Rotor Airfoils

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,994
Location
Florida
Here's an article I wrote for the PRA magazine ~ 15 years ago:

Rotor Airfoils


“As an inviscid and incompressible fluid flows, the total head remains unchanged,” so said Bernoulli in adapting the conservation of energy law to fluid flow. That means, in plain English, that without friction, energy of a fluid stream is conserved. But poor Bernoulli gets mangled by the aviators.

The end purpose of all airfoils is to change the direction, or more explicitly, the momentum of a moving airmass with a minimum of friction loss.

Momentum is the product of mass and velocity; it is a vector quantity, meaning that it has direction. To an airplane, the airstream has horizontal momentum and to produce the reaction we call lift, some of the oncoming airmass must be given a downward momentum. Lift is the same kind of phenomenon as the recoil of a shotgun.

In the beginning


Kites and windmills date back into antiquity. It seems not unlikely that the Chinese had man-carrying kites. But it’s only been during the past century or so that we’ve gradually acquired a quantitative understanding of how such things work.

Sir Isaac Newton appears to have been among the first to have attempted a scientific analysis of a flying machine but his assumptions were wrong. He assumed that only the air intercepted by the lifting surface resulting from its angle of attack (tangent of angle of attack times chord) would be given a downward momentum. He failed to appreciate that at subsonic speed, air is an incompressible fluid* that behaves similarly to water. The air far above and far below the lifting surface is also affected. Newton’s wings would have been impossibly large for any practical application. *Air is incompressible in the context of subsonic flow over airfoils. I have heard of air compressors.

The early aviation experimenters began with flat plate wings but soon realized that curvature improved efficiency; influenced most likely by the observation of birds’ wings.

The Wright Brothers built their own wind tunnel and systematically explored many airfoil shapes but were mislead by being unaware of the effect of scale. Big wings behave very differently than little wings at the same airspeed.

We allow for the effect of scale by applying a factor called the Reynolds¹ number; the chord in feet multiplied by the velocity in fps multiplied by 6378 for standard sea level air density. Rotorblade tips operate at a Reynolds number in the range of 1 to 2 million.

The Wright Brothers were conducting their research at very low Reynolds numbers where flow is always laminar and thin airfoils perform better than thick airfoils. Folded paper airplanes wouldn’t fly as well with thick wings.

Later developments

As governments and universities began taking an interest in aeronautics and came online with wind tunnels that eventually operated at more realistic Reynolds numbers, it was discovered that thicker is better, at least up to a thickness of about 12%. A 12% thick airfoil gives the best ratio of maximum lift divided by minimum drag. Many airplanes have wings thicker than 12% but this is for structural rather than aerodynamic reasons.

The early government and university wind tunnels were initially stuck in the same low Reynolds number realm as the Wright Brothers. To achieve full scale Reynolds numbers either very large airfoil sections must be tested or small scale sections must be tested at very high airspeed, neither an attractive option. The NACA² solved this dilemma by developing pressurized wind tunnels that could be operated at pressures of 25 atmospheres or more. Reynolds number increases directly with air density.

The NACA also brought order to the chaos that resulted from everyone jumping on the airfoil bandwagon. Laboratories in Germany, France, Italy, the UK, the US and elsewhere tested a multitude of airfoils that were assigned numbers that had no meaning other than being a sequence number.

The NACA took several of the better airfoils of the time, such as the Clark Y and the Göttingen 398 and discovered that when the camber was removed and they were scaled to the same thickness, all were essentially identical³. See Fig. 1.

The resulting basic section is the NACA 0012 which can be defined mathematically and can easily be scaled to any thickness by changing the constants in an equation. The effects of thickness and camber were thus separated and a systematic cataloging system could be applied; sort of a Dewey Decimal System for airfoils.

The first integer indicates the maximum camber of the mean line in percent of chord and the second the location of maximum camber from the leading edge in tenths of chord. The last two integers indicate the thickness in percent of chord. The meanlines used with NACA 4 digit airfoils are also mathematically defined.

Thus the NACA 4412, an excellent airfoil for fixed wing aircraft, having very high maximum lift combined with benign stall behavior, has a maximum camber of 4% of chord located at 4 tenths of chord from the leading edge. Thickness is obviously 12% of chord. Refer to figure 2.

Rotating wings

Rotor blades, unlike fixed wings and propeller blades are long and thin and are by nature, torsionally flexible. Highly cambered airfoils that work well for propeller blades would be disastrous if used for a rotor.

Referring to the 44 meanline of Fig. 2, the shape resembles a venetian blind slat. It would try to twist nose down when moving through the air at high speed, having a high negative pitching moment coefficient of nearly –0.1.

From the published airfoil coefficients the twisting force can be calculated:

Moment = (p*V²/2)*Area*Chord*Moment coefficient

P =air density, .0023 at sea level
V = velocity, fps

The result will be ft-lb. of twisting moment.

Blades of 7inch chord using an NACA 4412 airfoil would have a nose down moment on almost 33 ft-lb. if the tip speed was 400 fps on a 23-ft. diameter rotor. At high speed such a machine would most likely enter an unrecoverable dive, depending upon the torsional flexibility of the blades.

An NACA 4412 airfoil could be used for rotorblades if the trailing edge was given a reflex; i.e., an upswept trailing edge that serves the same purpose as an up elevator. Considerable reflex is necessary, reducing maximum lift and increasing drag, negating the advantage of high camber. Figure 3 shows a 4412 reflexed for zero pitching moment coefficient. Flying wings also require airfoils with zero pitching moment coefficients.

The shape of the meanline determines the pitching characteristic and angle of zero lift of an airfoil as well as having considerable influence on the nature of its stall.

Aerodynamic center


The aerodynamic center of an airfoil, the point where all aerodynamic force can be considered to act is at or near ¼ chord from the leading edge for most airfoils. For a rotorblade, which is subjected to rapidly varying aerodynamic force, the load can be thought of as striking the airfoil at its ¼ point with a rubber sledgehammer. Refer to Fig. 4.

If the rotorblade is tail heavy, that is if the CG is aft of the ¼ chord point, the blade coming into the wind is subjected to a nose up impulse which tends to become self sustaining; the more it twists nose up, the heavier the aerodynamic blow. If sufficiently tail heavy, the blade will flutter. If not sufficiently tail heavy for flutter to occur, the rotor will simply be unstable Vs. angle of attack. An upward gust will cause the rotor to increase its angle of attack, described by pilots flying such rotors as “ballooning.”

Conversely, overbalancing a blade so as to locate its CG ahead of the ¼ chord point can enhance the stability of a rotor. Excessive overbalance of a torsionally flexible blade can produce a rotor so stable that it won’t respond to anything, including cyclic control input. But it’s nearly impossible to grossly overbalance a rotor with internal weights; external nose weights would be required.

Cierva’s rotorblades

The very earliest phase of Autogiro development involved about as much art as science. Cierva had to play it by ear as he developed the science.

The first Autogiro to fly employed an Eiffel 106 airfoil that was apparently a symmetrical section that I’ve been unable to locate in a brief Internet search.

Next was a Göttingen 430, a highly cambered airfoil with a strong negative pitching characteristic that was believed to have caused one machine to have shed a blade as a result of the periodic twisting of the spar.

After that, Cierva standardized on the Gö 429 airfoil for several years. The 429 is a nearly symmetrical airfoil with performance about equal to an NACA 0012. The Gö 429 and 430 are shown in Fig 5.

After that, around 1930, the RAF 34 airfoil was tried. The RAF 34 is a mildly cambered, reflexed airfoil that appears to have been developed specifically for use as a rotorcraft airfoil. It looks pretty good on a computer airfoil analysis program but apparently didn’t suit Cierva. See figure 6.

With the introduction of the direct control C-30, Cierva switched to a Gö-606 airfoil as did Pitcairn and Kellett in the US. I’ve not been able to locate a drawing of the Gö-606 but have seen it on a couple of examples of C-30s. It is a mildly cambered airfoil, somewhat resembling an RAF-34 but without trailing edge reflex. It has a bit of negative pitching moment coefficient and at least one C-30 was lost in a high speed dive where it was possible to run out of rearward stick travel. The periodic twisting of airfoils with negative pitching moment coefficient amounts, in effect, to a built in swashplate that tilts the rotor disc nosedown.

Airfoils with nosedown pitching characteristics can also lead to unstable stick position gradient vs. airspeed. With correctly designed airfoils, the stick position will move forward as airspeed increases.

The problem of negative moment coefficient was addressed by fitting upturned TE trim tabs that extended over the outer 1/3 of the blade radius on the Kellett KD-1s and later models of the C-30.

The very last Autogiros, produced just before WWII halted production, utilized the NACA 23012 airfoil. See Fig. 7.

The 23012 employs the 0012 thickness distribution combined with a meanline very different from that of the 4 digit series.

Testing by the NACA of the 4 digit series of airfoils showed that maximum lift was increased as the location of maximum camber was shifted either ahead of or aft of mid chord. Rearward location of maximum camber isn’t of much interest because of the large increase of pitching moment coefficient. A location of maximum camber near the leading edge (a droop nose) produces a large increase of maximum lift with a minimal effect on pitching moment coefficient.

To exploit the advantages of forward camber location, the NACA adopted a 5 digit designation system to supplement the 4 digit family. The thickness distribution is the same but a new series of meanlines was developed; the 210, 220, 230, 240, etc. meanlines.

The first integer indicates the design lift coefficient as 3/2 of design lift expressed as tenths, i.e., if the first integer is 2, the design lift coefficient is 0.3. Clever, no? The second two integers together indicate the location of maximum camber from the leading edge as twice its actual location expressed as a percentage. Thus, the 210 meanline has maximum camber located at 5% of chord from the leading edge; the 230 meanline has maximum camber at 15% of chord and so on. The meanline of these airfoils is a straight line from just aft of maximum camber to the trailing edge.

The 23012 is an excellent rotor airfoil for gyros, having high maximum lift and low drag. It has a negative pitching moment coefficient of
–0.014, so slight that in most cases it can be ignored. But hand starting would be difficult due to the abrupt stall characteristic.

The Bensen Era


Bensen began with plywood blades of NACA 0012 airfoil section but hand starting was difficult and he wanted an airfoil with flat surfaces to simplify construction for homebuilders. He evolved what he called the Bensen G-2 airfoil to address both problems.

The Bensen G-2 rotorblades had a meanline resembling the NACA 240 or 250 series and used flat plywood skins aft of the ¼ chord point or so. The trailing edge was reflexed by beveling the lower skin, however, the reflex was in excess of the amount required for zero moment coefficient but served the intended purpose well.

Excess reflex of plywood blades makes hand starting a snap. Mount the blades to the hub with very low incidence and as the rotor comes up to speed, the blades automatically twist nose up to the proper flying pitch. Excess reflex also tends to limit top speed; the flapping angle increases at a rate that will cause the cyclic stick to reach its forward stop at slightly more than 60 mph.

The two gyroplanes that were certificated during the Bensen Era, the A&S 18-A and the McCulloch J-2 both used symmetrical airfoil rotorblades; the 18-A used NACA 0012s and the J-2 used NACA 0015s. Probably the main reason for using symmetrical rotorblades was availability but in the case of the 18-A at least, the 0012 isn’t a bad airfoil. The 0015 is a bit draggy but I and many others in Florida flew military surplus (runouts) Hughes-269 (TH-55) and Hughes OH-6 NACA-0015 blades for hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours. They were at least as good as the contemporary metal rotorblades but hand starting wasn’t an option.

Bensen eventually switched over to metal blades using an airfoil patterned after the NACA 8H12. The H stands for helicopter and they’re 12% thick. See Fig. 7.

The NACA began investigating laminar airfoils in about 1940, possible only after wind tunnels of extremely low turbulence levels had been developed. It’s not just bugs that upset laminar flow but airstream turbulence as well. Laminar airfoils have a sharper nose than standard airfoils and maximum thickness is located farther aft.

The 8H12 was developed with the hope of improving the performance of early helicopters but it was a failure. The 0012 develops higher lift before stall, has no more real world drag and is easier to fabricate.

But the 8H12 is adequate for gyros, especially if hand starting is a requirement. The stall is fairly benign; gradual rather than abrupt. The nature of stall of a rotorblade airfoil determines whether or not it can be hand started but is not a safety issue; the inner portions of the retreating blade are always stalled with the stall spreading outward as the airspeed increases. The NACA conducted photographic studies of stall on the retreating blade of a Kellett KD-1 Autogiro with airspeed sufficient to stall as much as 60% of the blade.

Bensen modified the 8H12 by flattening the lower surface. The Bensen lower skin is 0.05” thick and serves as a redundant load path.

The thing that degraded performance of Bensen metal blades the most was the use segmented skins on the upper surface. Flapwise flexibility of rotorblades is desirable as it reduces stress and provides a smoother ride but the gaps between skin segments ought to be sealed. Otherwise, a rotor blade becomes a centrifugal pump and can consume several HP needlessly pumping air.

¹)Osborne Reynolds, 1842-1912. British physicist, mathematician and pioneer in the field of fluid mechanics.

²)National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Established by Congress in 1915 and superceded by NASA in 1958.

³)There is a wealth of airfoil data on the University of Illinois website: http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
 

Attachments

  • Fig 1.jpg
    Fig 1.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 12
  • fig 2.jpg
    fig 2.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 11
  • fig 3.jpg
    fig 3.jpg
    8.8 KB · Views: 6
  • fig 4.jpg
    fig 4.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 7
  • Fig. 5.jpg
    Fig. 5.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 7
  • fig 6.jpg
    fig 6.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 10
  • fig 7 .jpg
    fig 7 .jpg
    9.1 KB · Views: 9
  • fig 8.jpg
    fig 8.jpg
    6.1 KB · Views: 12

Stan V

Active Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
1,271
Location
Monticello, GA
Aircraft
Piper Arrow/RAF2000
Total Flight Time
450
What a wealth of information. I've had to read and reread your article several times. There is a lot to take in. Thank You so much Chuck.
 

XXavier

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
1,320
Location
Madrid, Spain
Aircraft
ELA R-100 and Magni M24 autogyros
Total Flight Time
673 gyro (Jan. 2021)
Thanks a lot!!!
Very instructive... Not a surprise, coming from CB...
 

thomasant

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,192
Location
Texas
Aircraft
AR1, Aviomania Genesis Sport
Thank you Chuck,

Great article. Explains my questions that I had in another thread.
 

All_In

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
15,537
Location
San Diego, CA. USA
Aircraft
Piper Archer, Aviomania G1sb
Total Flight Time
Not sure over 10,000+ logged FW, 260+ ultralights, sailplane, hang-gliders
U-Rock Chuck!!!
Thank you for teaching us so much!
 

Arnie Madsen

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
4,352
Location
Southport Aerospace - Manitoba Canada
Aircraft
Bell 47 G2
.
Thanks C Beaty

In 1979 I had a hunger for rotor blade knowledge (wanted to build a set) (helicopter) ... no internet back then , no resources available to me , so I tried The Winnipeg City Library and they had one reference

Turned out to be the best , published by NACA (USA) , it was a hard cover green binder , the pages were 12" by 20" , with high quality gloss paper with drawings to exact scale of every blade they knew about and tested.

At that time the Winnipeg Library had a state of the art photocopier that could do up to 20" copies on gloss paper by some kind of heat method ... (burn copies ? ) .... all I remember is going to the bank and getting several rolls of dimes , breaking them open into a coffee cup like a rabid gambler in a casino , and I fed dimes into that machine cooking out copy after copy .... not to mention my sweat , that book weighed about 15 pounds and I had to lift it and flip the page for every copy.

Time I was done I was surrounded by all the library nerds who watched me print out my steaming pile of copies. They were curious about my enthusiasm until I mentioned the word helicopter , they all rolled their eyes and returned to their artsy fartsy stuff.

I still have some of those rotor blade scale drawings but guess what , my scanners are only 10" X 12" and cannot reproduce 1979 photocopies

Which just goes to prove that everything worthwhile was invented between 1900 and 1949 with slight gusts into the 1970's

Thanks for your recent airfoil drawings Chuck ... I still love this stuff .... if men were allowed to marry rotor blades I probably would ... haaaa
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,994
Location
Florida
Thanks all, and you too Arnie.

And as you know, Arnie, the rotor system is the heart and soul of all rotary wing flying machines. A pretty fuselage is nice but it must inevitably play second fiddle to the rotor.
 

kolibri282

Super Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
3,457
Location
Duesseldorf
What a wealth of information, Chuck, great write-up, thanks for posting! I would really like to see it in the "Technical Papers, Books and Publications" section. Care to repost it there, or would you rather want me to open a thread there with a link to your post?

Cheers,

Juergen
 

JAL

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Perth
Aircraft
MT03sport/C172
Total Flight Time
250
Thanks Chuck great stuff!

Does the airfoil such as the NACA 4412 worked example you used have a strong nose down moment when used on a fixed wing but the wing can be built a lot more rigid to negate the moment? or is the strength of the pitching moment a function of the chord length, IOW does the pitching moment increase as the chord length is reduced, so that a rotor blade length chord produces a much greater twisting moment then an aeroplane wing chord even though the airfoil shape is the same.
 

Ben Harrison

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
76
Location
FL
Thanks all, and you too Arnie.

And as you know, Arnie, the rotor system is the heart and soul of all rotary wing flying machines. A pretty fuselage is nice but it must inevitably play second fiddle to the rotor.

Chuck, you really have a way of putting things into perspective
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,994
Location
Florida
Jordan,

Light airplanes with fabric covered wings required “V” wing struts to keep the wings from twisting.

With metal skinned wings, only a single lift strut was required since the metal skins provided sufficient torsional stiffness.

Compare a Cessna 140 to a Cessna 150.
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,994
Location
Florida
What a wealth of information, Chuck, great write-up, thanks for posting! I would really like to see it in the "Technical Papers, Books and Publications" section. Care to repost it there, or would you rather want me to open a thread there with a link to your post?

Cheers,

Juergen
Thanks Juergen. I finally got around to posting it in the Technical Papers section.
 

Jean Claude

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
2,154
Location
Centre FRANCE
Aircraft
I piloted gliders C800, Bijave, C 310, airplanes Piper J3 , PA 28, Jodel D117, DR 220, Cessna 150, C
Total Flight Time
About 500 h (FW + ultra light)
But hand starting would be difficult due to the abrupt stall characteristic...
The nature of stall of a rotorblade airfoil determines whether or not it can be hand started.
Chuck,
I not understand the direct relation in your thesis.
Juergen suggested the interesting idea of sensitivity to low Reynolds. Maybe we can add the unfamiliar characteristics due to the unsteady flow?
Not clear to me.

Anyway, great message, Chuck. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,994
Location
Florida
Flat stall is my best guess based on experience, JC.

An 0012 is impossible to hand start with normal incidence angle. At stall, its lift drops abruptly so drag becomes a brake on the retreating blade.

An airfoil with considerable camber has a flat stall without an abrupt loss of lift so it provides some propelling force while stalled. Uncontrolled flapping is also delayed because there is not a total loss of lift during initial stall.
**************
Not directly related to your question, JC but interesting non-the-less:

A friend, Lloyd Poston, had a gyro powered by a Lycoming engine and equipped with Hughes helicopter blades of NACA 0015 profile when the prerotator broke.

There was a strong breeze and try as we might; 2 people trying to hand start the blades and it was flap, flap, flap.

We then turned the gyro around so tail was into the wind and with the stick on the rear stop so that the wind blew through the top of the rotor, it started up rather quickly.
 
Last edited:

Jean Claude

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
2,154
Location
Centre FRANCE
Aircraft
I piloted gliders C800, Bijave, C 310, airplanes Piper J3 , PA 28, Jodel D117, DR 220, Cessna 150, C
Total Flight Time
About 500 h (FW + ultra light)
I understand your reasoning, Chuck. However you and I know that even if the local stall is sudden, relatively to profile A.o.A, its extent is progressive in span on the retreating blade. Thus, only the general pitch setting is influential. (And this also explains your story with Lloyd Poston)

We should be compare between profiles without dynamic torsion, and having the same pitch setting (ie giving the same rpm in flight)
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,994
Location
Florida
Yes, JC, it would be interesting to compare untwisted blades with symmetrical airfoil against 8H12 blades of the same chord and tip speed.

Unfortunately the 0015 blades commonly available from Hughes helicopters have 8º of twist and for use on a gyro, must be inverted and rotated in reverse direction.

Pete Johnson has modified Hughes helicopter blades by sawing off the tip weights and moving the attachment fittings to the original tip end in order to maintain the same direction of rotation along with correct twist for a gyro.

The rotor blades for the McCulloch J2 gyroplane appear to be identical to the Hughes 269 helicopter but without twist. Unfortunately, they’re not readily available for tinkering on a gyro.
 

Gyro_Kai

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
3,244
Location
near Frankfurt, Germany
Aircraft
MT-03, Calidus (rent)
Total Flight Time
about 150
Excellent information, thank you very much Chuck and the other contributers. We need more of this,

Kai.
 

okikuma

Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
2,014
Location
Santa Clarita, CA
Chuck,

You successfully condense and concisely explained in several minutes worth of reading what would take me an hour to verbally say to my non-rotorcraft inclined aviation friends. For now on, I'll just hand them a copy of your paper!

I've been recently asked to give a presentation on the Theory of Autoratative Flight along with the history of autogyros to gyroplanes. With your permission, I would like to use your article as the foundation to my presentation.

Thanks Chuck!

Wayne
 
Top