The present application relates generally to rotary aircraft, and more particularly, to tail booms for helicopters.
Conventional helicopters typically include one or more main rotors situated above a fuselage and an engine disposed within the fuselage for rotating the main rotor. During operation, the engine exerts a torque on the fuselage, which causes the fuselage to rotate in a direction opposite to that of the main rotor. Fuselage torque is highest during high power operation, namely, during very low or very high speed flight.
During operation at low forward speeds, downwash is at its maximum, thus requiring greater torque control to counteract the fuselage torque. Tail rotors are effective anti-torque devices for controlling fuselage torque during takeoff, landing, and during low forward speed flight.
Some conventional helicopters include strakes, fins, and/or other suitable devices for controlling the fuselage torque. During high speed flight, the torque control can be provided by aerodynamic surfaces, such as fins. However, during low flight speed flight, these surfaces are ineffective.
Other helicopters include circulation control tail booms comprising one or more inner ducts disposed within the tail boom for channeling exhaust and/or other types of engine-driven fluid through the tail boom. The channeled fluid exits the tail boom through one or more exit ports in a lateral direction relative to the tail boom. The circulation tail boom provides sufficient anti-torque to completely eliminate the need for a tail rotor; however, the tail boom significantly increase the overall weight of the helicopter, thereby increasing the power consumption and rendering the design ineffective in most applications.
Although the foregoing developments represent great strides in the area of anti-torque devices for a helicopter, many shortcomings remain.
The novel features believed characteristic of the application are set forth in the appended claims. However, the application itself, as well as a preferred mode of use, and further objectives and advantages thereof, will best be understood with reference to the following detailed description when read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
While the tail boom of the present application is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof have been shown by way of example in the drawings and are herein described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the description herein of specific embodiments is not intended to limit the invention to the particular embodiment disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the process of the present application as defined by the appended claims.
The tail boom of the present application overcomes common disadvantages associated with conventional anti-torque devices for rotary aircraft. Specifically, the tail boom is a light and effective means for providing a lateral force to counteract the fuselage torque. These features are achieved by providing a tail boom shaped similar to an airfoil, wherein a first side surface acts as a pressure surface of an airfoil, thereby creating a high-pressure region near the surface, and wherein a second side surface acts as a suction surface of an airfoil, thereby creating a low-pressure region near the surface. The pressure difference between the two pressure regions causes the tail boom to move in the direction towards the low-pressure region, which in turn, rotates the tail boom in a lateral direction opposing the fuselage torque.
The tail boom of the present application will be understood, both as to its structure and operation, from the accompanying drawings, taken in conjunction with the accompanying description. Several embodiments of the tail boom are presented herein. It should be understood that various components, parts, and features of the different embodiments may be combined together and/or interchanged with one another, all of which are within the scope of the present application, even though not all variations and particular embodiments may be specifically illustrated in each figure.
It should be understood that the preferred embodiment of the tail boom is operably associated with a helicopter. However, the tail boom is readily and easily adaptable for operation with other types of rotary aircraft.
Referring now to
Tail boom 301 preferably comprises a first side surface 309, an opposing second side surface 311, a top surface 313, and a bottom surface 315 (bottom surface 315 is shown in
The tail boom of the present application provides significant advantages over conventional anti-torque devices. In particular, the tail boom is capable of providing the necessary force to counteract the fuselage torque merely by the contoured shape of side surface 309 and side surface 311. During operation, downward rotorwash creates a high-pressure region near side surface 309 and a low-pressure region near side surface 311, resulting in tail boom 301 moving towards the low-pressure region, in a direction opposing the fuselage torque. Tail boom 301 can either supplement an additional anti-torque device, i.e., a tail rotor, or be adapted to provide sufficient anti-torque to completely eliminate the need for the additional anti-torque device. Another significant advantage is the low-profiled contoured surfaces of tail boom 301, which decrease the slipstream separation as rotorwash travels around boom 301. The reduced slipstream separation results in less power consumption and increased payload lift.
Referring now to
In the preferred embodiment, tail boom 301 is further provided with an anti-torque system 319. In this embodiment, anti-torque system 319 is a conventional tail rotor adapted to create a force opposing the fuselage torque. It should be appreciated that alternative embodiments could include different types of anti-torque devices in lieu of a tail rotor. For example, an alternative embodiment could include a strake, fin, circulation system, or other suitable anti-torque system operably associated with tail boom 301. In addition, it should be appreciated that alternative embodiments could include a tail boom 301 devoid of an anti-torque system (see
Tail boom 301 is further provided with an optional flow control device 401 adapted to control the flow of rotorwash flowing over side surface 309. It should be understood that although control device 401 is shown attached to side surface 309, control device 401 can be attached to any surface of tail rotor 301. In the preferred embodiment, control device 401 passively controls flow direction and/or flow separation over side surface 309 with a plurality of fins; however, it should be appreciated that alternative embodiments could include a control device that actively controls flow direction and/or flow separation over surface 309. Alternative embodiments could also include dimples, grooves, or other surface treatments on the contoured surfaces of tail boom 301 for passively controlling the flow direction and/or flow separation over the side surface 309 and side surface 311.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Tail boom 301 greatly reduces the requirement for larger tail rotors, thereby decreasing the additional drag and power penalties in hover and at high speed.
It is evident by the foregoing description that the contoured tail boom has significant benefits and advantages over conventional anti-torque devices. For example, rotorwash flowing around the contoured surfaces of the tail boom produces low- and high-pressure regions, which in turn, causes the tail boom to move in the lateral direction opposing the fuselage torque. The tail boom can be adapted for use with an existing anti-torque device, i.e., a tail rotor, or can be utilized as the sole means for counteracting the fuselage torque. In either embodiment, the tail boom greatly reduces the aerodynamic drag during flight and reduces overall weight of the helicopter, resulting in a more efficient helicopter requiring less power consumption and resulting in a helicopter capable of carrying a heavier payload. Furthermore, the tail boom can be adapted with a flap for controlling the lateral force magnitude.
The particular embodiments disclosed above are illustrative only, as the tail boom may be modified and practiced in different but equivalent manners apparent to those skilled in the art having the benefit of the teachings herein. It is therefore evident that the particular embodiments disclosed above may be altered or modified, and all such variations are considered within the scope and spirit of the tail boom. Accordingly, the protection sought herein is as set forth in the description. It is apparent that a tail boom with significant advantages has been described and illustrated. Although the present tail boom is shown in a limited number of forms, it is not limited to just these forms, but is amenable to various changes and modifications without departing from the spirit thereof.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2010/049506 | 9/20/2010 | WO | 00 | 12/12/2012 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/039702 | 3/29/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4462559 | Garza | Jul 1984 | A |
4928907 | Zuck | May 1990 | A |
5209430 | Wilson et al. | May 1993 | A |
6352220 | Banks et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6416015 | Carson | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6666654 | Olhofer et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6755374 | Carson | Jun 2004 | B1 |
20030170125 | Olhofer et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20090189011 | Bahadir | Jul 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
501014 | Feb 1939 | GB |
2320477 | Jun 1998 | GB |
Entry |
---|
International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Feb. 1, 2013 from counterpart International App. No. PCT/US10/49506. |
European Search Report dated Aug. 7, 2013 from counterpart EP App. No. 10857600.0. |
European Communication dated Jul. 5, 2013 from counterpart EP App. No. 10857600.0. |
NASA Technical Paper 2506, “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Several Current Helicopter Tail Boom Cross Sections Including the Effects of Spoilers,” dated 1986, John C. Wilson. |
Nasa Technical Paper 3233, “Two-Dimensional Aerodynamic Characteristics of Several Polygon-Shaped Cross-Sectional Models Applicable to Helicopter Fuselages,” dated Aug. 1992, Henry L. Kelly. |
Office Action dated Apr. 3, 2014 from counterpart CA App. No. 2808329. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130087653 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |