Effects of V-22 Blade Modifications on Whirl Flutter and Loads

C. W. Acree, Jr.
Aerospace Engineer
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California

A CAMRAD I1 model of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor was constructed for the purpose of analyzing the effects of
blade design changes on whirl flutter. The model incorporated a dual load-path grip/yoke assembly, a
swashplate coupled to the transmission case, and a drive train. A multiple-trailer free wake was used for
loads calculations. The effects of rotor design changes on whirl-mode stability were calculated for swept
blades and offset tip masses. A rotor with swept tips and inboard tuning masses was examined in detail to
reveal the mechanisms by which these design changes affect stability and loads. Certain combinations of
design features greatly increased whirl-mode stability, with (at worst) moderate increases to ioads.

Nomenclature Improving proprotor whirl-mode stability margins is an

ongoing research activity at NASA Ames Research Center.
CP rotor power coefficient
Previous publications presented results for the XV-15 (Ref.
CT rotor thrust coefficient
5), and initial results for the V-22 (Ref. 6). The present paper
4 i p tip Mach number
includes results for an updated V-22 CAMRAD 11 model
r radial station
with a multiple-trailer free wake (Ref. 7) and other
radial station at start of sweep
‘5
improvements, applied to rotors with swept tips and
R rotor radius
chordwise tip-mass offsets.
xrn tip mass offset, positive forward
A sweep angle, positive aft This paper begins with a discussion of the V-22
(33 kinematic pitch-flap coupling angle CAMRAD I1 model, followed by whirl-flutter predictions
for the baseline V-22 rotor. Then follow discussions of rotor
ABT afterbody torsion design modifications, including (3, variations (to deliberately
APY antisymmetric pylon yaw destabilize the baseline rotor) and idealized models of swept
AWB antisymmetric wing beamwise bending blades and tip-mass offsets. The most practical combination
AWC antisymmetric wing chordwise bending of design changes-swept tips with an inboard tuning
AWT antisymmetric wing torsion mass-is examined in some detail for stability, and briefly
for loads.
SPY symmetric pylon yaw
This paper also examines the mechanisms by which sweep
SWB symmetric wing beamwise bending
and tip mass offsets affect whirl flutter. The paper concludes
SWC symmetric wing chordwise bending
with suggestions for further research and associated model
SWT symmetric wing torsion
improvements.
hPP half peak-to-peak
V-22 CAMRAD I1 Model
Introduction
The V-22 rotor is stiff in-plane with a gimbaled hub and
Tiltrotor designs are constrained by aeroelastic stability -15 deg pitch-flap coupling (a3). The structure is mostly
requirements, specifically by the need to avoid whirl flutter. composite, with a coning flexure and blade-fold hinges. The
With current technology, this requires very stiff, thick wings aerodynamic sections start with a 36-in chord at 5% radius,
of limited aspect ratio, which limits cruise efficiency and linearly tapering to a 22-in chord at the tip. The taper is
maximum speed. The rotor design is also constrained in such interrupted by a bump over the blade-fold hinge. Total
areas as control-system kinematics. Numerous approaches to effective blade twist is 47.5 deg over a 228.5-in radius. The
improving the whirl-mode airspeed boundary have been quarter-chord locus is swept about 1 deg aft, with the
investigated, including active stability augmentation (Ref. I ) quarter-chord line intersecting the pitch axis at 75% radius.
and aeroelastic tailoring of wings and rotors (Refs. 2-4). The
The V-22 tiltrotor was modeled with CAMRAD I1 Release
research reported here applies the purely passive approaches
4.1 (Ref. 8). Considerable effort went into modeling the
of sweeping the outboard blade sections and moving tip
V-22 yoke and grip (Fig. 1). The V-22 hub comprises three
balance weights forward.
composite arms, or yokes, connected to the shaft by a
constant-velocity joint. The yokes gimbal as a unit, but do
not pitch with the blades. Centrifugal loads and flap and lag 2. Rotor aerodynamic data, in the form of C81 tables, also
moments are carried by the yokes. Pitching moments, hence provided by Bell Helicopter. The C81 tables are based on
control loads, for each blade are carried by a hollow pitch wind-tunnel test data of the rotor airfoils (Ref. 10).
case (“grip”) that surrounds the yoke and pitches with the
3. Airframe geometry, converted from an earlier
blade. The blades are attached to the outer ends of the grips.
CAMRAD/JA model developed by Boeing Helicopters.

CF bearina
Pitch bearing ,
,
P 4. Airframe modal data, generated by MSUNASTRAN
SuperElement models of the V-22, provided by Bell
Helicopter (Ref. 9; see also Ref. 11).

Pitch bearing
and fitting \
&
Grip (cutaway view) A Additional data (unpublished) were provided by David A.
Popelka and Jim C. Narramore of Bell Helicopter. The rotor
modeled is the Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(EMD) version.
Further details of the model are discussed in the following
paragraphs, which apply to whirl-flutter calculations. Loads

\\ \Lc
fl (cutaway view)
analyses use a free wake model and other features, which are
discussed in the Loads section of this paper.

\\ @
/h horn
Rotor model
The CAMRAD I1 model of the V-22 is documented in
detail in Ref. 12. A summary of key features follows.
The hub/yoke model has a rigid hub extending to the
inboard pitch bearing, and two elastic beam elements,
representing the yoke, between the bearings. The blade
model has four elastic beam elements, starting at the inboard
Fig. 1. V-22 rotor yoke and grip; pitching components
pitch bearing: the grip is modeled as a single element, and
are shaded.
the rest of the blade with three elements. The outermost
blade element spans the swept section.
Each yoke is much less stiff in flap than in lag, such that it
constitutes a coning flexure; the zero-load precone is 2.75 The blade model has 17 aerodynamic panels, each with
deg. The large lag stiffness places the first lag frequency collocation points at 1/4 and 3/4 chord. This is more panels
above l/rev for all flight conditions, so that the rotor is by than would normally be used for whirl-flutter calculations,
definition stiff in-plane. but a finer distribution is appropriate to capture the effects of
blade sweep. Uniform inflow is adequate for whirl-flutter
The grip is connected to the yoke by a series of
analyses and was used for all stability calculations.
elastomeric bearings that accommodate the large changes in
pitch needed between hover and high-speed flight. Two Release 4.1 of CAMRAD I1 provides multiple options for
pitch-change bearings at (approximately) the inboard and dual-load-path models. The option most appropriate for
outboard ends of the yoke accommodate blade pitch and modeling the V-22 grip/yoke assembly specifies the
transmit shear loads from the grip to the yoke. A separate flexbeam/blade connection (via the snubber) in flexbeam-
bearing restrains the blade against centrifugal loading. The oriented axes. Using this model, the blade frequencies were
elastomeric bearings allow a small amount of in-plane and matched to Myklestad predictions, adjusted for test data.
out-of-plane cocking of the grip with respect to the yoke, in
The blade-frequency data are for a non-rotating test of the
order to accommodate flexing of the yoke as the coning
entire V-22 rotor, with all three blades but without the
angle changes.
gimbal, drive train, or control system (Ref. 13). Therefore,
The V-22 CAMRAD I1 model is based on four sets of the root boundary conditions are considerably different than
data: those for the complete aircraft. Moreover, the test did not use
production blades. To provide better criteria for blade
1. Rotor structural data provided by Bell Helicopter
frequency comparisons, error ratios between Myklestad non-
Textron (Ref. 9), originally developed for Bell
rotating predictions and the test data were calculated, then
Helicopter’s Myklestad program.
the Myklestad rotating predictions were corrected by the
same ratios to generate new target frequencies. For example,
the lag mode at 6.79 HZ (Myklestad prediction) was
increased by 2.00% to get a target frequency of 6.93 Hz, and Trim and flutter models
the effective lag stiffness of the yoke was adjusted to match.
Except where noted, the model was trimmed to zero power
Control-system stiffness (windmill state). Zero power is typically the least stable
flight conditions for tiltrotors, and the drive train affects
CAMRAD I1 provides for separate collective and cyclic
certain boundary conditions for blade modes. The V-22 has a
non-rotating stiffnesses, referenced to the swashplate, plus a
flapping controller that minimizes flapping in flight; this was
rotating pitch-link stiffness. The complete kinematics of the
modeled in CAMRAD I1 simply by assuming axisymmetric,
swashplate, pitch link and pitch horn are modeled. However, axial flow and by trimming to zero power with collective.
CAMRAD I1 does not model any local nonlinearities in the
This automatically yielded zero flapping. A further
swashplate and actuator stiffnesses that may arise as the
simplification was to trim the rotor to zero power in level
actuators extend and retract. CAMRAD I1 computes the
flight and the airframe to zero angle of attack, which
collective and cyclic frequencies together, using the total
essentially ignored airframe aerodynamics. Given the
effective pitch stiffness as determined by the control-system
assumptions of axisymmetric flow and zero power, there
kinematics. The swashplate actuators are assumed to be
was little to be gained by explicitly trimming the airframe.
coupled to the transmission case, so that the swashplate
The automatic flight control system was not needed for trim
motion is determined by the airframe mode shapes at the
and was not modeled. The rotor was trimmed to 332 rpm at
transmission, not the hub (Ref. 6).
7500 ft (2300 m) altitude to match the Aeroelastic Stability
Figure 2 schematically illustrates the CAMRAD I1 Analysis of Proprotors (ASAP) predictions in Ref. 9.
control-system model. The swashplate is assumed to be
For trim,. blade deflections are calculated using nine
rigid, hilt can translate along the rotor shaft for cn!!ectivC
flexible degrees of freedom per element (the CAMRAD I1
inputs, and pivot for cyclic inputs. There is a cyclic spring,
default; see Ref. 8). Flutter calculations included a gimbal
as shown, plus a linear spring for collective. CAMRAD I1
for each rotor, nine airframe modes, and seven drive-train
can have separate lateral and longitudinal cyclic spring rates,
modes. The blade flutter model used 12 dynamic modes per
but these were made equal in the present V-22 model.
blade (the 12 lowest frequencies, up to 174 Hz, or 3l/rev
uncoupled). The airframe modes included wing beamwise
and chordwise bending, wing torsion, and pylon yaw,
(to other separated into symmetric and antisymmetric modes, and the
blades) afterbody torsion mode; the airframe frequencies ranged
Pitch-link from 2.9 to 8.6 Hz. The drive-train model included separate
stiffness rotor-, engine- and interconnect-shaft torsional flexibilities
plus rotor, engine, shaft and gearbox rotational inertias.

Baseline Predictions
(cyclic)
Figures 3-6 show the whirl-flutter predictions for the
Fig. 2. Control-system model with separate rotating- and baseline CAMRAD I1 model. Frequency and damping are
fued-system stiffnesses. plotted against airspeed for symmetric and antisymmetric
modes. These predictions are for level flight at zero power.
Airframe model Tracking the modes is problematic at high speeds because of
the strong modal couplings, including multiple frequency
To calculate aeroelastic stability, CAMRAD I1 couples crossings. Fortunately, the ambiguities are limited to high-
externally generated wing/pylon modes to an internally frequency modes that do not determine the flutter boundary;
generated dynamic rotor model (Ref. 8). The wing/pylon therefore, no significant effort was made to track and label
modes were generated by a three-dimensional NASTRAN the modes. Furthermore, damping predictions above 400
shell model (about 68,000 elements), with frequency knots are of limited accuracy because of limitations of the
adjustments based on flight- and ground-test data (Ref. 9). airfoil tables (Refs. 6 and 12).
The structural damping of each mode was adjusted in
accordance with test data, then increased by a constant value Gimbal modes are also shown in Figs. 3 and 4 to indicate
to approximate the effects of wing aerodynamic damping as their effects on the symmetric wing beamwise bending
given in Ref. 9. (SWB) and antisymmetric chord bending (AWC) modes.
The gimbal modes are highly damped and well off the scales
The drive-train model included the engine and gearbox of Figs. 5 and 6. The peak in the AWC mode (Fig. 6) is
rotational inertias, drive-shaft and cross-shaft flexibilities, caused by an interaction with the gimbal mode.
but no governor.
 AWC
ii
SPY 25 ! \
8 -

gl
1

2 E 20
ti
5 6-
0
C
a - - - - -SWT
--_____----

‘. -.__---
I
01 I
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Airspeed, knots Airspeed, knots
Fig. 3. Predicted frequencies of the V-22 symmetric Fig. 6. Predicted damping of the V-22 antisymmetric
winglpylon modes. winglpylon modes.

All modes are stable at all airspeeds, and with one

exception have favorable trends. The exception is SWB (Fig.
5 ) , which is just barely stable at about 360 knots. The
dramatic increase above this speed is caused by
compressibility effects. If this minimum stability margin
could be increased, it would relax important constraints on
the rotor design. (The V-22 rotor had to be redesigned as a
result of inadequate stability margins, as measured during a
wind-tunnel test (Ref. 14).) This is the primary motivation
for the present research.

The SWB mode has the smallest stability margin within

the V-22 flight envelope, so it is the appropriate mode
against which to test the effects of model variations, as
i50 200 250
300 350 400 450 500
Airspeed, knots discussed in the following sections. Because zero-power trim
has the lowest damping for critical modes within the flight
Fig. 4. Predicted frequencies of the V-22 antisymmetric
envelope, it is appropriate for this study and was used for all
winglpylon modes.
predictions reported herein.
20 r Effects of Design Variations
This section examines the mechanisms by which sweep
affects whirl flutter. Broadly speaking, blade design changes
can affect stability either by altering the forces and moments
on the blade or by altering the dynamic response to those
forces and moments. Detail mechanisms include (1)
reduction of local lift curve slope, (2) alteration of unsteady
loads, (3) effective mass droop at high pitch angles, (4)
alteration of inertial reaction forces, (5) alteration of blade
-
c
- - -___-----.-- - +’- - -SWT
--
mode shapes and frequencies, and (6) aerodynamic coupling
._______-------
-. with torsional components of blade mode shapes. These are
..-_-. . I
I
examined for a variety of idealized blade models, followed
by a practical design. It will be shown that the last three
effects are the most important.
 Whirl-mode stability is also affected by kinematic chosen to keep the rotor within its design envelope, but near
couplings between the blades, hub, and control system. the upper limit.
Because the V-22 hub geometry is tightly constrained,
improving stability by altering such couplings is unrealistic.
Instead, altered kinematics were used to destabilize the
baseline design, as explained immediately below. 15
-
a
V
S, effects :El0
t
Because it is already stable, the baseline model (Figs. 3-6
is not convenient for analyzing the effects of rotor design on
aeroelastic stability. The effects of such design changes can
be nonlinear, so it is more appropriate to use a baseline that
is moderately unstable than to further increase stability of
stable modes. Although analyzing whirl flutter with a more
flexible, hence less stable wing would be physically realistic,
it would require significant changes to the V-22 NASTRAN
model in order to generate consistent mode shapes.
-5Y
-101 i
:'SWB
I

-45 -30 -15 0

However, it is a simple matter to destabilize the rotor by Delta-3, deg
changing the pitch/flap coupling (6,). As defined herein, Fig. 8. Variation of damping with S, for the unmodified
positive 6, causes nose-down pitching for upwards blade V-22 rotor at 300 knots. Only adversely affected
fiapping. ?hc V-22 has negative 6 3 , ~~h u w iill
l Fig. 7. symmetric modes are shown.
For the present study, S, was always changed by adjusting
the distance of the pitch horn from the flapping axis, so that
the distance from the pitch axis remained constant. Such a
modification does not affect the structure or aerodynamics of
the individual blades, so its effects on aeroelastic stability
are not confounded with those of the other design changes
considered below.

-101
t 3AWC

-45 -30 -15 0

Delta-3, deg
Fig. 9. Variation of damping with 4 for the unmodified
V-22 rotor at 300 knots. Only adversely affected
antisymmetric modes are shown.
The trend in stability follows the classic pattern: the rotor
remains stable until 6, approaches -20 deg, then the least
stable mode (in this case, the SWB mode) rapidly loses
stability as the magnitude of 6, becomes more negative. At
Fig. 7. Kinematics of V-22 hub and pitch horn, showing large values of a, the symmetric wing chord and pylon
design S3 of -15 deg. modes show similar trends towards instability as the SWB
mode. The torsion modes vary only slightly and are not
Figures 8 and 9 show the effects on whirl flutter of shown. AWC is the most sensitive mode, but at zero 6, it is.
changing 8,; only adversely affected modes are shown. The more stable than SWB, so it is not the critical mode. AWB
first lag mode rapidly becomes unstable for positive values and ABT show similar trends at high 8,. Two highly coupled
of 6, (Ref. IS), and larger negative values of 6, are desirable modes, both involving primarily pylon yaw and progressive
for new rotor designs, so only negative values of S3 were gimbal whirl modes, have nearly identical values, with near-
examined here. A reference airspeed of 300 knots was zero stability at -45 deg 6,.
 The 6, values quoted here are for a level pitch horn; the
actual value varies slightly with blade pitch. The design
value of 6, for the V-22 is -15 deg, which provides an
,-----------------
Unmodified blade

Elastic axis
/
Tip mass
/
adequate stability margin. A value of -30 deg was chosen
for the design studies discussed below. The challenge is to
stabilize the SWB and AWC modes without degrading the
other modes.
Blade sweep
To stabilize the rotor with -30 deg 6,, combinations of c) Blade with offset tip mass A
blade sweep and tip mass offset were studied. Figure 10
shows several example blades derived from the V-22 rotor.
For this rotor, the primary significance of sweep is the Equivalent sweep] '1
improved whirl-flutter boundary, not the reduced Mach-
number effects. An offset tip mass is also shown; it is simply Swept blade with fixed tip mass
the existing balance weight moved forward from its normal
position. The balance weight is normally located slightly
inboard of the tip, as shown.
For this CAMRAD I1 model, blade sweep was invoked by
Swept blade with offset tip mass
sweeping the elastic axis and airfoil quarter-chord line by a
sweep angle A, positive aft, starting at a radial station rs. For
__---------
these initial studies, r, was always 80% R. The tip mass was
offset from its design location a distance x,, positive
Swept blade with inboard tip mass
forward. The entire mass was always moved. Tip mass offset 1

is presented here in terms of equivalent sweep A, positive -----------

forward (Fig. lOc), for convenient comparisons to blade
sweep.
For pure blade sweep (Fig. IOb), the tip mass was moved Fig. 10. V-22 rotor blade planform (47.5-deg twist not
aft of the pitch axis with the rest of the blade so that it shown).
maintained the same position with respect to the local elastic
axis. For pure tip-mass offsets (Fig. IOc), the tip mass was
moved forward of the pitch axis with no other change to the

'4
-
blade structure.
Sweep was always calculated in the local chord plane, so it 3 5
CJ
follows the blade twist. Tip mass offsets were also always in AWC
/
/'
the local chord plane. The maximum sweep analyzed here is /
/

equivalent to less than one chord length at the tip. /-

/ -

C Unstable J.
Figures 1 1 and 12 show the effects of sweep and tip mass 0.
K
offsets on damping. The magnitudes of blade sweep and tip-
mass equivalent sweep are the same, but the signs are 6 -5-
reversed. Most modes were little affected and are not shown.
The least stable modes-SWB and AWC-were the most
responsive to sweep and mass offset, which is encouraging.
0
-lo 5 10 15 20 25 30
Note that the effects of sweep on damping are nonlinear, Sweep, deg
unlike the effects of tip mass offset.
Fig. 11. Variation of damping with blade sweep at 300
knots with -30 deg S, (see Fig. lob).
Y

-m
7
10 - AWC /
(d /
0 I
c. /
I
t 5- 0
0
8 I
0
di
C
E 0-
s
n
/ Unstable J

-5

t I
-101 5' I I I
0
-lo[ 5' 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 15 20 25 30
Sweep, deg Sweep, deg
Fig. 12. Variation of damping with tip mass offset at 300 Fig. 14. Variation of damping with sweep and fBed tip
knots with -30 deg 4. Offset is calculated as equivalent mass position at 300 knots with -30 deg 8, (see Fig. 10e).
sweep (see Fig. 1Oc).
A more practical approach is to move the tip mass inboard,
Figure 13 illustrates the effects of combining sweep and so that it is fully enclosed in the airfoil (suggested by David
tip mass offset. Sweep and mass offset were incremented by A. Popelka); it is here more properly called a tuning mass.
the same magnitudes but opposite signs (Fig. 10e). The For the predictions of Fig. 15, the tuning mass was moved to
response of the SWB mode is slightly nonlinear. The SWT 0.8R (the beginning of sweep) and positioned at the leading
mode damping decreases very slightly with sweep, so that edge (Fig. 1Of). The amount of mass was also doubled. With
the optimum value of sweep is about 27 deg. the standard mass value, the predictions were closely similar
to those of Fig. 14. The SWB mode now becomes stable at
Figure 14 shows the effects of sweep with the tip mass 23 deg sweep. Because the SWT mode decreases slightly
fixed at its original position with respect to the blade pitch with sweep, the optimum value of sweep is 29 deg.
axis, which is perhaps a more practical configuration (Fig.
10d). The damping is much improved compared to that with
sweep alone (Fig. l l ) , although the SWB mode never
becomes stable. .. .
&

30

75 20
.-0
. ..
AWC,

...
.-
.
I

b 0

6, 10 - ... 0

.-n
5
C
... -101
0
5'
10 15 20 25 30
I

n o-5J0.
c
Sweep, deg
Fig. 15. Variation of damping with sweep for double
tuning mass at inboard position a t 300 knots with -30
-101 I deg S, (see Fig. 100.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sweep, deg
Fig. 13. Variation of damping with combined sweep and
tip mass offset at 300 knots with -30 deg S, (see Fig. 10e).
Offset is calculated as equivalent sweep (Fig. 1Oc).
 For ease of comparison, Fig. 16 replots the predictions for range of sweep angles considered here, the pitch/flap
SWB mode damping. It emphasizes the effects of mass coupling is never negative, but the slope becomes favorable
offset on both the sensitivity of damping to sweep, and on above about 20 deg sweep, which helps to explain the
the nonlinearity of the responses. An offset tip mass would nonlinear variations of Fig. 11. For tip mass offsets, both
have to be placed on a boom extending from the leading couplings are always favorable, but much more so for
edge. At large sweep angles, an inboard tuning mass at the pitchiflap than pitch/lag.
leading edge is nearly as effective as a tip mass on a boom.
0.1 r SweeD
- --Sweep only (b)
/
- -Tip mass only (c) /
-----Sweep+ fixed tip mass (d)
- --Sweep + offset tip mass (e)
-Sweep + inboard mass (f)
Unstable J

-0.3 1 / \
Mass offset \
pitchfilap .--
' \

-0.4 J
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-101 J Sweep, deg
0 5 1015 20 25 30
Sweep, deg Fig. 18. Modal coupling ratios for blade sweep and tip
Fig. 16. Comparison of the effects of sweep and mass mass offsets (Figs. 10b and 1Oc configurations).
offset on the SWB mode at 300 knots with -30 deg S,
(labels refer to Fig. 10). Aerodynamic effects
CAMRAD I1 can separately model various aerodynamic
Quasi-static couplings and structural features, two of which are examined in more
Figure 17 schematically illustrates how sweep and mass detail here: aerodynamic sweep versus offset, and unsteady-
offset alter the perturbational forces on the blade. A swept flow effects. The aerodynamic panels can be swept
tip moves the center of pressure aft of the pitch axis, creating independently of the structure, and the effects of offset can
a favorable (nose-down) moment for perturbational lift. An be calculated independently of the effects of sweep angle.
offset tip mass has an inertial reaction force ahead of the Figure 19 schematically illustrates the difference between
pitch axis, again creating a favorable moment. The blade panel offset and panel angle. The aerodynamic collocation
mode shapes will be different for the two cases, leading to points are centered spanwise on each aerodynamic panel.
different net effects on stability. Only four collocation points and two swept panels are shown
in the figure; the V-22 model used here has 17 total
Offset mass
aerodynamic panels, six of which are swept.
Perturbation
Figure 20 shows the effects on the SWB mode of
aerodynamic sweep only (no structural or inertial sweep),
Perturbation , ,to\ forcefi reaction
rtial
panel sweep angle only (no offset), and sweep offset without
force \A,' Pitch axis force panel angles; the nominal full-sweep predictions (Fig. 11)
Tip section are repeated for reference. Stability was also calculated for
aerodynamic offset only (no structural sweep o r
4\pt section aerodynamic panel angle), but even at this expanded scale,
the curve is nearly indistinguishable from the aerodynamic-
Fig. 17. Perturbation and inertial forces on a swept sweep-only curve in Fig. 20 and SO is not shown. It is clear
section and an offset mass, respectively. that the effects of sweep on stability are dominated by the
offsets of the aerodynamic panels, not by the angles of the
Figure 18 shows the quasi-static modal coupling ratios for panels. For reference, the maximum section Mach number at
sweep and mass offsets, corresponding to Figs. 10b and 1Oc. this speed is 0.7668.
For sweep, the pitch/lag coupling is always favorable (lag
back, pitch down), but pitchiflap is unfavorable. For the
 a) Full blade sweep droop. Moreover, aerodynamic sweep without structural

Elastic axsi-;
----
--3
----,L- sweep is highly stabilizing (Fig. 20), and it has no mass
droop by definition. The beneficial effects of sweep cannot
be explained by effective mass droop.
b) Sweep angle without offset The effects of unsteady aerodynamics were important for
----- some modes. The most dramatic example is shown in Fig.
Collocation ooint/ 2 1, for the S W B mode. This figure also shows the full effect
---- on stability of idealized aerodynamic offset (no panel sweep
c) Offset without sweep angle or structural offset, Fig. 19c), which runs off the scale of Fig.
20. This idealized model is more sensitive to the effects of

----=
panel angle and unsteady aerodynamics than the full model,
making the effects easier to discern in the plot. The curve for

-
full aerodynamic sweep (with panel sweep but no structural
d) Aerodynamic sweep only sweep, Fig. 19d) is also shown; as in Fig. 21, the local sweep

Elastic axis/
-- -L - -, of the panels makes little difference.
---- Figure 2 1 shows that unsteady aerodynamics reduce
stability for low and moderate values of offset, but for large
Fig. 19. Differences between blade sweep, aerodynamic offset, unsteady effects greatly increase stability. With full
sweep, aerodynamic panel sweep angle, and aerodynamic blade sweep (not shown), elimination of unsteady
psrw! sweep &set (cnrr?parewith Fig. In). aerodynamics shifts the damping curves up with little change
-5- in trends with sweep. Significant effects were also seen for
; -Full blade sweep (a) the least stable antisymmetric mode (AWC), and for tip mass
---Sweep angle without offset (b) offsets (not shown). In such cases, the trendlines were again
- - -Offset without sweep angle (c) simply shifted up a few percent when unsteady effects were
-----Aerodynamicsweep only (d) removed, so that there was little effect on the sensitivity of
:e -6- ;
ti stability to sweep or offset. Because unsteady aerodynamics
have their greatest effect on the largest values of
!= I . aerodynamic offset, which are already highly idealized
design variations, unsteady effects could probably have been
ignored without invalidating the analyses of other
configurations. Nevertheless, unsteady aerodynamic effects
were retained for all analyses reported here, excepting only
those shown in Fig. 21.
I
0 5 15 10 20 25 30
Sweep, deg 25 r Unsteadv

Fig. 20. Comparison of the effects of aerodynamic

displacement YS. angle on the SWB mode at 300 knots
with -30 deg S, (labels refer to Fig. 19).
2o 1 -Aerodynamic sweep only

Further insight can be drawn from Figs. 16 and 20. Blade

anhedral has been shown to improve whirl-flutter stability
(Ref. 16). However, anhedral will include a mass offset, or
droop, with respect to the tip path plane. Mass droop is
equivalent to reduced precone and will be constrained by
loads in hover and low-speed flight.
Because of the large change in collective angle between
hover and airplane mode, the effective net mass droop will -101 5' 15 20 25 30I
change significantly between flight modes. This will 0 10
increase effective precone in hover and decrease it in
Sweep, deg
airplane mode, thereby alleviating the problem. In Fig. 16, Fig. 21. Effects of aerodynamic displacement on the SWB
tip-mass offset is clearly stabilizing, even though the offset mode, with and without unsteady aerodynamics, at 300
has a geometric component in the opposite direction to knots with -30 deg 4.
A practical example Normalized mode shapes are plotted for the uncoupled
blade modes at 332 rpm, as shown in Figs. 23-26. Only the
Several of the design variations covered so far are
four modes in the simplified model are shown. The figures
impractical, even physically impossible. One of the more
also show the changes in the torsion mode shapes as sweep
effective and practical configurations, sweep with inboard
is varied in increments of 5 deg. Displacements (flap and
tuning mass (Fig. 100, was chosen for further study. With
lag) are scaled in feet; rotations (pitchhorsion) are scaled in
pure blade sweep, as in Fig. lob, the tip mass is moved in
radians. Flap is perpendicular to the hub plane (not the local
the wrong direction for stability. If the mass is placed
beam axis), positive up (or forward, in airplane mode); lag is
sufficiently inboard, it is unaffected by sweep, as in Fig. 10f.
in the hub plane, positive aft (against the direction of
Such a design makes the effects of sweep on the blade mode rotation). Pitch/torsion mode shapes are positive nose up.
shapes more evident, as illustrated below.
The trimmed pitch angle at 0.75 R was 43 deg for 0-deg
In order to focus attention on the key blade modes, the sweep.
number of modes was systematically reduced until the
For the modes shown here, flap and lag mode shapes were
stability trendlines for the SWB whirl mode showed
little affected by sweep. The differences are difficult, if not
significant departures from the full model (Fig. 15). The
impossible, to discern at the scale of Figs. 23-26. For the
minimum number of blade modes was thereby determined to
sake of legibility, flap and lag mode shapes are shown only
be four: the first flap and lag modes, the rigid pitch mode,
for 0-deg sweep.
and the second flap mode.
For SWB, the model with only four blade modes closely
reproduced the trends of stability with sweep (Fig. 22), but
with a slight offset. For AWC, the match was not as good,
but because AWC is always more stable than SWB, and
usually much more so, the simple model is adequate.
30

-$ 20
.- I
.-
c 0 dea sweeD
G 0
-0.2

-0.4 -
-0.6 I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fraction radius
\ SWB, Fig. 23. Mode shapes for the 1st flap mode.
1
-
1. _ _ _ -- -_-- 4 modes
t I I I
- l0o l 5' 10 15 20 25 30 Lag ,.e'

Sweep, deg 0.8

Fig. 22. Effects of simplified dynamic model on the most
sensitive modes, for sweep with inboard tuning mass at
300 knots with -30 deg 6,.
Q,
0.6 c
2 0.4

Adding the first elastic torsion mode (the seventh mode in

order of frequency) brought the predictions into much closer
agreement with the full model, but only by shifting the
curves upwards without appreciably changing the trends.
Moreover, the elastic torsion mode shapes were little
-o.2 t ---- - _ _ - - - -
Flap
affected by sweep. Although this indicates that the elastic -0.4 I I I

torsion mode is essential for accurately predicting stability 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
boundaries, it also implies that this mode is not important for Fraction radius
explaining the physical mechanisms by which sweep affects Fig. 24. Mode shapes for the 1st lag mode.
stability.
 1- curves are offset to line up at zero radius for all sweep
Torsion angles. For any given amount of torsion mode deflection,
0 -------- increasing sweep increases the effective pitch deflection at
the tip, where the dynamic pressure is highest, thereby
a, increasing the stabilizing moment.
0.
cp
-2 -
c
v)
a, -3 -
T
I
8 -4 -
-5 -
5.5
30 deg
sweep N
I
I

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 6 5.0 -

Fraction radius C
a,
Fig. 25. Mode shapes for the 2nd flap mode. $ 4.5 -
1
k
4.0 -
0.8 I 2nd flap

g 0.6
cp

-0
0.4 "8' 5'
I

10 15
Sweep, deg
20 25 30
I

3 0.2 Fig. 27. Modal frequency variations with sweep.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fraction radius
Fig. 26. Mode shapes for the 1st pitchhorsion mode.

Figure 27 shows the uncoupled blade mode frequencies at

332 rpm, plotted against sweep. The first flap and lag
frequencies, at 1.22 Hz and 1.33 Hz respectively, vary only
in the fourth decimal place and are not shown.
At the trimmed flight condition-300 knots, 332 rpm,and
7500 ft altitude-the blade pitch angle at the tip is just over
35 deg. The mode shape of the first flap mode (Fig. 23) is
almost perpendicular to the local chord at the tip. As sweep
Fraction radius
is increased, there is an increasingly negative torsional
component. The associated reduction in local lift reduces the Fig. 28. Torsion mode shape for the 1st pitchkorsion
flapping motion and so stabilizes the mode. Similar effects mode, offset to force zero values at the root for all values
can be readily deduced for the other flap/lag modes by of sweep.
inspection of Figs. 24 and 25.
These effects of sweep and mass offset on aeroelastic
It will be obvious that sweep helps to stabilize pitch/ stability are directly analogous to those for swept, fixed
torsion modes by creating a counter-acting aerodynamic wings, although here much complicated by the existence of a
moment for any torsional perturbation. Figure 26 suggests pitch mechanism and control-system flexibility, a gimbal
that sweep also changes the mode shape so as to enhance and associated pitchlflap kinematics (a3), a flexible drive
this effect. This can be better understood if the shapes of the train, and the dynamics of the coupled rotating system. Their
first pitch/torsion mode are replotted as in Fig. 28, where the
 effects on whirl flutter are, of course, determined by the Table 1. V-22 flight conditions for loads analyses.
coupling between the fixed and rotating systems.
Flight mode Pylon angle, Airspeed, Power,
Modal coupling effects deg KTAS SHP
Hover 90 0 7050
As shown by Gaffey (Ref. 15), flap-lag stability at high ~ ~ l
85 i 60 ~ ~
3860 ~
inflow requires positive pitch/flap coupling (negative 6,) conversion 75 80 3750
between the blade and control system. However, Figs. 23 conversion 60 100 4350
and 25 imply that sweep and mass offset stabilize the rotor conversion 30 140 4470
by introducing negative pitch/flap coupling. The apparent cruise 0 275 7660
contradiction can be resolved by the following observations:
A major contribution to whirl-mode instability is the out-
Loads were calculated with a multiple-trailer free wake
of-plane component of the first lag mode (Fig. 24), which
model derived from that of Ref. 7. For trim, each blade had
couples the lag mode to control system kinematics. The
12 dynamic modes (not just static deflections, as in the
slopes of the flap and lag mode shapes have opposite sign at
flutter analyses), and the rotor response was calculated with
I the root, which reverses the effective coupling. For positive
10 harmonics.
a, the net coupling is lag back, pitch up, which is
destabilizing. At high inflow, the rotor is very sensitive to Ideally, the loads analysis would use a complete model of
this effect (Ref. 15), and negative 6, is needed to stabilize the airframe aerodynamics and control system, with different
the rotor. The values of sweep and mass offset examined aerodynamics and control phasing for each pylon angle and
I
here have little effect on the flap and lag mode shapes; flap setting. However, no such models have yet been
indeed, the changes near the root are impossible to discern at developed for the V-22 using CAMRAD 11. Fortunately, the
the scale of Figs. 23-26. Therefore, the beneficial control- changes of interest apply only to the rotors, so an isolated
system couplings are unaffected. rotor model is adequate. A single-rotor analysis also saves
considerable computational time -a nontrivial issue with a
For the lag mode (Fig. 24), sweep changes a mild, positive
free wake model.
pitch/lag coupling to a stronger, negative pitch/lag coupling,
which is stabilizing. Note also that the changes in For all loads analyses, the isolated rotor was trimmed to
pitch/torsion mode shapes are seen much more strongly at zero flapping (zero gimbal tilt). While this does not exactly
the tip than at the root (although Fig. 26 suffers from the match flight conditions, it is adequate to identify significant
normalization method used by CAMRAD 11; Fig. 28 is more changes to loads and performance caused by blade sweep
revealing). and other design modifications. It also establishes a more
consistent rotor trim for all flight conditions, facilitating
The stabilizing effect of negative 6, is seen as favorable
comparisons. There are thus four linked trim parameters:
shifts in the first flap and lag frequencies, which decouple
pylon angle, input as rotor shaft angle of attack; airspeed;
the modes (Ref. 15). Sweep and mass offsets have negligible
rotor speed; and rotor power, input as one-half the total
effects on these frequencies: the largest change seen here
power in Table 1.
was less than 1%. Therefore, the frequency separation is
unaffected. Because critical trim parameters were varied together, the
trends of loads with airspeed or any other parameter should
To summarize, for a rotor with a swept tip, the benefits of
not be expected to be smooth or even monotonic. The data
positive pitchiflap coupling at the root are retained for the
are plotted here as connected data points to simplify the
rotor as a whole, while the benefits of negative pitch/flap
figures and improve legibility. Caution should be exercised
coupling are realized near the tip, where the dynamic
when attempting to interpret any apparent trends with
pressure is greatest.
airspeed.
Loads Loads were calculated for the pitch links, grip (0.05 R ) ,
yoke (0.05 R), and blade (0.35 R); in-plane (lag)-and out-of-
The effects of rotor modifications on loads were
plane (flap) loads were calculated at each location (except
investigated, to check for potentially serious changes. Table
the pitch links). Steady and vibratory loads were calculated
1 summarizes the flight conditions analyzed. All conditions
as mean and half peak-to-peak (hpp) values.
- test data in Ref. 17, but do not
were derived from flight
necessarily match any particular test condition. All Loads were calculated and compared for two rotors: the
conditions except cruise were analyzed at sea level, with a baseline V-22 rotor, and a rotor with 30-deg blade sweep
rotor speed of 397 rpm. The cruise condition was 15,000 ft and inboard tuning weights (the same rotor as in Figs. 22-28,
and 333 rpm.
but only with the largest value of sweep). Only the most 10000
extreme differences are presented here. The swept rotor had
a -30 deg 6, hub to match the stability calculations shown -.*------_______nominal
Swept tip mass
blade,
previously. ----_
.
In order to prevent confounding the effects of rotor-blade
design with the effects of 6,, loads for the baseline rotor
were also calculated with a -30 deg 6, hub. Changes in loads
G
Xi-
m
0
m
\
\
- .--- Swept blade,
inboard mass

are therefore attributable only to changes in the blade design. al

Xi
The effects of design changes on loads are summarized in m
Baseline rotor
Figs. 29 and 30 for -30 deg 6,.
Figure 29 plots the pitch-link loads against airspeed for the
two blade designs. Compared to the baseline blade design,
----- - - _ _ _ _---_ _
Inboard mass only
-10000
the mean pitch-link load for the swept rotor is increased by 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
19% at 275 knots. This was the largest increase seen for any Airspeed, knots
load. The amount of change due to -30 deg 6 , was only Fig. 30. Mean blade lag loads for the baseline and swept
4 . 1 %. rotors, and for an inboard tuning mass.
Figure 30 plots blade lag loads (at 0.35 R ) for the two
The effects on performance were also examined, using the
blade designs. The half peak-to-peak loads vaned very little
same isolated-rotor model as was used for loads. Because the
and are not shown. The swept blades actually reduce the
rotor was trimmed to power without an airframe
total load over most of the flight regime, and the worst-case
aerodynamic model, figure of merit (at hover) and propeller
load (about 4000 ft-lb at 50 knots) is about half the
efficiency (at 275 knots) were used for comparison. The
magnitude of the worst-case load for the baseline rotor. The
differences were minor, but positive: compared to the
load reduction at 275 knots is 88%. This is the largest
baseline rotor (with -30 deg 6,). the swept rotor improved
absolute difference seen for any load. (The amount of
figure of merit from 0.79 to 0.80 for Mfip =0.709, C,=
change due to -30 deg 5 was only A%.)
0.0137, and C, = 0.00143; propeller efficiency improved
However, the large load reductions may be merely from 0.84 to 0.85 for helical Mfip= 0.766, C,= 0.00500, and
fortuitous: as shown in Fig. 30, both the inboard tuning mass C,= 0.00418. The beneficial effects of sweep on
(without sweep) and sweep with the nominal tip mass (Fig. performance at high Mach numbers (Ref. 18) would not be
1lb) make the lag loads worse, but shifted in opposite expected to come fully into play at the airspeeds examined
directions relative to the baseline. The near-zero load at 275 here. It is sufficient that there be no adverse effects, as was
knots may be only a coincidental canceling of the two the case.
effects. Nevertheless, the results are highly encouraging.
Research Recommendations
-Baseline blade mean Further efforts are recommended in three areas: research
- -Baseline blade hpp
0
into the physical mechanisms by which sweep and mass
.
/
#
4000 /
offsets affect stability, improved designs to maximize
- - -Swept blade mean stability, and further development of the V-22 CAMRAD I1
-----Swept blade hpp model.
3000
Although the results presented here provide a plausible
explanation of the role of mode shapes in enhancing the
stability of swept-bladed rotors, the explanation is not
definitive. The current rotor model is too complicated for
efficient numerical examination of pitch/flap/lag coupling
and other effects: too many modes are required, both for the
rotor and for the airframe, to adequately characterize the
system response. Direct examination of the flutter matrices
Airspeed, knots or the eigenvectors is appropriate, but would require much
Fig. 29. Pitch link loads for the baseline and swept rotors. smaller matrices, hence a much simpler model, to be
practical.
 The relative contributions of aerodynamic and inertial The C81 tables are a major limitation for stability
effects were only inferred, not directly calculated. Also, analyses. The area of concern is limited to very high speeds,
sweep and mass offsets were always in the local chord plane, so the effects on the present research are thought to be
so there was no direct examination of the relative effects of negligible. However, establishment of reliable stability
sweep versus mass droop. These effects may all be expected trends at high speeds is still desirable and could benefit from
to interact with each other. improved aerodynamic tables. The key requirement is to
generate coefficient data at Mach number increments small
It is fundamentally difficult to separate the relative
enough to guarantee that all significant nonlinear variations
contributions of the different elastic deformations and
are captured. Emerging CFD methodology promises to
couplings. Even for an unmodified rotor, blade elasticity is
significantly improve the aerodynamic models needed for
intimately involved in whirl-mode instability in the first
whirl-mode predictions.
place. Therefore, the effects of blade elasticity cannot be
fully decoupled from those of sweep. Similarly, the effects Very little attention was paid to airframe aerodynamics
of tip-mass inertia cannot be studied in isolation without during this research. It is largely irrelevant for power-off
changing the underlying aeroelastic phenomena being stability, and the existing wing-body aerodynamic tables are
explored. However, such effects can be inferred from adequate for power-on whirl-flutter analyses (Ref. 12).
parametric blade-design studies, such as those presented Obvious avenues for future improvements are to generate a
here. The present V-22 model does not lend itself to efficient comprehensive set of CAMRAD I1 wing-body tables, or
exploration by such methods, so a new model is being possibly to update the coefficients used by the internal
developed specifically to support further studies of whirl aerodynamic model. Such models will eventually be needed
flutter. It need not be as accurate as the model used here, as for loads analyses.
long as it captures the general features of V-22 behavior.
Conclusions
Even without further insight into the physical mechanisms,
improvements in blade design should be possible with The V-22 was analyzed with CAMRAD I1 to evaluate
conventional optimization techniques. Although true whirl flutter in airplane-mode flight. The effects of blade
optimization is beyond the scope of the present research sweep and tip mass offsets on whirl-flutter stability were
effort, a few initial steps would be helpful to guide further examined. The rotor was (analytically) destabilized by
efforts. In particular, it should be straightforward to increasing the magnitude of kinematic pitch-flap coupling
determine the tradeoff between the local amount of sweep (4)to -30 deg. The outer 20% of the blade was swept aft a
versus the radial extent of sweep, and whether sweep should maximum of 30 deg (about one chord length) and the tip
be in the local chord plane or in some other direction. Efforts balance weight was offset forwards by the same amount.
should also be made to determine whether aeroelastic Different combinations of blade sweep and mass offset were
tailoring can be combined with sweep to increase favorable evaluated; the most favorable combinations greatly increased
torsional components of the flap/lag modes. More the damping of the least stable modes, more than enough to
comprehensive loads analyses are obviously warranted as fully stabilize the rotor. A design that combined sweep with
part of any design studies. an inboard tuning mass represented a more practical design
than the most extreme configurations studied; it also proved
There are several possible areas of improvement for the
completely stable with -30 deg 6,. A simple survey of pitch-
CAMRAD I1 model of the V-22 rotor: details of the
link loads indicated an increase of 19% for the worst case.
griplyoke model, more sophisticated control system
kinematics, and improved aerodynamics models. A few
Acknowledgements
examples are discussed here.
The author wishes to thank Wayne Johnson for his
The coupled swashplate model is not exact. Ideally, the
unfailing support and encouragement for this research, and
extension and rotational (Le., collective and cyclic) mode
David A. Popelka for his generous assistance in providing
shapes should be taken at the transmission adapter, but the
data and advice far modeling the V-22.
transverse mode shapes should be taken from the hub, or if
possible from the actual trimmed swashplate location.
References
Another approach would be to explicitly model the non-
rotating actuators. Although the kinematic differences would 1. Kvaternik, R. G., Piatak, D. J., Nixon, M. W., Langston,
be small, the high sensitivity of whirl-mode damping to C. W., Singleton, J. D., Bennett, R. L, and Brown, R. K.,
control-system kinematics suggests that such an improved “An Experimental Evaluation of Generalized Predictive
model is worth pursuing. Control for Tiltrotor Aeroelastic Stability Augmentation in
Airplane Mode of Flight,” Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, Vol. 47, (3), July 2002.
2. Barkai, S., Rand, O., “The Influence of Composite 15. Gaffey, T. M., “The Effect of Positive Pitch-Flap
Induced Couplings on Tiltrotor Whirl-Flutter Stability,” Coupling (Negative 4) on Rotor Blade Motion Stability and
Journal of the Anzerican Helicopter Society, Vol. 43, (2), Flapping,” Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol.
April 1998. 14, (2), April 1969.
3. Corso, L. M., Popelka, D., and Nixon, M. W., “Design, 16. Srinivas, V., Chopra, I., and Nixon, M. W., “Aeroelastic
Analysis, and Test of a Composite Tailored Tiltrotor Wing,” Analysis of Advanced Geometry Tiltrotor Aircraft,” Journal
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 45, (3), of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 43, (3), July 1998.
July 2000.
17. Mayer, R. J., “V-22 Aerodynamics Performance
4. Nixon, M. W., Piatak, D. J., Corso, L. M., and Popelka, D. Demonstration: Flight Test Data Report,” Bell-Boeing
A., “Aeroelastic Tailoring for Stability Augmentation and Report No. 901-993-486, Bell Helicopter Textron, 2000.
Performance Enhancements of Tiltrotor Aircraft,” Journal of
18. Liu, J. and McVeigh, M. A., “Design of Swept Blade
the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 45, (4), October 2000.
Rotors for High-speed Tiltrotor Application,” AIAA 9 1-
5 . Acree, C. W., “Rotor Design Options for Improving 3147, AIAA, AHS, and ASEE, Aircraft Design Systems and
Tiltrotor Whirl-Flutter Stability Margins,” Journal of the Operations Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, September 23-25,
American Helicopter Society, Vol. 46, (2), April 200 1. 1991.
6. Acree, C. W., “Rotor Design Options for Improving V-22
Whirl-Mode Stability,” American Helicopter Society 58th
Annual Forum Proceedings, Montrial, Quebec, Canada,
June 1 I-l?, 2802.
7. Johnson, W., “Influence of Wake Models on Calculated
Tiltrotor Aerodynamics,” American Helicopter Society
Aerodynamics, Acoustics, and Test and Evaluation
Technical Specialists’ Meeting, San Francisco, California,
January 23-25,2002.
8. Johnson, W., CAMRAD IZ Comprehensive Analytical
Model of Rotorcraft Aerodynamics and Dynamics, Johnson
Aeronautics, Palo Alto, California, 2002.
9. Parham, T. and Froebel, A., “V-22 EMD Intermediate
Flutter and Divergence Report,” Bell-Boeing Report no.
90 1-910-039, Bell Helicopter Textron, September 1997.
10. Jenks, M. D. and Narramore, J. C., “Final Report for the
2-D Test of Model 901 Rotor and Wing Airfoils (BSWT
592),” Bell-Boeing Report No. D901-99065-1, May 1984,
Bell Helicopter Textron.
11. Brunken, J. E. and Vlaminck, R. R., “V-22
MSWNASTRAN Airframe Vibration Analysis and
Correlation,” National Technical Specialists’ Meeting on
Rotorcraft Dynamics, Arlington, Texas, November 1989.
12. Acree, C. W., “A CAMRAD I1 Model of the V-22 Rotor
for Whirl-Flutter Analysis,” NASA TM-2003-2 12262 (in
preparation).
13. Parham, T., “V-22 EMD Nonrotating Rotor Ground
Vibration Test Report,” Bell-Boeing Report No. 901-910-
052, Bell Helicopter Textron, April 1996.
14. Popelka, D., Sheffler, M., and Bilger, J., “Correlation of
Test and Analysis for the 1/5-Scale V-22 Aeroelastic
Model,” Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol.
32, (2), April 1987.