., and Reid, L., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, J. Wiley & Sons, 1996.

[7] MIT open course- Aerospace Dynamics.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-61Aerospace-
DynamicsSpring2003/LectureNotes/index.htm

[8] O'Hara, F. Handling criteria. Journal of Royal Aeronautical Society, 1967, Vol. 71, No.
676, pp. 271-291.

[9] Ship Stability. Kemp & Young. ISBN 0853090424

24
[10] Comstock, John (1967). Principles of Naval Architecture. New York: Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers. pp. 827. ISBN 670020738.

[11] Harland, John (1984). Seamanship in the age of sail. London: Conway Maritime Press.
pp. 43. ISBN 0851771793.

[12] U.S. Coast Guard Technical computer program support accessed 20 December 2006.

[13] Lewis, Edward V. Principles of Naval Architecture (Second Revision), Volume I -

Stability and Strength. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME).

[14] Engine Manufacturers, HELICOPTER ANNUAL 2009, P 57-63.

[15] Rawson K.J. and Tupper E.C., Basic Ship Theory Fifth Edition, Reprinted, 2002.

[16] Derret D.R., Ship Stability for Masters and Mates Fourth Edition,
Butterworth-heinemann Ltd, 1990.

Material Selection

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre-reinforced_plastic

[2] http://www.unitedcomposites.net/engelsepaginas/fireretardantcomposites.htm

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-fiber_reinforced_plastic

Cost Analysis

[1] http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/airframe.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Antonio Filippone, University of Manchester
Flight Performance of Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft
2006 AIAA Education Series

2. Richard Bielawa, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

Rotary Wing Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, Second Edition
2006 AIAA Education Series

3. ALBERS, JAMES A., NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

NASA rotorcraft technology for the 21st century
AHS, and ASEE, Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Conference, Seattle, WA, July
31-Aug 2, 1989. 23 p.

4. Donald Kunz, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

Comprehensive Rotorcraft Analysis: Past, Present, and Future
46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference , Austin, Texas, Apr. 18-21, 2005

25
5. Peretz Friedmann , University of Michigan
Rotary-Wing Aeroelasticity: Current Status and Future Trends
Journal of Aircraft 1977 0021-8669 vol.14 no.11 (1027-1041)

6. FRIEDMANN, PERETZ P., California, University, Los Angeles

Rotary-wing aeroelasticity with application to VTOL vehicles
IN: AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference, 31st, Long Beach, CA, Apr 2-4, 1990, Technical Papers. Part 3 (A90-29359
11-39). Washington, DC, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1990, p.
1624-1670.

7. LOWSON, M. V., Westland Helicopters, Ltd., Yeovil, Somerset, England; BALMFORD, D. E.

H., Westland Helicopters, Ltd., Yeovil, Somerset, England
Future advanced technology rotorcraft
In: Atlantic Aeronautical Conference, Williamsburg, Va., March 26-28, 1979, Technical
Papers. (A79-27351 10-05) New York, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., 1979, p. 146-157.

8. Caradonna, Francis X., U.S. Army, Aviation and Missile Command, Moffett Field, CA
Developments and challenges in rotorcraft aerodynamics
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 38th, Reno, NV, Jan. 10-13, 2000

9. WARD, JOHN F., Ward Associates, Easton, MD

The design challenge of applying tiltrotor technology to the civil mission
AHS, and ASEE, Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Conference, Seattle, WA, July
31-Aug 2, 1989. 12 p.

10. Reber, Ron R., Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Fort Worth, TX
Civil tiltrotor transportation for the 21st century
International Powered Lift Conference, Santa Clara, CA, Dec 1-3, 1993

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. MODELLING ACTION OF THE BLADES

It can be considered that the blade accelerates the oncoming flow. Or in other words,
the momentum for the air is increased by blade. From this point of view, we can model the
action of blade with momentum source in duct.

26
 Oncoming flow Jet

Momentum source

Fig. 1 Jet modeled by momentum source.

The duct geometry has two chords length for width. Implementing a momentum source
allows control of the added momentum distribution in the duct as opposed to the velocity
distribution. The total momentum flow is approximated by integration of momentum flux
across the duct,
d /2
M   U
2
jet ds (1)
d / 2

Ujet is the time-average jet velocity at the jet exit, d is the duct width, and ds is a differential
distance across the jet exit. The momentum source distribution is calibrated to produce a
nearly uniform exit velocity profile. A User Defined Function (UDF) is used to apply the
momentum source to the correct cells in FLUENT.

APPENDIX B. STABILITY ANALYSIS

Flight conditions:

U=160 m/s cruise speed

g=9.81 N/kg

c=11.875 m mean chord

s= 95 m2 reference wing area ( body area, top view)

st=10.24 m2 area of tail

Q= 1.6074e+004 Pa dynamic pressure

m= 300,000 kg

Iy= 200,000 kg﹒m2

CD0=0.036
27
CL0=0.2083

Moment of inertia estimation:

I x  k x2b 2W

I y  0.96( I x  I z )

I z  k z2l 2W

k x , k z , Correlation coefficient. k x  0.1 , k z =0.21. b,width of craft body, l, length of craft

body, W, weight.

Longitudinal derivatives:

M w  Cm Qsc / U

1 st
Mq    t Qsc 2 / U , st , area of tail, t , tail lift curve slope.
2 s

Z wU
n  
g

 (CL  2CD )Qs

Zw 
mU

APPENDIX C. LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS

Table 1 Definitions for forces and moments

Perturbation Moment
Mean Perturbation Rotation Angular
Axis of Moment
force velocity velocity angle velocity inertia

x X U u  p Ix L

y Y V v  q Iy M

z Z W w  r Iz N

28
Taking the X force for example:

X  X uu  X vv  X w w  X p p  X q q  X r r (2)

There is no yaw/roll motion. The longitudinal equations of the craft can be written as:

mu  X u u  X w w  X q q  mg

m( w  Uq)  Z u u  Z w w  Z w w  Z q q

I y q  M q q  M u u  M w w  M w w (3)

and, q   (4)

Noting that control commands are not specified.

Equations 3 and 4 can be written in state space form and can be written in matrix form as
follows:

Ax  Bx (5)

Where A is the mass matrix, B is the state matrix, x the state vector (namely (u,w,q,  )T).

Full equations[5,6]:

 Xu Xw 
 g 0 
u   m m u 
 w   Zu Zw Z q  mU   
0  w
    mZ m  Z w m  Z w     (6)
   w
  
   0 0 0 1
q  M M Z M w M w Z w M q M wU  q 
 u  w u  0  
 I y I ym Iy I ym IY I y 

There are two oscillating modes which are Short Period and Phugoid.

 Short Period-primarily  and  in the same phase. The u and q response is very small.
 Phugoid- primarily  and u, and  lags by about 90 degrees. The  and q response is
very small.

Coarse estimation can be done based on reference[7]:

For Short Period approximation,

Mq 1  UM w
 sp   sp 
2 UM w I y Iy

For the Phugoid approximation,

gZ u
2 ph ph   X u / m  ph
2

mU

Further insights,
29
 Us  2mg g
Zu  ( )( 2CL )  then  ph  2
2 U U

Us 1 CD
Note that: X U  ( )( 2CD )   UsCD and 2mg  U 2 sCL so  ph  ( )
2 2 CL

Results:

Short Period:  sp  0.692 sp  3.2347 rad/s

Phugoid:  ph  0.1221  ph  0.0867 rad/s

Eigenvalues are: -2.2384±2.3351i , -0.0106±0.0861i

Table 2 Level I requirements for MIL-F-8785C and MIL-STD-1797A

Phugoid damping requirements  ph  0.04

Short period damping ratio limits 0.35   sp  1.30

sp2
Short period undamped natural frequency 0.28   3.6
n

Note  sp : CAP (Control Anticipation Factor)

2

n

APPENDIX D. ON-WATER STABILITY ANALYSIS

G, center of gravity

B, center of buoyancy

M, metacenter

K, keel

 = Angle of Heel

BM = Metacentric Radius

GM = Metacentric Height

GZ = Righting Lever measured from G

KB = Height of Center of Buoyancy from keel

30
KG = Height of Center of Gravity from keel

KM = Height of Metacenter from keel

Density for ocean surface water: 1026kg/m3

Density for water: 1000 kg/m3

It is nearly the same. So, we use 1000 kg/m3

1
I LB 3 , 2nd moment of the free surface about the centre line
12

W
V , Volume of the Tank [m3]
 water

I
BM 
V

KM=KB+BM

KM=KG+GM

GZ  GM sin  (0 -10 degrees)

From the configuration of the body, we have KB=0.16 m, KG=1.0 m.

Then, GM= 16.2 m

31