UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
AD901787
LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.

FROM:
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't. agencies
only; Test and Evaluation; JAN 1972. Other
requests shall be referred to Army Aviation
System Test Activity, Edwards AFB, CA 93523.

AUTHORITY
AVSCOM ltr 12 Nov 1973

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

 AD
RDTE PROJECT NO. 1X179191D684
AVSCOM PROJECT NO. 71-18
USAASTA PROJECT NO. 7118

TAIL ROTOR PERFORMANCE AND

3>
TRANSLATIONAL FLIGHT
HANDLING QUALITIES TESTS
-

UH-1H HELICOPTER

FINAL REPORT

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM, JR.

RODGER L. FINNESTEAD LTC, TC
o PROJECT OFFICER/ENGINEER US ARMY
PROJECT PILOT

JANUARY 1972
(W !

Distribution limited to US Government agencie» only; test and

evaluation, January 1972. Other requests for this document must
be referred to the Commanding General, AVSCOM,
ATTN: AMSAVEF, PO Box 209, St. Louis, Missouri 63166.

US ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS TEST ACTIVITY

< EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 93523

- -wjr- mmmmmm -^HMM«*- T9* 't ** ; *^

 r
Ill ■ ■ ■ . — ■ :.

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of

the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS

Reproduction of this document in whole or in part is prohibited except with

permission obtained through the Commanding General, AVSCOM,
ATTN: AMSAV-EF, PO Box 209, St. Louis, Missouri 63166. DDC is authorized
to reproduce the document for United States Government purposes.

DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS

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

TRADE NAMES

The use of trade names in this report does not constitute an official endorsement
or approval of the use of the commercial hardware and software.

. ""N

■■ «.. '. . JI.^SMB^'»■»]>■'gg: ; .J-""M!!I J... HU,*

 // /1AV ^\,
IDTk FRUJeCT WW -1XI7919ID684

m-R vr/f -i'- X- ^ 7^i fJ^ F /^/i M$Wi7Mj]

TAIL JIOTOR PERFORMANCE AND
TRANSLATIONAL FLIGHT ^HANDLING QUALITIES JESTS

UH-1H HELICOPTER.

v
fINALREÄT. li^-? ^^ 7^ ■^ P

^
WILLIAM A. GRAHAM, JR/
0—
RODGER L.^INNESTEAD CIC, TC
FROJhL"! UmCER/HNGlNLhR US ARMY
PROJECT PILOT
1

Distribution limited to US Government ageneics only; est and

evaluation, January 1972. Other requersts for this document must
be referred to the Commanding Geneial, AVSCOM,
ATTN: AMSAV-EF, PO Box 209, St. Louis, Missouri 63166.

US ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS TEST ACTIVITY

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 93523

II»

L •w^*
0^4. Wo
r. .r™ "i" <,;,. • ^-f-rr"
 ABSTRACT

Engineering flight tests were conducted on the UH-1H helicopter to evaluate the
performance and handling qualities during hover, translational flight, and forward
flight. Tests were conducted in California at Edwards Air Force Base and at test
sites near Bishop during the period 13 July to 9 August 1971. The UH-1H
helicopter is being purchased by the US Air Force to perform search and rescue
missions. Selected performance parameters and handling qualities were
quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated. For the conditions tested, the UH-1H
does not comply with paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.6 of the military
specification, MIL-H-8501A. There were three deficiencies, the correction of which
appears essential for adequate mission accomplishment: (1) insufficient longitudinal
control within the approved gross-weight/center-of-gravity envelope, (2) insufficient
directional control, and (3) directional instability between 10 and 18 knots at
relative azimuths between 210 and 320 degrees.

t
!

'

iv

i ■ 111 -»n »if . i^m*

T »>»■ j^' "^im
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background . .
Test Objectives
Description . .
Scope of Test
Methods of Test
Chronology . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General 4
Performance 4
Antitorque System 4
Hovering 5
Level Flight Performance with Fire Suppression Kit . . • 8
Handling Qualities II
Cyclic Pitch Control Pattern II
Translational Flight Evaluation II

■
Longitudinal Cyclic Control Margin 12
Directional Control Margin 13
Lateral-Directional Characteristics IS
Aircraft Height Control 17
Tail Rotor Power 17
Right Lateral Center-of-Gravity Evaluation II
Lateral Cyclic Control Margin II
Longitudinal Cyclic Control Margin I!
Directional Control Margin 21
Tail Rotor Power 21
Evaluation with Fire Suppression Kit Installed 21

CONCLUSIONS
!
General 23
Deficiencies and Shortcomings Affecting Mission Accomplishment . . 23
Military Specification Compliance 24

RECOMMENDATIONS 25

-w II IIUPWPI ■ i i —nm
- J.vt-.-"
 ■m

Page

APPHNDIXES

A. References 26
B. Busic Aircraft Information and Operating Limits 27
C. Handling Qualities Rating Scale 36
D. Test Techniques and Data Reduction Procedures 37
E. Test Instrumentation 46
F. Test Daia 49
G. Symbols and Abbreviations 130

DISTRIBUTION

I
I

vi

r , - - -—"■—^rr^nrr^
. .... - —.- -•
__ ■
*Hw^- ■iMrt^i

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

I. The UH-1H helicopter (Air Force model designation: HH-1H) is being

purchased by the US Air Force to perform search and rescue missions. Previous
tests of the UH-1D/H helicopters have indicated that hover performance and
in-ground-effect (IGE) translation^, flight capabilities of this helicopter are limited
by directional control (refs land 2, app A). On 12 April 1971, the US Air Force
Aeronautical Systems Command (ASD) requested (ref 3) the US Army Aviatoii
Systems Command (AVSCOM) to conduct a qualitative and limited quantitative
evaluation to determine tail rotoi performance and directional control margins while
hovering in winds. This request was expanded on 22 June 1971 (ref 4) to include
determination of: (1) main rotor hovering performance, (2) IGE handling qualities
with a right lateral center-of-gravity (eg), and (3) handling qualities of the
helicopter with a fire suppression kit (FSK) attached to the cargo hook. The
US Army Aviation Systems Test Activity (USAASTA) was directed by AVSCOM
to conduct tests to satisfy these requests (refs 5 and 6). Funding for the prop-am
was provided by ASD through a military interdepartmental purchase request (MiPR)
(refs 7 and 8).

TEST OBJECTIVES

2. Specific objectives of this test were as follows:

a. Determine main rotor and tail rotor hovering performance at 4,200 and
9,500 feet mean sea level (MSL).

b. Determine control margins at 4,200 and 9,500 feet MSL while hovering
IGE in simulated wind conditions.

c. Evaluate IGE handling quaUties and control margins up to 30 knots in

sideward and rearward flight at 4,200 and 9,500 feet MSL with the aircraft loaded
to a right lateral eg configuration.

d. Evaluate handling qualities at 4,200 feet MSL in rearward flight with

the FSK installed.

e. Evaluate handling quaUties and vibration characteristics during climbing,

level flight, and partial power descent with the FSK installed.

I
 ——

r
<i ■

DESCRIPTION

3. The test helicopter, S/N 67-17145, is a standard production UH-1H aircraft

manufactured by the Bell Helicopter Company. The main rotor is a single,
two-bladed, teetering type with a stabilizer bar. A two-bladed teetering antitorque
rotor is located at the top of the vertical stabilizer. The helicopter is powered
by a Lycoming T53-L-13 turboshaft engine rated at 1,400 shaft horsepower (shp)
at sea level (SL) under standard day, uninstalled conditions. The engine is derated
to 1,100 shp due to the maximum torque limit of the helicopter's main
transmission. The design gross weight of the UH-1H is 6,600 pounds, and the
maximum gross weight is 9,500 pounds. A more detailed description of the UH-1H
helicopter is contained in appendix B and in the operator's manual (ref 9, app A).

SCOPE OF TEST
.
4. The M-1H helicopter was evaluated to determine the hoverir-g performance
and low-speed IGE handling qualities. Handling qualities with the FSK installed
were also evaluated in rearward flight IGE and forward flight at altitude. During
this program, 24 flights were conducted for a total of 35.4 hours, 20.4 of which
were productive test hours. All flights were performed and supported by USAASTA
personnel. The testing was conducted in California from 13 July through
9 August 1971 at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) (2,302-foot elevation) and at
high-altitude test sites near Bishop (4,112- and 9,500-foot elevations). The total
flight hours include ferry time between Edwards AFB and Bishop, and return,
and flight time between test sites. The conditions for each test are presented in
the Results and Discussion section of this report.

5. The test program was conducted within the limitations established by the
AVSCOM test directives (refs 5 and 6, app A).

6. Prior to testing, the aircraft flight and engine controls were rigged in
compliance with appropriate US Army publications. The swashplate was rigged to
2.0 degrees, down, left, to comply with TM 55-1520-210-20 (ref 10, app A). This
swashplate rigging was chosen to compensate for the right lateral eg expected when
using the rescue hoist during rescue operations. Tracking of the main rotor and
tail rotor was performed prior to the start of the test program.

7. The empty weight of the test aircraft with test instrumentation installed was -
5,420 pounds with the longitudinal eg at fuselage station (FS) 143.97 (aircraft j
battery located at FS 5.0) or FS 147.13 (aircraft battery located at FS 233.0). '
The lateral eg for these two conditions was buttline (BL) 0.38 left, or BL 0.36 f
left, respectively. The estimated weight of the test instrumentation was 63 pounds
with a longitudinal fuselage station (moment arm) of 190.21.

8. The UH-1H was evaluated as a utility helicopter. Military specification >

MIL-H-8501A (ref 11, app A) was used to determine specification conformance.

- •
 r—

Handling qualities ratings were assigned in accordance with the Handling Qualities
Rating Scale (HQRS) presented in appendix C. Qualitative pilot comments were
used to determine deficiencies and shortcomings. The applicable portion of the
terms "Deficiency" and "Shortcoming," as defined in Army regulation AR 310-25
(ref 12), arc presented below:

a. Deficiency - A defect or malfunction discovered during the

life cycle of an equipment that constitutes a safety hazard to
personnel; will result in serious damage to the equipment if
operation is continued; indicates improper design or other cause
of an item or part, which seriously impairs the equipment's
operational capability. A deficiency normally disables or
immobilizes the equipment; and if occurring during test phases,
will serve as a bar to type classification action.

b. Shortcoming - An imperfection or malfunction occurring

during the life cycle of equipment, which should be reported
and which must be corrected to increase efficiency and to
render the equipment completely serviceable. It will not cause
an immediate breakdown, jeopardize safe operation, or
materially reduce the usability of the materiel or end product. *
If occurring during test phases, the shortcoming should be
corrected if it can be done without unduly complicating the
item or inducing another undesirable characteristic such as
increased cost, weight.

METHODS OF TEST

9. Test methods and data reduction procedures used in these tests are proven
engineering flight test techniques and are described in appendix D. Tests were
conducted in nonturbulent atmospheric conditions, unless otherwise stated, so the
data would not be influenced by uncontrolled disturbances. The flight test data
were manually recorded from test instrumentation located in the copilot panel
and engineer auxiliary test panel. A list of the test instrumentation is included
as appendix E.

CHRONOLOGY
10. The chronology of this test program is as follows:

Test directive received 11 June 1971

Safety-of-flight release received 11 June 1971
Test instrumentation installation begun 21 June 1971
Flight test started 13 July 1971
Flight test completed 9 August 1971

I ' — *p«
1 .JTT^l ftkJZr*' • _.w*_
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

GENERAL

11. Engineering flight tests were conducted on the UH-1H helicopter to evaluate
the performance and handling qualities during hover, translational flight, and
forward flight. Selected performance parameters and handling qualities were
quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated. For the conditions tested, the UK-IH
did not comply with paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.6 of MIL-H-8501A (ref 11,
app A). There were three deficiencies, the correction of which appears essential
for adequate mission accomplishment: (I) insufficient longitudinal control within
the approved gross-weight/cg envelope, (2) insufficient directional control, and
(3) directional instability between 10 and 18 knots at relative azimuths between
210 and 320 degrees.

PERFORMANCE

Antitorque System

12. Antitorque system performance tests were conducted to determine the

limitations of aircraft performance which were attributable to the antitorque
system. An instrumented 90-degree tail rotor gearbox was utilized to measure tail
rotor torque. All antitorque system performance test data were acquired in
conjunction with other tests. Results of these tests are presented in figures 1 1/
through 15, appendix F.

13. A directional control margin of 10 percent of the full displacement was

qualitatively determined to be the minimum acceptable to provide adequate control
of the helicopter. No controllability data are available on the UH-IH helicopter
to determine the magnitude of yaw response associated with this control margin.
Additional testing would be required to determine the controllability characteristics
of the UH-IH helicopter.

14. Figure I, appendix F, presents th.1 variation in directional control margin as

a function of skid height and main rotor thrust coefficient (CT)- The skid height
at which minimum Cj (hence minimum gross weight) occurred varied between
out of ground effect (OGE) and 10 feet, depending on the magnitude of the
directional control margin. The Cp associated with a directional control margin J
of 30 percent increased steadily with decreasing skid height. Nonlinear relationship;
between skid height and Cj were noted for directional control margins less than
25 percent. h
15. The tail rotor blades were rigged to yield an average blade pitch angle of
18 degrees with full left pedal. A plot of average tail rotor blade angle versus
directional control position is presented in figure 15, appendix F. The average tail
rotor blade pitch angle is essentially linear as a function of pedal position.

"W"
 J
16. The power required at the output shaft of the 90-degree tail rotor gearbox
for various directional control margins at different skid heights is shown in figures 9
through 11, appendix F. The tail rotor power required did not vary significantly
as a function of skid height for directional control margins of 10 percent or more.
The maximum difference in tail rotor power was less than 20 horsepower between
a 2-foot hover and OGE with a 10-percent directional control margin at SL,
standard-day conditions. However, at directional control margins of less than
10 percent, the tail rotor power required varied nonlinearly. It was calculated that
tail rotor powers in excess of 170 horsepower should be anticipated during hover
at directional control margins of 5 percent or less while operating at or near SL.
The tail rotor powf for a given blade pitch angle varies as a function of density
altitude, and decreased as density altitude increased. The structural design criteria
report (ref 13, app A) for the UH-1H states that the antitorque drive system design
limit is 386 foot-pounds (ft-lb) of torque (122 shp at 1,654 rpm),

17. The percentage of total engine power that was required by the tail rotor as
a function of directional control position during a hover is presented in figure A.
This percentage varied as a function of skid height and directional control position.
The skid heights requiring the largest and smallest percentages were 10 feet and
OGE, respectively. Increasing directional control between 35 and 10 percent
caused the antitorque drive system power percentage to increase almost linearly.
The percentage of total engine power absorbed by the tail rotor varied nonlinearly
when the directional control margin was less than 10 percent. This nonlinear
increase in power distribution t > the tail rotor indicated the presence of tail rotor
blade stall. An increase in aircraft high-frequency vibration was noted when a left
directional control margin of less than 10 percent was encountered. This increase
in aircraft high-frequency vibration also indicated that some form of tail rotor !
blade stall was being encountered. The severity of the high-frequency vibration
increased as the directional control approached the left control limit.

Hoveruij;

18. The objective of these tests was to determine hovering performance as a

function of skid height by using the tethered hover method. During these tests,
the longitudinal eg varied from FS 136.2 to FS 138.0. The test results are
presented in figures 16 through 23, appendix F. The faired lines on these figures
were derived from the YUH-1D performance report (ref 2, app A). The hovering
test conditions are presented in table 1.

19. The skid height for each test was determined by measuring the distance from
the bottom of the left landing gear skid tube to the ground. The reference point i'

for all skid height measurements was BL 48.0 left, water line (WL) -7.0, and
FS 134.5, which is opposite the cargo hook (photo 1). All hovering tests were
conducted v.ith the engine inlet screens and particle separator installed. This inlet
configuration was necessary to prevent foreign object damage to the engine which
could have occurred at the Bishop, California, test sites.

.1

. - ■ •. . ^ . A* A- A^«
^.*'
>l*s.: 1. £. . ^ *
 NOTES: 1. Dashed portion of curves indicates
extrapolated data.
2. Density altitude = 10,000 feet.
3. Rotor speed = 324 rpm.

Directional Control Position ~ percent from full left

Figure A. Tail Rotor Power Fraction.

Table 1. Hovering Performance Test Conditions.

Terrain
Skid Height Altitude Above Rotor Speed
(ft) Mean Sea Level (rpm)
(ft)

IGE: 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 4,220 324

and and
OGE: 60 9,550 314
 I

Photo 1. Determination of Hovering Skid Height.

 i
r V
20. The percentage of total engine power available to the main rotor decreased
due to the nonlinear increase in tail rotor power caused by tail rotor stall. Figure B
presents a nondimcnsional comparison of IGE hovering performance with the power
coefficients (Cp's) based on both measured engine power required and derived main
rotor power. The difference between the two curves presented in figure B is
approximately 13 percent up to a Cj of 0.0048 and increases thereafter. A
directional control margin of approximately 10 percent was encountered at this
Cj value. The hovering performance capability of the UH-1H was adversely affected
by apparent tail rotor stall when the directional control margin was less than
10 percent.

NOTES: 1. Solid line denotes power coefficient

based on measured engine power.
2. Dashed line denotes power coefficient
based on derived main rotor power.

'

u
c
U
i_
it
*
o
0_

r i

34 42

Thrust Coefficient - Cj x 10
53
4
r.
Figure B. Hovering Performance at a 2-Foot Skid Height.

■i-a
-' ■■"■■■ 1
y**** ■ '.'
^
21. The IGE hovering performance is limited by directional control in many areas
depending on skid height, gross weight, density altitude, and rotor speed. The most
critical skid height for a directional control margin of 10 percent is 10 feet.
Figure C presents the IGE, standard-day hovering capability of the UH-1H
helicopter at a skid height of 10 feet and a rotor speed of 324 rpm. The hovering
capability is reduced at altitudes above 9,000 feet when observing the
recommended 10-percent directional control margin.

NOTES: 1. Standard day.

2. Wind less than 2 knots.
3. Skid height = 10 feet.
4. Rotor speed = 324 rpm.
5. Engine particle separator installed.

o
^-
X

I
1)
•a
3
'

K
3
i/i
0)
(LI

8 9
3
Gross Weight ~ x IÖ" pounds
Figure C. IGE Hovering Performance.

22. The IGE hovering performance is further degraded when hovering in adverse
crosswind conditions. The limitations and handling qualities during translational
flight are discussed in paragraphs 27 through 32.
Level Flight Performance With Fire Suppre—ion Kit

23. The objective of this test was to define the approximate increase in equivalent
flat plate area with the FSK installed (photo 2). The results of this test are

*: rf^
-• - ■ ■ ■■- ^ 'v/. -' -- *■ - »
r
j
presented in figure 24, appendix F. It should be noted that the atmospheric
conditions during this test were unacceptable, and additional testing would have
to be conducted to verify the calculated increase in equivalent flat plate area. It
was calculated from the frontal area and a drag coefficient of 1.0 that the
equivalent fiat plate area increased approximately 6 square feet with the FSK
installed. The level-flight performance data, presented in reference 1, appendix A,
were used as the baseline against which to determine this increase in equivalent
flat plate area.

HANDLING QUALITIES

Cyclic Pitch Control Pattern

24. The cyclic pitch control pattern was determined during ground tests with the
rotor in a static position. Hydraulic and electrical power were provided by external
sources. The test was conducted with the collective control in the full-down
position. The center of the cyclic control grip was used as a reference in determining
the magnitude of the cyclic control displacement. A plot of the cyclic pitch control
pattern is presented in figure 25, appendix F. The cyclic pitch control pattern
shows that the available longitudinal and lateral control are mutually dependent.
This mutual dependence usually occurs when either the longitudinal or lateral
control is within IS to 25 percent of the control limit. This plot should be used
when determining longitudinal and lateral cyclic control margins.

TVanaUtional Flight Evaluation

r
25. Translational flight is defined as flight in any direction with relative wind
at any azimuth from zero through 360 degrees (measured clockwise from nose
of aircraft) at airspeeds between zero and 35 knots. The primary objectives of
this test were to evaluate the handling qualities and to determine control margins
in translational flight. The applicable subparagraphs of paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of
M1L-H-8501A (ref 11, app A) were used as a basis for evaluation. A secondary
purpose of this test was to determine the tail rotor power required to stabilize
the aircraft at various combinations of wind azimuth and wind speed. The test
method used to meet these objectives was to conduct translational flights at various
combinations of relative azimuth and speed by using a calibrated ground pace
vehicle as a reference. When the aircraft was stabilized in translational flight,
parameters necessary to determine gross weight, ambient air conditions, azimuth, !
ground speed, and control margins were recorded. The wind velocity, measured .
approximately 10 feet above the ground, was less than 4 knots during all of the I
tests. Ambient wind speed and direction were incorporated into the analysis when
determining the vectorial airspeed summation and relative azimuth to the nose of f
the aircraft. A nearly constant main rotor thrust coefficient was maintained for
each test condition by adding ballast as fuel was consumed. The test conditions
evaluated are listed in table 2. Results of the translational flight handling qualities
are graphically presented in figures 26 through 66, appendix F.

10
 ^ämmtmtmtmä

J t

Photo 2. UH-1H with Fire Suppression Kit (FSK) Attached to Cargo Hook.

il

^^i . ■ • i_i " ■ ~--:

m&*r.
^^'--:'-'-'"•;a':'-—---'--"- - •*:
'

Table 2. Translatlonal Flight Handling Qualities Test Conditions.

Gross Density Longitudinal Lateral Rotor Outside Air

Test Center of Center of
Weight Altitude Speed Temperature
Condition Gravity Gravity
(lb) (ft) (rpm) (0C)
(in.) (in.)

1 7,400 5,200 130.5 (fwd) 0.05 left 323 17

2 8,600 5,100 130.2 (fwd) 0.04 left 322 17

3 7,600 11,300 130.3 (fwd) 0.05 left 324 12

4 9,400 5,600 134.0 (fwd) 0.04 left 323 20

5 8,600 11,500 130.5 (fwd) 0.04 left 324 13

26. Tianslational flight tests were not conducted in actual winds since the test
aircraft was not instrumented to record either the frequency or the magnitude
of control inputs required in unsteady air flow. However, previous UH-1H test
results (rcf 1, app A) indicate that the translational handling qualities in winds
are significantly degraded when compared to paced translational flight in
undisturbed air.

Longitudinal Cyclic Control Margin: I

27. Insufficient aft longitudinal control was experienced during all of the test
conditions shown in table 2. All tests were conducted with the aircraft at or near
the forward longitudinal eg limit. The aft longitudinal control limit was encountered
at various combinations of airspeed and azimuth. The most critical azimuth for
insufficient aft longitudinal control was 190 to 210 degrees clockwise from the
nose of the aircraft. The critical azimuth is defined as the azimuth at which the
10-percent longitudinal control margin is encountered. The airspeed at which this
critical azimuth occurs decreases with increasing density altitude, increasing gross
weight, and/or decreasing rotor speed. Since controllability data were not available
from previous UH-1H helicopter testing, a control margin of 10 percent was
qualitatively established as the minimum to effectively control the aircraft in wind
gusts of ±2 knots at any azimuth for airspeeds less than 12 knots. At airspeeds
less than 12 knots, the pilot could adequately control the aircraft with moderate
compensation with a 10-percent longitudinal control margin (HQRS 4). The aft
longitudinal control inputs required to control aircraft pitching motions within the
12 to 18-knot speed range exceeded 10 percent when trying to stabilize downwind
at the conditions shown in table 2. The longitudinal control inputs required in
this area were 8 to 15 percent, depending on gross weight, density altitude, and/or \
rotor speed (main rotor thrust coefficients). Pilot effort in this airspeed range was
excessive when trying to achieve adequate performance (HQRS 6). Prolonged

12

*■ • -r
~ '- . . — - - ■
 1-1

exposure (S to 10 minutes) at these flight conditions induced pilot fatigue and

decreased pilot efficiency. The pilot effort associated with prolonged exposure was
intense, and adequate performance is unattainable (HQRS 7). As the speed of the
aircraft increased from 18 to 30 knots, the 10-percent aft longitudinal control
margin was sufficient to control the helicopter in translational flight. Minimal pilot
compensation was required to obtain desired performance at these higher speeds
(HQRS 3).

28. The aft longitudinal control capability was significantly less than that required
to meet the intent of paragraph 3.2.1 of M1L-H-8501A. This insufficient aft
longitudinal control problem is only encountered when the aircraft is operating
at or near the forward longitudinal eg limit. It was recommended in reference I,
appendix A, that a precautionary loading envelope (fig. D) be incorporated in the
operator's manual. That proposed envelope was not investigated during this test
program. However, based on the results of this test program, a change in the eg
envelope is needed. Without an appropriate eg envelope change, the lack of
sufficient aft longitudinal control within the present gross-weight/cg envelope is
a safety-of-flight hazard, and improvement is mandatory to meet the intended
mission.

Directional Control Margin:

29. The directional control capability was signflcantly less than that required to
meet the intent of paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.3.6 of M1L-H-850IA. The critical area
of insufficient directional control (less than 10-percent control margin) for test
condition number 1, table 2, was bounded by azimuths from approximately 30 to
45 degrees at an airspeed of 23 knots with a skid height of approximately IS feet. 1/
The area of inadequate directional control bounded by azimuth and speed increased
with combinations of increasing altitude, increasing gross weight, and/or decreasing
rotor speed. At the most critical condition (number 5, table 2), the left direciional
control margin was less than 10 percent at a wind speed of less than 10 knots
for azimuths between 75 and 265 degrees. For this same condition, the directional
control margin to the right was less than 10 percent at wind speeds greater than
25 knots from the left. A directional control margin of at least 10 percent allowed
the pilot, with considerable compensation, to stabilize or maneuver the aircraft
in translational flight (HQRS 5). Increased directional control is mandatory if
mission accomplishment is to be achieved within the currently approved flight
envelope of the aircraft.

30. The UH-1H was difficult to stibilize directionally at speeds between

10 and 18 knots at relative azimuths between 210 and 320 degrees. Figure E
i
|
illustrates a rcprerentative area of this directional instability. Rapid, and sometimes
large, directional control excursions were necessary to maintain a heading for these ^
conditions. Pilot recognition and reaction times following small excursions in yaw
determined the frequency and magnitude of the directional control inputs. During
test condition number 3, table 2, directional control of the aircraft was lost
(uncontrolled right yaw) when trying to stabilize at a speed of 13 knots at a relative
azimuth of 270 degrees (left crosswind) (HQRS 10). Available directional control

13
 r
was insulTicicnt to arrest the yawing motion until the helicopter had yawed
uncontrollably 300 degrees to the right. Insufficient directional control precludes
safe operation within the currently approved flight envelope, and improvement in
directional control capability is mandatory.

u ——

-Prcs ent Envelope

\. i

üy
V\S^
^
\

\
NN^
c

I ^iü ^Rec, mimcndcd Envelope

O I

^
13' 131
i U4 136 138 140 143 144
Longitudinal CG I ocation ~ inches

Figure D. Recommended Gross-Weight/CG Fnvelope. I? i

14

-^ '- -- - _< ^^ 1* - A«. «. ^. LiJ>3^^ _ia

 Speed
~m*m*mmtmm

Density Altitude
mum

Gross Weight Coefficient

r
Legend (kt) (ft) (lb) of Thrust

11.0 5,180 7,430 0.003057

19.5 5,150 7,220 0.002970

NOTES: I. Aircraft could not be stabilized between

120 and 210 degrees due to insufficient
longitudinal control at 19.5 knots.
2. Longitudinal center of gravity = FS 130.6 (fwd). r
3. Lateral center of gravity = 0.05 left.
4. Rotor speed = 324 rpm.
5. Skid height range = 5 to 15 feet.
i -äso
= 2
a
E
o
60
c
5
x>
u
I-
a

c
O 40
m. k
Ar» ;a of Üire( tional Inst ability-^

Ä
> fm
to
O

C
20
>\

\
>>.<^^ y^ \y Amtvom /
-^c^J.
i
o
u
B
O

I !•. 90 180 270 360

Azimuth ~ degrees clockwise from nose of aircraft

Figure E. Directional Control Position IGE at Various Wind Azimuths.

f
31. The lack of sufficient directional control can be further complicated by the
large changes in longitud;nal cyclic control required to arrest the pitching motions
of the aircraft. Following the loss of directional control discussed in paragraph 30,
the helicopter started to pitch nose down as it rotated through a heading of
240 degrees. Full aft cyclic control was required to check the pitching motions
as the aircraft continued to turn to the right. Insufficient directional control, when
combined with insufficient longitudinal control, is a safety-of-flight hazard, and
correction or imposition of appropriate limitation (fig. F) is mandatory for safe
operation.
15

"■ y * %
•mmmmm •w«
~AJ •: - -
 }

A
NOTKS: 1. Rotor speed = 324 rpm.
2. Envelope based on a 10-percent control margin at
all wind azimuths.
3. Longitudinal center of gravity at or near forward limit.
4. Curves derived from figure 26, appendix E.

12
u ^^^\v}- Wind Speed = zero
Wind Speed» lOkts^-
•o Wind Speed = s'ktT^^^.
/
—
\^
01 * _ Maximum Gross Weight Limit-*
3
•o ^Wind Speed = 15kts
<

c
^-^
70 75 80 85 90 95
Gross Weight ~ x 10" pounds

Figure F. Recommended IGE Translational Flight Envelope for the Present I

Gross-Weight/CG Flight Envelope. 1

32. The IGE translational flight envelope for 10-percent longitudinal and
directional control margins is presented in figure F for the present gross-weight/cg
envelope. When the aircraft is loaded to provide a 10-percent longitudinal control
margin in translational flight, the helicopter is still limited by a 10-percent
directional control margin, as shown in figure G. It is required that the directional
control system for the UH-1H be improved to provide increased translational flight
capabilities.

Lateral-Directional Characteristics:

33. No undesirable lateral control characteristics were encountered during the

translational flight handling qualities evaluation. There was adequate lateral control
margin to control the aircraft in roll with a mid lateral eg loading. However, an
undamped lateral-directional oscillation with a period of about 1.5 to 2.0 seconds
was encountered at airspeeds greater than 25 knots in right translational flight
IGE at thrust coefficients greater than 0.0035. This lateral-directional oscillation
was only encountered in those translational flight regimes where full left pedal

16

•m—mm^
W**- ^- - -- - .-> J^
4
was required. The helicopter oscillated approximately ±10 degrees in yaw and
approximately ± 2 degrees in roll. The oscillations were unpleasant, since a desired
heading could not be precisely maintained (HQRS 3). An attempt was made to
excite this motion OGE, but all attempts failed to induce any lateral-directional
oscillation at this condition. *

Aircraft Height Control:

34. Control of skid height by use of collective control was easilv accomplished
(HQRS 2).

NOTES: 1. Rotor speed = 324 rpm.

2. Envelope based on 10-percent directional control
margin at all azimuths.
3. Curves derived from figure 26, appendix E.

Gross Weight ~ x 10 pounds

Figure G. Recommended IGE Translational Flight Envelope for

Reduced Forward CG Flight Envelope.

Tail Rotor Power:

35. The tail rotor power required to stabilize the aircraft increased nonlinearly
as the directional control approached the left limit. The maximum tail rotor power
encountered during translational flight was 140 horsepower for test condition
number 2 and number 4, table 3. The rapid, and sometimes large, directional
control excursions discussed in paragraph 30 caused large tail rotor power
f
oscillations. Oscillating tail rotor power levels were not measured exactly during
this program but are estimated to vary from 40 to 140 horsepower for some test

17

- '■-■
m*r<*^*** Mi.
conditions. At no time during the test program was any of the tail rotor drive
train (gearboxes, shafting, etc.) replaced. It has been noted on previous test
programs that higher tail rotor horsepower was recorded during translational flight
or controllability tests at sea level with the aircraft loaded at maximum gross weight
(ref 14, app A). Therefore, additional testing is required to determine tail rotor
drive system power required at or near sea level.

Right Lateral Center-of-Gravity Evaluation

36. The primary objectives of this test were to evaluate the handling qualities
and to determine control margin with a right lateral eg loading. A secondary
objective of this test was to determine the tail rotor power required to stabilize
the aircraft in sideward flight when loaded asymmetrically. Various lateral
asymmetric loadings were used to simulate rescue missions with the hoist located
on the right side at longitudinal FS 80.0. All tests were conducted in sideward
and rearward flight within a 5- to 15-foot skid height range. A calibrated ground
pace vehicle was used as a speed reference. Conditions tested are listed in table 3.
Results of these tests arc presented in figures 67 through 76, appendix F.

Gross
Table 3. Lateral Center-of-Gravity Test Conditions.

Density Rotor Longitudinal Lateral

f
Weight Altitude Speed Center of Gravity Center of Gravity
(lb) (ft) (rpm) (in.) (in.)

0.05 left to
7,600 6,000 323.5 130.5 (fwd)
4.38 right

0.04 left to
8,400 5,300 323.0 130.5 (fwd)
4.01 right

0.05 left to
7,600 11,600 324.0 130.3 (fwd)
2.89 right

Lateral Cyclic Control Margin:

37. Lateral cyclic control variation with speed in sideward flighv was stable
(increasing right lateral cyclic control was required with increasing sp^ed in right
sideward flight) for all conditions tested. Approximately 4.5 percent ^0.6 inch)
Il
of lateral cyclic control displacement was required for each 20-knoi': change in lateral I■
speed. It was determined from figure 67, appendix F, that approximately
8 percent (1 inch) of lateral cyclic control displacement was required to balance
a 14,000 in.-lb change in lateral moment. There was sufficient lateral cyclic control
available to maneuver the aircraft during sideward flight fur the conditions tested.
Pilot compensation to control rolling motions was not a factor to achieve desired
performance.
I
II

MHTifr ^ -r^^A
38. A left lateral control margin of 18.5 percent was encountered when hovering
(zero wind speed) the aircraft with a right lateral moment of 35,000 in. ib.
Approximately 6.9 percent of additional left lateral cyclic displacement was
required in left sideward flight when the speed was increased from zero to 30 knots.
Therefore, a left lateral cyclic control margin of approximately 11.6 percent
(18.5 percent minus 6.9 percent) is available in left sideward flight at 30 knots
with a right asymmetric moment of 35,000 in.-lb. This calculated lateral control
margin is slightly greater than the intent of paragraph 3.3.4 of M1L-H-8501A and
should allow for variations in rigging between aircraft. The UH-IH should be limited
to a right lateral moment of 35,000 in.-lb to provide at least a 10-percent lateral
control margin. Additional tests would be required to determine the maximum
allowable right lateral moment when the rigging of the main rotor swashpla is
different than 2.0 degrees down, left.

39. No definite trend of lateral cyclic control requirements in rearward flight could
be determined from the qualitative test results. In rearward flight, the lateral cyclic
control sometimes moved to the right nonlinearly as speed was increased, while
in some instances no change in lateral cyclic control was observed. Lateral control
characteristics and lateral control margins in rearward flight were acceptable at
all conditions tested.

Longitudinal Cyclic Control Margin:

40. Increasing aft longitudinal control displacement was required to stabilize in

left sideward flight as speed was increased from zero to the maximum tested. The
gradient of aft longitudinal control displacement was approximately 0.7 percent it
per knot (0.08 in./kt) in left sideward flight. A longitudinal control margin of
less than 10 percent was encountered several times during the tetf program at
speeds in excess of 20 knots in left sideward flight. However, if ihe proposed
gross-weight/longitudinal eg envelope discussed in paragraph 29 is observed,
sufficient longitudinal control should be available to control the helicopur and
provide a 10-percent aft longitudinal control margin in loft sideward flight. No
appreciable change in longitudinal cyclic was required to n aintain the trim pitch
attitude when translating to the right from a nover to a speed of 10 to IS knots.
As speed exceeded 10 to 15 knots in right sideward flight an increase in aft
longitudinal cyclic was necessary to control pitch attitude fo: most conditions
tested. The longitudinal control margin during right sideward flight was generally
15 U >r percent at the limit speed. Variations in lateral eg, density altitude, and
gross weight did not significantly affect the longitudinal control gradient in either
left or right sideward flight. The longitudinal cyclic control characteristics were
not objectionable during sideward flight and control of the aircraft could be
maintained with minimal pilot compensation (HQRS 3).

41. A nonlinear increase in aft longitudinal control displacement was required to

stabilize the helicopter as speed was increased in rearward flight. Variations in right
lateral eg had negligible effects on the longitudinal control displacement
characteristics in rearward flight. The maximum ground speed attainable in rearward
flight at a 10-percent longitudinal control margin varied from 9 to 18 knots,

IS

' - _/^--r^*ag.^^--^.-r.
depending on density altitude, gross weight, and longitudinal eg. The pilot
compensation required to control the aircraft ranged from moderate to intense,
depending on the speed in rearward flight and time exposed to a specific flight
speed. Paragraph 27 discusses in detail the longitudinal control problems
encountered during rearward flight. Adoption of the recommended
gross-wcight/longitudinal-cg envelope (para 28) will increase the aft longitudinal
control margin and the downwind hovering capabilities of the UH-1H.

Directional Control Margin:

42. There was a nonlinear variation in directional control position as the speed
of the aircraft was increased in sideward flight. Increasing left directional control
displacement was required as speed increased from zero to 10 knots in left sideward
flight. This increase in left directional control with increasing left sideward speed
indicated that the aircraft had a tendency to turn downwind. This flight
characteristic was not objectionable up to speeds of 10 knots, and control of the
helicopter could be maintained with minimal pilot effort (HQRS 3). At a speed
of 10 knots in left sideward flight, a reversal in directional control requirement
occurred, since increasing right directional control displacement was required to
stabilize the aircraft in left sideward flight. The maximum directional control
gradient in left sideward flight occurred at a speed of approximately IS knots
and had an average magnitude of 6.S percent per knot (0.4S in./kt). Intense pilot
compensation was required to stabilize the aircraft between 10 and 18 knots on
a precise heading in left sideward flight (HQRS 8). At airspeeds in excess of about
18 knots, the pilot compensation was reduced to a minimal level (HQRS 3).
Generally, increasing left directional control was required with increasing speed
in right sideward flight. For many conditions tested, the recommended 10 percent
of directional control margin (para 29) was encountered prior to reaching 30 knots
in sideward flight to the right. Pilot effort and handling qualities ratings during
right sideward flight were the same as those presented in paragraph 29. The
variation in right lateral eg had a negligible effect on directional control
requirements in sideward flight. The recommended IGE translational flight envelope
presented in paragraph 32 is valid when operating at right asymmetric moments
up to 35,000 in .-lb.

43. Variations in directional control as a function of speed in rearward flight

exhibited no definite trend. For most conditions tested, increasing right directional
control was required as rearward speed was increased. However, for several isolated
test conditions, increasing left pedal was required to stabilize the aircraft in rearward
flight as speed increased. Pilot compensation required to control the helicopter,
along with associated handling qualities ratings during rearward flight, are the same
as paragraphs 30 and 31. Again, as during sideward flight, variations in lateral eg
had a negligible effect on the directional handling qualities during rearward flight.

Tail Rotor Power:

44. Increasing tail rotor power was required with increasing left directional control
displacement both in rearward and sideward flight. The average magnitude of these

-■ - te_ [W* > --^.^ ■^^' ■

r
peak values was 113 and 102 horsepower at density altitudes of approximately
6,000 and 11,000 feet, respectively, with a 10-percent directional control margin.
Variations in lateral eg had a negligible effect on a tail rotor power required as
a function of directional control position when the directional control margin was
more than 10 percent.

Evaluation with Fire Suppregwon Kit Installed

45. The objective of this evaluation was to determine if there was any appreciable
degradation of UH-IH handling qualities with the FSK installed. Both static and
dynamic tests were conducted with the FSK installed. The FSK was filled with
water and was attached to the aircraft by the cargo hook for all tests, unless
otherwise noted Quantitative test results are presented in figures 77 through 80,
appendix F. Time history data were not recorded since a continuous recording
data system was not installed in the aircraft. All tests conducted in level flight
at altitude were at an approximate Cj of 0.0036. Autorotational tests were not
conducted.

46. Increasing forward longitudinal cyclic was required to stabilize the aircraft
as airspeed was increased from 41 to 96 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS).
Variations in lateral and directional controls, in this airspeed range, were not
apparent to the pilot. All control margins were more than 10 percent for the
airspeed range and conditions tested. The static trim characteristics are acceptable
for missions requiring use of the FSK (HQRS 2).

47. The static directional stability and dihedral effect of the UH-IH helicopter
with the FSK installed were gei.erally positive (increasing right directional control,
and left lateral control with increasing left sideslip) for the two trim airspeeds
investigated. The variation in directional control requirements was essentially linear
as sideslip was varied about trim. The lateral control displacement as a function
of sideslip was nonlinear and became less positive as argle of sideslip was increased.
This decrease in lateral cyclic control gradient indicated a decrease in dihedral effect.
The static lateral-directional characteristics with FSK installed are satisfactory.

48. Side-force characteristics, as indicated by bank angle during steady sideslips,

were qualitatively determined to be positive.

49. The handling qualities of the UH-IH in rearward flight with the FSK installed
were similar to those discussed in paragraphs 39, 41, and 48.

50. The aircraft motions following a longitudinal control pulse input in hover, Ij
partial power descent, and level flight were well damped, and no undesirable *
cross-coupling motions were present. The aircraft reaction to longitudinal inputs If
was immediate and in the direction commanded. The motions of the FSK following
a longitudinal pulse input were well damped, and these motions were not evident
to the flight crew.

21

•w
IV1^ ■!!—»—»W—^P**—a,l>ailMl1J^l^>^^^fc^^^^^^^^^^;~g^^^'
lmm - WNW«-
- PUT-—. I^I ■ II | Uk Mm.i
51. Initial aircraft response following a lateral control pulse input in hover, partial
power descent, and forward flight were damped. However, approximately 2 to
3 seconds following a lateral pulse, the resulting oscillating motion of the FSK
induced an aircraft rolling motion, ihc magnitude of the aircraft rolling motion
increased as the size of the lateral pulse was increased. The most critical test
condition was during partial power descent at an airspeed of approximately
55 KCAS. For this test condition, approximately ten lateral oscillations of the
FSK were observed following a I-inch left lateral pulse input. Aircraft rolling
motions associated with FSK oscillations following a 1-inch left lateral control pulse
input were not quite as noticeable in a hover as in descending flight. The aircraft
rolling motions resulting from FSK oscillations following a left lateral pulse input
required considerable pilot compensation to achieve adequate performance during
partial power descent and hover (HQRS 5). Increasing airspeed in level flight caused
the resulting oscillations of the FSK to decrease in number following a left lateral
pulse input. The pilot effort required to provide adequate performance in level
flight was minimal at airspeeds in excess of 40 KCAS for left lateral 1-inch inputs
(HQRS 3). A 1-inch right lateral pulse input resulted in only three oscillations
of the FSK during partial power descent and hovering flight. The aircraft response
and resulting FSK oscillations to right lateral pulse inputs required minimal pilot
effort to realize desired performance for all flight conditions tested (HQRS 3).
No objectionable cross-axis coupling was encountered following lateral pulse inputs.
Elimination of the aircraft rolling motions associated with FSK oscillations are
desirable for improved operation and mission capabilities.

52. The UH-IH demonstrated heavy damping following a directional control pulse
input. Positive dihedral effect (roll opposite direction of sideslip) was evident
following the initial portion of the directional control input. This rolling motion If
excited the lateral oscillation of the FSK, however, minimal pilot compensation
was required to achieve desired performance (HQRS 3).

53. Slow, coordinated turns with roll rates of 2 degrees per second (deg/sec) during
climbs, descents, and level flight were evaluated at an airspeed of approximately
55 KCAS. The maximum bank angle investigated was 30 degrees, right and left.
Pilot effort to control the helicopter in a roll was minimal (HQRS 3).

1
54. Abrupt, coordinated turns (10 deg/sec roll rate) were evaluated during climbs
and descents at a speed of approximately 55 KCAS. The oscillating motions of
the FSK following the initial lateral control input increased the pilot effort required
to maintain the desired roll attitude during the turn when rolling from right to
left with bank angle changes greater than 20 degrees (10 degrees right to
10 degrees left). The pilot compensation required fo; a 20-degree change in roll
attitude and resulting turn was minimal. Large, bank angle changes required

f
increased pilot effort.

55. Vibration characteristics were qualitatively evaluated throughout the flight

envelope. The vibration characteristics for the conditions tested were acceptable,
and no apparent change in aircraft vibration was noted with FSK installed when
compared to the standard aircraft.

22
H CONCLUSIONS

GENERAL

56. The following general conclusions were reached upon completion of the tail
rotor performance test of the UH-1H helicopter:

a. The percentage of total engine power absorbed by the tail rotor varied
nonlinearly when the left directional control margin was less than 10 percent
(para 17).

b. The hovering performance is adversely affected by the apparent tail rotor

stall when the left directional control margin is less than 10 percent (para 20).

c. The handling qualities are unacceptable during translational flight

(paras 27 through 31).

d. An undamped lateral-directional oscillation was encountered at speeds

greater than 25 knots during IGE right translational flight (para 33).

e. The maximum tail rotor power encountered during translational flight

was 140 horsepower (para 35).

f. The maximum right lateral moment consistent with 10-percent remaining

left lateral control in left sideward flight was 35,000 in.-lb (para 38).

g. Additional testing is required to determine the maximum acceptable right

lateral moment with the rigging of the main rotor swashplate other than 2.0 degrees
down, left (para 38).

h. The handling qualities were not significantly affected by FSK installation

with the exception of aircraft reaction in roll to lateral oscillations of FSK
(para 51).

i. Three deficiencies and one shortcoming were encountered during this

program (paras 57 and 58).

DEFICIENCIES AND SHORTCOMINGS AFFECTING MISSION

ACCOMPLISHMENT
i
57. Correction of the following deficiencies appears essential for adequate mission
accomplishment:

a. Insufficient longitudinal control within the approved gross-weight/eg

envelope (para 28).

23

L^wr.rf,%.,v^
-^

b. Insufficient directional control (para 32).

c. Directional instability between 10 and 18 knots at relative azimuths

between 210 and 320 degrees is a safety-of-flight hazard (para 30).

58. Correction of the following shortcoming is desirable for improved operation

and mission capabilities: aircraft rolling motions associated with FSK oscillations
(para 53).

MILITARY SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE

59. All translational flight handling qualities requirements contained in

MIL-M-8501A were complied with, except for the intent of the following
paragraphs:

Paragraph Item

3.2.1 Insufficient longitudinal control

(see para 28)

3.3.2 and 3.3.6 Insufficient directional control

(see para 29)

r
24

.^ - /- »'Z^^^zT - • -
 't

-. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS

60. Correct deficiencies prior to further procurement.

61. Correct shortcoming at earliest convenience.

62. Restrict the operational flight envelope to conditions which provide 10-percent
longitudinal and directional control margins (para 32).

63. Limit the maximum right lateral moment to 35,000 in.-lb (para 38).

K
y1

25

^-i i^^jafcj'iitfi ■■
 APPENDIX A. REFERENCES

1. Final Report, USAASTA, Project No. 66-04, Engineering Test. YUH-1H

Helicopter, Phase D (Limited), November 1970.

2. Final Report, Air Force Flight Test Center, AFFTC-TR-64-27, Category II

Performance Tests of the YUH-1D with a 48-Foot Rotor, November 1964.

3. Letter, ASD, ASD/SDQH 4-30, 12 April 1971, subject: HH-1H Tail Rotor
Hover Performance.

4. Letter, ASD, ASD/SDQH 6-128, 22 June 1971, subject: UH-1H Tail Rotor
Hover Performance.

5. Letter, AVSCOM, AMSAV-R-F, 11 June 1971, subject; Test Directive, UH-1H

Tail Rotor Performance.

6. Letter, AVSCOM, AMSAV-R-F, 30 June 1971, subject: Test Directive, UH-1H

Tail Rotor Performance.

7. Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request, USAFASC/PPPC, MIPR

No. FX 2826-71-05336, 24 June 1971, subject: UH-1H Tail Rotor Hover
Performance.

8. Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request, USAFASD/PPPC. MIPR

No. FX 2826-71-05336, 8 July 1971, subject: UH-IH Tail Rotor Hover
Pcrfornr.'nce, Amendment I.

9. Technical Manual, TM 55-1520-210-10, Operator's Manual, Armv Model

UH-ID/II Helicopter, 7 May 1969, with Changes 1 and 2, 29 April 1970.

10. Technical Manual, TM 55-1520-210-20, Organizational Maintenance Manual,

Armv UH-ID/H Helicopter, 1 May 1969 with Changes 1 through 15,
22 Juno 1971.

I I. Military Specification, MIL-H-8501 A, Helicopter Flying and Ground Handling

Qualities. General Requirements For, 7 September 1961, with Amendment 1,
3 April 1962.

12. Army Regulation, AR 310-25, Dictionary of United States Army Terms.

r
1 i
1 March 1969.

13. Report, Bell Helicopter Company, 805-099-400, Basic Structural Design

Criteria for UH-ID Utility Helicopter, Revision F, 27 March 1969.

14. Final Report, USAASTA, Project No. 66-06, Engineering Flight Test, AH-IG
Helicopter. HueyCohra. Phase D. Part 1, Handling Qualities, December 1970.

26

■ ■
"ir
APPENDIX n. HASIC AIRCRAFT INFORMATION AND OPERATING LIMITS

AIRFRAME

Main Rotor Syatem

1. The main rotor assembly is of the two-bladed, semirigid teetering type

employing preconing and undcrslinging. The main rotor blades are all-metal bonded,
and each blade is connected to a common yoke by means of a grip and suitable
pitch change bearings with tension straps to carry centrifugal forces. The main
rotor head (consisting of the yoke, blade grips, and bearings) is mounted to the
mast by means of a trunnion through the teetering bearing. The trunnion permits
rotor flapping while the blade grip to yoke extension bearings permit cyclic and
collective pitch action. The main rotor control system consists of a swashplate
assembly which transfers cyclic control motions from the fuselage-based system
to the rotating controls, a scissors assembly which transfers motion from the
rotating swashplate to the stabilizer bar mixing levers, a stabilizer bar which aids
in the stability of the aircraft, a hydraulic damper assembly to control the
"following time" of the stabilizer bar, and static stops to limit teetering motion
of the hub.

Tail Rotor System

2. The tail rotor is a two-bladed, rigid. Delta-three hinged type employing

preconing and undcrslinging. Each blade is connected to a common yoke by means
of a grip and suitable pitch change bearings. The blade and yoke assembly is I
mounted on the tail rotor shaft by means of a Delta-three hinged trunnion to I
minimize rotor flapping. A pitch-change mechanism actuated by the tail rotor
control pedals is provided to increase or decrease the pitch of the blades. The
tail rotor system principal subassemblies are the rotor blades, each blade constructed
of aluminum alloy; the tail rotor head consisting of blade grips, the yoke which
forms the hub of the tail rotor, and the flapping axis trunnion which attaches
the yoke to the shaft through the flapping axis bearing; and the tail rotor head
blade pitch control mechanism, which consists of a push/pull tube that actuates
a trosshead which is connected to the blade grips by means o control links to
produce the desired blade pitch angles.

Empennage

3. The empennage consists of a vertical fin and synchronizec elevator. The

synchronized elevator, which has an inverted airfoil section, is located near the
aft end of the tail boom and is connected by control tubes and mechanical linkage
to the fore and aft cyclic control system. Fore and aft movements of the cyclic
control stick produce a change in the synchronized elevator attitude. The
swept-back vertical fin extends up from the aft end of the tail boom and houses
a portion of the tail rotor drive shaft. The vertical tail has no control surfaces.

27

■ ■ mtmmmmmHf
»«***-*•,
<

friction can be induced into the control lever by hand tightening the friction
adjuster. A rotating grip-type throttle and a switch-box assembly are located on
the upper end of the pilot collective control pitch lever. The copilot collective
pitch control lever contains only the rotating grip-type throttle, starter switch, and
governer rpm increase/decrease switch.

Tail Rotor Pitch Control Pedal«

9. Tail rotor pitch control pedals alter the pitch of the tail rotor blades, and
thereby provide the means for directional control. The force trim system is
connected to the directional controls and is operated by the force trim switch
on the cycUc control grip.

ENGINE

Engine Description

10. The T53-L-13 engine, rated at 1,400 shp, is a free-turbine-type power plant.
The main subassemblies of the engine are an inlet section, compressor section,
ditfuser section, combustor section, and exhaust section. The engine is derated
to 1,100 shp because of airframe drive train torque limits. All sections are designed
to include an annular flow path for the air or hot gases, are structurally
interdependent, support all internal rotating systems, and provide attaching
capabilities for engine-required external components and limited airframe
accessories.

Engine Power Control System I

11. The T53-L-13 engine has a hydromechanical fuel control which consists of
the following main units::

a. Dual-element fuel pump.

b. Clas producer speed governor.

c. Power turbine speed topping governor.

d. Acceleration and deceleration control.

)
e. Fuel shut-off valve.

f. Transient air bleed control.

12. An air bleed control is incorporated within the fuel control to provide for
opening and closing the compressor interstage air bleed in response to the following
signals present in the fuel control:

28

■■»■■■»
A^^_. -- ... U, - - -"—^iriSi"! w< ■ i — XL. - . -
ir
i
J
Tranrnniwion Syrtem

4. The transmission is morited forward of the engine and is coupled to the

engine by a sho't drive shaft. The transmission is basically a reduction gearbox
which transmits engine power at reduced rpm to the main and tail rotors by means
of a two-stage planetary gcartrain. The transmission incorporates a free-wheeling
unit at the input drive which provides a disconnect from the engine in case of
a power failure and allows the aircraft to autorotate. The tail rotor is powered
by a takeoff on the lower aft section of the transmission.

Control Sygtemg

5. The flight control system is a positive mechanical type actuated by

conventional helicopter controls. The system includes a cyclic control stick, the
collective pitch (main rotor) control lever, tail rotor (directional) control pedals,
and synchronized elevator connected mechanically to the fore and aft cyclic control
system.

Force Trim

6. Force centering devices are incorporated in the cyclic controls and directional
pedal controls. These devices are installed between the cyclic stick and the hydraulic
servo cylinders, and between the directional control pedals and the hydraulic servo
cylinder. These devices furnish a force gradient to the cyclic stick and directional
control pedals. The force trim can be deactuated by keying the left button on
the top of the cyclic stick or by cycling the force trim ON/OFF switch installed
on the hydraulic control panel to the OFF position. The gradient is accomplished '
by springs and magnetic brake release assemblies which enable the pilot to trim
the controls as desired.

Cyclic Pitch Control Stick

7. The cyclic pitch control stick operates the longitudinal and lateral control
systems of the aircraft. The synchronized elevator is linked to the fore and aft
cyclic stick movements by means of mechanical linkage and connecting control
tubes. The pilot cyclic stick grip contains the cargo release switch; a trigger-type,
three-position radio transmitter switch; armament fire control switch; hoist switch;
and the force trim release switch. Desired pilot cyclic control operating friction
can be induced by hand tightening a friction adjuster. The copilot cyclic control
stick is the same as the pilot cyclic control stick, with the exception that the
copilot stick does not have a friction adjuster.

Collective Pitch Control

8. The collective pitch control levers arc located to the left of the pilot and
copilot, respectively. Main rotor blade pitch is controlled by this lever. When the
lever is in the full-down position, the main rotor is at minimum pitch. When the
lever is in the full-up position, the main rotor is at maximum pitch. Operating

:^r^r>v^op
 a. (las producer speed.

b. Compressor inlet air temperature.

c. Fuel flow.

13. The fuel control is designed to be operated either automatically or in an

emergency mode. In the emergency position, fuel flow is routed around the main
metering valve to the manual (emergency) metering and dump valve assembly. While
in the emergency mode, fuel flow to the engine is controlled by the position of
the manual metering valve which is directly connected to the power control (twist
grip). During the emergency operation, there is no automatic control of fuel flow
during acceleration and deceleration, thus engine exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
and engine acceleration must be pilot monitored.

BASIC AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

Airframc Data

Overall length (main rotor fore and aft and tail

rotor horizontal) 684.67 in.

Overall width (rotor trailing) 114.6 in.

Center line of main rotor to center line of

tail rotor 345.9 in.

Center line of main rotor to elevator hinge line 246.5 in.

Elevator area (including protected area

of tail boom 23.7 ft2

Elevator area (both panels) 19.8 ft2

Elevator airfoil section Clark Y (inverted)

Vertical stabilizer area 11.3 ft2

Vertical stabilizer airfoil section NACA 0015

Vertical stabilizer aerodynamic center FS 443.9,

WL 112.1

Main Rotor Data

Number of blades 2

Diameter 48 ft

T -—■•

- -*- i^fa
Disc area 1,809 ft2

Blade chord 21 in.

Rotor solidity 0.0464

Blade area (both blades) 84 ft2

Blade airfoil NACA 0012

Linear blade twir-t (root to tip) -10 deg

Hub precone angle 2.75 deg

Mast angle (relative to horizontal reference) S deg forward tilt

Test aircraft control travel:

Collective (measured at center of grip) 11.0 in.

Longitudinal cyclic (measured at center

of grip) 12.9 in.

Lateral cyclic (measured at center of grip) 12.6 in.

Directional (measured at center of pedal) 6.9 in.

Blade travel:
I
Flapping (any direction) ±11 deg

Longitudinal cyclic +12 to -12 deg

Lateral cyclic (rigged 2 deg down, left) +9 to -11 deg

Antitorquc Rotor Data

Number of blades 2
Diameter 8.5 ft

Disc area 56.7 ft2

Blade chord 8.41 in.

Rotor solidity 0.105

Blade airfoil NACA 0015

31

mawMM^p
m<r*fj'^ • --
r
Blade twist Zero deg

Blade travel (average):

Full left pedal 18 deg

Full right pedal -10 deg

Grogg-Weight/Center-of-Gravity Envelope

Forward eg limit:

Below 8,600 pounds, FS 130.0; linear increase from 8,600 pounds, FS 130.0,
to FS 134.0 at 9,500 pounds.

Aft eg limit:

Below 8,600 pounds, FS 144.0; linear decrease from 8,600 pounds, FS 144.0,
to FS 143.0 at 9,500 pounds.

Rotor and Engine Speed Limitg (Steady State)

Power on:

Engine rpm 6,400 and 6,600

Roto; rpm 314 and 324

1
Transient rpm 331

Power off:

Rotor rpm 294 and 339

Temperature and Pressure Limit«

Engine oil temperature 930C

Transmission oil temperature 110oC

Engine oil pressure 25 to 100 psi

Transmission oil pressure 30 to 70 psi

Fuel pressure 5 to 20 psi

32

■-_^. » - —: . . — -^
Gear Ratioa

Power turbine to engine output shaft 3.2105:1

linginc output shaft to main rotor 20.370:1
Engine output shaft to antitorque rotor 3.990:1
Engine output shaft to antitorque drive system 1.535:1
Gas producer turbine to tachometer pad
(100% = 25, 150 rpm) 5.988:1
Engine and Drive Train Limitg

Power ratings:

Military power (30-minute limit) 1,400 shp

derated to
1,100 shp
Maximum continuous power '.250 shp
derated to
1,100 shp
Torque limits:

Maximum continuous 50 psi 1

Transient overtorque
(not to be used intentionally)
(no maintenance required) 50 to 54 psi

Transient overtorque
(inspect drive train) 54 to 61 psi

Transient overtorque
(replace all drive train and rotor
components)

Output shaft speed:

Over 61 psi 1
Maximum steady state 6,600 rpm
Minimum steady state 6,400 rpm

Minimum steady state below 7,500 pounds 6,000 rpm

Maximum transient (not to be used intentionally) 6,750 rpm

33

~mm**m*^*
■mw* ~^±*
Exhaugt Gag Temperature

Maximum continuous 390oC to 6250C

30-minute limit 6250C to 6450C

S-second limit tor starting and acceleration 6750C

Maximum for starting and acceleration 760oC

Gag Producer

Maximum speed 25,600 rpm

(101.8 percent)

Flight idle speed 15,900 to

17,000 rpm
(63 to 68 percent)

Ground idle/start speed 12,100 to (

13,100 rpm
(48 to 52 percent)
Airframe

Loading:

Design weight 6,600 lb

Maximum overload weight 9,500 lb
Maximum floor loading 300 lb/ft2

Maximum cargo hook capacity 4,000 lb

Maximum lateral eg Consult report for
recommendations

Limit load factors:

!
Positive 6,600 lb +3.0g,s
9,500 lb +2.1g,s

Negative 6,600 lb -0.5g

9,500 lb -0.35g

34

«•*• A
il'ülfi iV'irrr -
 r
Maximum airspeed:

Forward flight 124.0 KTAS

at 2,000 ft

Sideward and rearward flight Consult report for

recommendations

35

!■■ Will ^ **
 APPENDIX C. HANDLING QUALITIES RATING SCALE

Si?
DQQ BDD B 2

11-
I S|8
= 32
a. III
O
Q
uu
^ -I ot UJ C
O LU 13
S. *> o
2 5
5 I §I S i ti e a il at: 2

IS:
It
UJ
a:
tt
C
B I. 8, |
I8 sll if 1I
Rl,
iss.^* zs-i
E4
i E i O o all

2g
5 DC
<

I- z

LU LU

< a;

36

iisJZ^
i

§
APPENDIX 0. TEST TECHNIQUES AND DATA REDUCTION PROCEDURES

INTRODUCTION

Nondimcnaional Method

I. The helicopter performance results may be generalized through use of

nondimensional coefficients. The test results obtained at specific test conditions
may be used 10 accurately define performance at conditions not specifically tested.
The following nondimensional coefficients were used to generalize test resu'ts
obtained during this test program:

550 stir
55u SHP
Power Cofflcient = C-
C
P ■ 0 (1)
DA (fiR)3

GRWT
Thrust Coefficient = (L,
CT = r (2)
pA (flR)2

1 .689 VT
Tip-Speed Ratio - y - — (3)
'

Main Rotor Advancing Tip Mach Number ■ M

1.689 V + ÜK
: (A)

2. Correlation of handling qualities was accomplished by summarizing the

quantitative data as a function of main rotor thrust coefficient (CT). Each individual
handling qualities test flight was flown at a constant Cj. A constant Cj was \
maintained by either increasing altitude as fuel was consumed (for flights conducted
at altitude) or adding ballast to the aircraft as fuel was consumed (for flights (
conducted IGE).
Inslrnmcntation r
3. All instrumentation was calibrated prior to commencing the test program. All
quantitative data obtained during this flight test program were derived from special
sensitive instrumentation. A list of the instrumentation is given in appendix E.
Data were obtained from three aircraft sources and three ground sources. The

37

^timmmmmma^^L*
I1"

uircrai't sources were the engineer test panel, the copilot panel, and the pilot panel.
All data from the aircraft were transmitted by radio and were hand recorded on
the ground. A hand-held tape recorder was carried in the aircraft as a backup
system in the event of radio malfunction. The ground support sources were a load
cell (used for hover tests), a ground weather station (used for hover and all IGE
handling qualities tests), and a calibrated pace vehicle (used for all IGE handling
qualities tests).

Weight and Balance

4. The test aircraft was weighed prior to the installation of test instrumentation
and was reweighed twice after test instrumentation was installed with the aircraft
battery located in two positions: FS 5.0 (forward) and FS 233.0 (aft). The fuel
load for each test flight was determined prior to engine start and after engine
shutdown by measuring the fuel specific gravity and temperature, and by using
an external calibrated sight gage connected to the fuel cells to determine total
fuel volume. Fuel used in flight was recorded by a calibrated fuel-used system,
and the final fuel-used reading following engine shutdown was cross-checked with
the sight gage readings following each flight. Helicopter loading and eg (both lateral If
and longitudinal) were controlled by ballast installed at various locations in the
aircraft.

PKRFORMANCE

Antitorque System Performance

5. The performance of the antitorquc rotor system in hover and translationai i

flight was defined by measuring the parameters necessary to define tail rotor
horsepower, tail rotor thrust, and directional control (pedal) position were
measured. Tail rotor thrust was not determined for translationai flight conditions.

6. Antitorquc system output torque was measured at the output shaft of the
90-degrce tail rotor gearbox. This torque was used to determine tail rotor
horsepower by the following equation:

SHP = TR X N X
TR QTR TR 33^500 (5)

7. The nondimensional tail rotor power coefficient was determined by the li

following equation:

SHP x 550
Cp 3 (6)
TR PATR (^TR RTR)

38

_LJ
-

f
Photo A. Tail Rotor Slip-Ring Installation.
39

•********>
.'

8. The tail rotor thrust for hover was determined by first making several
assumptions: (I) All restoring directional moment to maintain stabilized hover was
assumed to be generated by the antitorque system. This assumption neglected to
consider any restoring directional moment which could be derived from rotor
down wash and recirculating air flow over the fuselage, tail boom section, and/or
vertical stabilizer; (2) Total power loss, attributed to frictional losses (gears,
bearings, etc.) and power extracted from main transmission to drive accessories
(hydraulic pumps), was assumed to be 5 percent of the engine output shp. This
assumption was necessary to determine the horsepower delivered to the main rotor;
and (3) This analysis further assumed that the free air temperature of the air mass
flow passing through the tail rotor was not influenced by the hot gases being emitted
from the engine.

9. The horsepower to the main rotor (MR) was determined by the following
equation:

SHP SHP SHP

MR = ENG - TR - <0.05 x SHP^) (7)

K
10. The nondimensional power coefficient of the main rotor was determined by
the following equation:

sm
, m;550 (8)
P
MR pA (fiR)3
/

11. The thrust from the tail rotor in a hover can be determined by the following
equation:

TRQMR 550SHPMR
THRUST, (9)
TR
"MR

I 2. Equation 9 was expanded to obtain the nondimensional thrust coefficient of

the tai! rotor:

C R A (fiR)
= MR
(10)
JTTR A ( 2
h TR "TR V

13. The position of the directional control was determined by measuring pedal
position. Full left directional control application resulted in an average tail rotor

40

"■p ■
SE"
 T
(

blade angle of 18 degrees for the test aircraft. The total directional control (pedal)
displacement (full left to full right) resulted in a 28.6-degree change in tail rotor
blade angle.

14. The nondimensional tail rotor performance and directional control position
were used to determine tail rotor horsepower and directional control margins as
a function of skid height. All antitorque data were obtained simultaneously with
hover and translational flight tests.

Hover

15. The tethered hovering technique was used to define hover performance.
Various lengths of an intermediate cable, between the aircraft and load cell, were
used to control the skid height of the helicopter. One end of the intermediate
cable was attached to the helicopter by the cargo hook at FS 138.0, and the
other was attached to the load cell. The load cell, used to measure cable tension,
was secured to a ground by using a tie-down. For each skid height, the engine
power was varied incrementally from a power that yielded approximately
300 pounds of cable tension to maximum power available. Prior to recording the
data, the aircraft was stabilized with respect to vertical alignment, power, and
control positions. When the power and cable tension were stabilized, the parameters
necessary to define gross weight, cable tension, engine shp, and ambient air
conditions were recorded. The cable tension was continuously monitored during
each data point to ensure that a reasonable static condition was present while
all other parameters were recorded. All hovering performance tests were conducted
in less than 2 knots of wind.

16. Hovering data collected in terms of gross weight, shp, and ambient air Jr
conditions were converted to define the relationship between Cj and Cp. This i
relationship was unique for each skid height. Summary hovering performance was
calculated from nondimensional hovering curves by dimensionalizing the curves at
selected ambient conditions.

Level Flight

17. Level flight performance with the FSK installed was defined by measuring
the shp required to maintain level flight as speed was varied. An almost constant
Cj was maintained by increasing altitude as fuel was consumed. Only one level
tlight performance test was conducted to determine the approximate increase in
equivalent fiat plate area with the FSK installed. The results of the level flight !
performance test were converted to nondimensional form. Nondimensional level
flight test results were then compared to the level flight performance data presented
in reference 1, appendix A, to determine the increase in flat plate area. Increase
in equivnlent flat plate area was calculated by the following equation:
2 AC A (S2R)3 2 AC A
Af = £ ^— (11)
(V,,, x 1.689)J MJ
T

41

••^mmm^mt^^
.A.
F
Power Determination

18. Engine power output, in terms of torque, was determined by measuring the
engine torque effort in the cockpit on gages. The torquemeter system is essentially
a piston (restrained by oil) that senses a pressure which is proportional to the
power output of the engine. The observed engine pressure is converted to torque
(in.-lb) by use of the engine acceptance test data. The results of the acceptance
tests for the engine used during this evaluation are presented in figure I. This plot
was used to olnain engine output torque. The engine torque range during these
tests was not sufficient to cover the entire operating torque range. Engine
horsepower data obtained during this program correlated very well with previous
test results which employed calibrated T53-L-13 engines.

19. Horsepower transmitted by a rotating shaft may be expressed in the following

manner:

SHP = x N x TRQ
safüoo E 02)
20. Engine output shaft speed was determined from rotor speed by using the
following:

N = ND x 20.370 (13)
E R

I
21. Substituting equation 13 into equation 12, a convenient equation for
determining output shp can be developed:

2iT x 20.383 x TRQ x N

SHP = 33 000 = 3.861 x lO""1 x TRQ x NR (14)

22. This equation was used during the program to determine the shp for each
test condition.

i.
r
42

---. ' -a- ■•r:^-»ig.-j>^-r^^::---at,''- .

 jt^HI :::■>:;:: g::|H-l;

- ■ - /w. ^^-.^ • ^-^ ■> J»

i

HANDLING QUALITIES

Flilht Control SyrtenM

23. The limits of the cyclic control pattern were measured on the ground with
the rotor in a static position. Hydraulic pressure and electrical power were supplied
by ground support equipment during this test. The cyclic control was rotated
around the boundary every 5 percent of longitudinal or lateral control. The position
of the longitudinal and lateral cyclic control were both read at each 5-percent
value.

24. Tail rotor blade angle, as a function of directional control position, was
measured on the ground with the tail rotor in a static position. Hydraulic pressure
and electrical power were again supplied by ground support equipment. The tail
rotor blade angle was determined by measuring the blade angle of each blade at
every 5-percent increment of directional control displacement. The two measured
blade angle values were then added algebraically and divided by two. The test
was conducted both with the directional control being displaced left to right, and
vice versa, to determine the amount of hysteresis in the control system. i
Static Trim Stability

25. The static trim stability was investigated by trimming the helicopter at various
airspeeds over an airspeed range. While the aircraft was stabilized at each trim
airspeed, all control positions were recorded. Altitude was varied during each test
flight to maintain a constant thrust coefficient for each trim airspeed.

Static Directional Stability and Effective Dihedral |

26. The static directional stability and effective dihedral tests were conducted using
the following technique. The helicopter was first stabilized at a trim airspeed with
the ball centered on the turn and bank indicator. The yaw attitude was then varied
and stabilized at different values, while the magnetic heading of the flight path
was held constant. All control positions were recorded at each stabilized yaw
attitude angle. Altitude was varied as fuel was consumed during each test to
maintain a constant thrust coefficient.

Tranalational Flight Evaluation

27. The transiational handling qualities were investigated by conducting tests at

various combinations of wind azimuth and airspeed. When the aircraft was stabilized f
in transiational flight, parameters necessary to determine gross weight, ambient air L"
conditions, azimuth, airspeed control positions, and tail rotor horsepower were
recorded. A ground vehicle with a calibrated speedometer was used as a reference
when attempting to stabilize the helicopter at the desired airspeed and azimuth.
Ambient wind velocity and direction were incorporated into the analysis when
determining the airspeed and wind azimuth. Tests were conducted with wind
velocties less than 4 knots. A constant thrust coefficient was maintained for each
test condition by adding ballast as fuel was consumed.

44

- ^«.^--
 r
K
1

Sideward and Reanvard Flight

28. The test method and parameters recorded during sideward and rearward flight
were the same as translaiional flight evaluation, with one exception. The azimuth
headings investigated were limited to 90, 180, and 270 degrees.

Dynamic Stability

29. Dynamic stability characteristics of the UH-1H were tested by using the
following techniques. The aircraft was first trimmed at the desired flight condition
and airspeed. Gust disturbances were then simulated by making pulse-type control
inputs of 1 inch for 0.5 to 1.0 second. The control was then returned to trim
at which time all controls were held fixed until the aircraft motjciii damped out
or recovery action was required. Qualitative comments we^ made during and after
each pulsc-typc control input.

45
t-
AITKINDIX K. TKST INSTRUMENTATION

All instrumentation was calibrated and installed prior to commencing the test
program. All quantitative data obtained during this flight test program were derived
from speci .1 sensitive instrumentation and were hand recorded. Data were obtained
from three aircraft sources and three ground support sources, two of which were
used at all times, depending on the type of test involved. The aircraft sources
were the pilot panel, the copilot panel, and the engineer panel. The ground support
sources were a load ceil (used for hover tests), a ground weather station (used
for hover and translational flight), and a calibrated pace vehicle (used for
translational flight evaluation). All data from the aircraft were transmitted by radio
and were hand recorded on the ground. A hand-held tape recorder was carried
in the aircraft as a backup system in the event of radio malfunction. A detailed
tabulation of the instrumentation is given below:

PILOT PANEL PACK VEHICLE

Rotor speed Calibrated fifth wheel *

COPILOT PANEL

High torque
Low torque
Altimeter t
I
ENGINEER TEST PANEL

Tail rotor torque

Fuel center
Longitudinal stick position

1
Lateral stick position
Directional control position
Collective control position

LOAD CELL

("able tension

GROUND WEATHER

Tree air temperature

Altimeter
f
46

w^r
 I

Photo I. Engineer Test Panel.

4?

■ ■■ mi miMi,'wm$%.-

- -- - . - s ^«■^*^- j ^.v. ■. ^ —
-fr I Mil

Photo II. Fuel Flow Meter with By-Pass Valve.

48

j
- l^»-» ~~^ ±"-~-:-'~ "»■ - -
j.
 APPENDIX F. TEST DATA

INDEX

Figun» Figure Number

Directional Control Margins as a Function of

Aircraft Skid Height in a Hover 1
Nondimensional Tail Rotor Performance 2 through 8
Antitorquc Drive System Horsepower in a Hover 9 through 11
Nondimensional Tail Rotor Performance 12 through 14
Average Tail Rotor Blade Angle versus
Directional Control Position 15
IGB Hovering Performance 16
Nondimensional Hovering Performance 17 through 23
Level Flight Performance 24
Cyclic Pitch Control Pattern 25
IGE Hovering in Wind for a 10-percent Control
Margin of all Controls 26
Translational Flight Control Margin Summary 27 through 31
Static Trim Characteristics In Ground Effect
at Various Wind Azimuths 32 through 66
Lateral Cyclic Required to Counter Right Lateral
Asymmetric Load 67
Right Lateral CG Investigation in Sideward Flight 68 through 73
Right Lateral CG Investigation in Rearward Flight 74 through 76 /
Static Trim Characteristics 77
Static Lateral-Directional Stability 78 and 79
Rearward Flight 80

49

awr^w. L
—•-■ '- •Ak-a -■ -
I

)/

i
 ^r^^i^^^yi^fe BIS
iü iiiltiri ■^i&tfes^a;^ im ^.r.+ Trrt-,. toT.i. ,
n-;i; uti,!;}!; -i

52
KIIMWH" «•
:^wr.» ^ ^ i^a^^ *' ' ' -Ar .
 "IT—I

riifenrfe"#

- ^^. Z* «i AT * *■« ^r^^-A -^: .

 1

54
 ^s

m
m
.. -Jil-!. ^-T*^ TT
-TTT- mßBwB z~.v.^m^r iAO- U.'.J
~.t" ;it:c

:4-:-' w^n7i^W^i«iSyyS?r4:;.:^nMi i_4.

;■■■;■ • ::^?^^^ltfo^^^fe^^-r^ni,^^^>.^.;^^-:.- »TP ^^^^: ^: ;:4-' r üiäS iliiJia
55
to«' ■ ■. nMM««*^«
„^
^ !W.**J..^
 ^

<

if

-. .^ .-^akss^^n^^ -- ■ -
/

if
 ^feiil
muyivqHQ^.ugfv ?
•::r- »sr ^^:WfeB^^
.lii
iUii mux ;ilii;i}iifi{;;;;tF;rfl
bS
«» ■, mmm
W»^^s.««-ri
 ^■jr^rHlTTgtlipt
i::t;!-;l
ti!:t;:::l";4,--.ir-;;t;;.-4-^3;;-:^;T'iM;i;;-ft-. '<'■■.

SO
■ ■«lu
«WWF^r,*^ *L± '- ^
 ii^nr--

81
^w ^ ^
■^ M. --.._ «wa^-^^
 r

12
T**T
 TTTTTTT

l!D5i]iC3!:SS?Sl;SEliI2

I—c
83
*m**»***m
 /

14
•T-
f

I
 r

f
f

"^zy**
.— rr i fci-a'aiitnriM-i-'-^-'-'- -'- -w
* -
trrrrr irnr

■^^
JlÜlÜH HÜli t

11
u
- - ^iMTin -ii
I rr-r—i
B
V

■^ — -_^.-—

v : l1;;;.!1.!!!!.!!;.;
!l'!t!!!li.
1 l'i;jf:il!g:-''!';'|'H!;:;f'!jf^ ^ tut::-:

m-4
7

_ ^ > -• -
 r

r^^^^lt^^^^i^i^^^a1:-^"?^^«
^^mmMmäM&ii&E£JB^
72
'." »■» in J . PRFT' », .^_-__ -
■^ i^MiWlMl^tmn **„»***
 _•■•.

' tw*m im —
■f
: > I ■' >«MtMWÜ1

FIGURE ZT!
TRAMSUNTIONAL FLICHT COMTROL WARGIKJ SUMMARY
UH-JH USA VN «.7I7I4S
AVG AVG AUG. AMG AVG. AVG.
OENSITX ALTITUDE. 6RWT LOMG.C.6. LAT.C.G. ROTOR SPttD THRUST CO£ff.
'-FttT ~L8 'v.lM. /-IM. ^ RPM - CT
5200 T400 \3O.T(FW0) OOSLT. S13 O 00^0*8
WOTES• I OPEM f\REA PRESEUT WIMDr AZIMUTH COMBiMATlONS THACT
YIELD LESS THAN lOT.COWTROL MARGINS
2.DASHED LIMES IMCICATE 6XTRPOLRTE0 CURVES
3.SKID HtlGHT-5 TolSFEET
+.DATAPOIWTS WERE DERIVED FROM p|GORE S Sg. THROOGH 3g

r
 FIGURE 28
TRAKI^LPOTI ON AL FUGHTCONTROLMARGIM SOMMABX
r
UH-m USA VM 0.111145
AVG. AVG. AUG. AVG AUG. AVO
DEMSVTY ALUTüOE GRWT LOMG.CG. LAT.C.G. ROTORSPB6D THItüST COEFF.
~fEET ^L8 '-•w ~IM. ~RPM - CT
5IOO 8400 I^O.aC^WO) 004.LT. 52^ O.OOSSS4-
MCrTt/a: l.OPEM AREA PRESEUT U1IMD »Al«MOTH COMBIWATIOUS THAT
YieLO LESSTHAK1 VO^.CONTROL MARGIMS
2.DASM60 HK1E5 IMOICATE EXTRAPOLATEDCURUES
5.SK.ID HEIGHT S TOIS FEET
^ DATA POl UTS WeRE DERWED FROM FIGURES-53. THRDÜC,WJ±.

100
)

no

240 110

AVOID MBA AVOIOARtA

»0 IM

a« 210 200 TW TOO •m- ■w ■RT 140

77
•^^mmmm/mv '^i
' - ■
L^Wiüa J -^^g ^: • * —* -- -
 FIGURE Zfl
TR AVaS LAT\ ON/\L f UGHT COWTROL Wl ftRGm SüM MftRY
UH-IH üSfKVw Gill 14-5
AVG. AVG AVG. AVG. AUG. AVG.
DEMSITY ALTlTUOt ORWT LOMGCG. LAT.CC. ROTOR SPEED THRUST COCff
~rtET /-LA «.IM. ~IVX. ~RPM — CT
U^OO TCOO »^O.SCfiaO") O.OSLT. 31+ OOOBTS^
WOT ES" l.OPEWl AREA PREStKT WIMD CAZIWWTH CC^BIUATIONS THAT
VlELO LfeSS THAVi »OT. COWTROL MAR&JMS
Z.OA^HEOUHES I NDICATE 6XrRAP0LATED CüRUES
3.SKID HEIGHT« ST0155FEET
+. DATA POIUTS WERE. OERWiEO FROM FIGURES dS THROUGH ^L

300

290

2t0

270

2*0

2S0
I'
240

230

wy^*^* ^' - ■'- • -

 FIGURE SO
^ TRftMSLPvTlOWAL P LNGKT CoMlROL M^R&vu SuMHfvRX
OH-IH USA VN<iTn>«V5
^VC AV&. AUG. AUG. ÄVG. AV&.
DEMS\T>( fNLTITÜOt GRWT LONGCG. LAT.C.G. ROTOR SPEED THRUST COEFF
^•FEET A. LB. ^IW. /wtM. ^.RPM -CT
&fcOO «1400 \-57S.9(fW0) 0.O4-LT. -523 0 003920
^aOTES. I.OPEU AREA PRESENT WmDiAZIMÜTH 00MB1WATIOMS THAT
WIELD LESS THAN IOT.CONTROL MARGIUS
Z.DASHED Lmes INDICATE EXTRAPOLATED CURMES
3. SKID HEIGHT 5 TOlS «^EET
4.0ATA90mTS WERE DER\ME0 FROM f I GORES-&2 THROUGH ^1

310 50

J 300 60

290 70

210 •0

270 90

2*0 100

2SO no

740 120

AVOID AREA AVOID ARIA

230 ISO
TA»L«»U0

-TW 210 200 TW" •&s BO- TST 140

■*

79
 FIGURE •»»
TRAMSLATIOMFSL FUGHTCOKJTROL MARGIM SUMMARY
UH-IH USA VNCTH^S
AVG A\/0. AV&. AVG AVG. AVG.
DENSITY ALUTODE GRWT LOMG CG- LAX.C&. fcOTORSVEED THR.ÜST COETf.
~FEeT ~LB. A,m. /viM. «.RPM _ CT
MSOO SfoOO i-JOsCfWO) 0.04-LT T>2^ 0.004-281
WOTESl. OPEM AREA PRESEMT Ui\WlD <A2lMÜTU COMBINATIONS THAT
YIELD LESS THAU VOt. COMTROL MARGtU
•Z. DASHED LmES INDICATE EXTRAPOLATED CÜRV/ES
3. SKI O HEIGHT: 5To i S f EET
+. DATA POIWTS DERWJeO FROM Fl GORES -^§. THROUGH —2.

350

240

A\O»0 AWA
AVOID AREA
330

TW 310 200 TW lir tr "Ro* TST 140

80

- ^^•- -^ ä. ^_ «^ .-
 HMHMHMHMRMMMM

LilifHi •; '■IHaTiP'Hii'HOHhi *itt/1Ot !fr?f*i^ Hi

81
> - "LI—»*■>—^>
mm**^
J

-. - - -^ ■
 "■-*■

11 Al!* ±m*m

.
•
._• _—_ — —^-—^ ■■*■ *~-
.: ^'^rzassz ■<»-.
_j^_ ___i^.
T
XL s3SjCHissi^r!i^^sr?^T^p^ii^!r-3S"rs^r^ari!^~^^

■■HI"
y

f■ ^ ■ — - * -
• -?. * m mmmmmmmmm****^*
1
'T

. *-. /-* %.
 mmi Min IMI w.ii.

■* ■■ ■<»—wp<!**
[^W*^-*^' il^ j Wtf ■* _^«.— i»,^ *.—^-
t
t T"r I

f * i -

nmi^ ■ *■!«
- - ■ ^^^■■M w«w->--,- JAA.»-^ !.;. ji. -, ,
■ i
r
J

jp-
- --- - ■
 f

-7— "-
___ 'fimr**^*?* ■fim rmii
4

<

- -'"-- ''--^ •* >■-"-' i^i U^'ll.'Wti 1 ^& uJri' - ■ - ■ . ^

 WWHMÜjl'li!'

|äl|«Mg»IM»«j,,'"^'',Jj>,'1-!':,™,'MHM^^,i,:,,:WMl,l,"il,'M'WMp'j«i!"i<!^^^

iiiaPiiiiilliliiiyi.^iliiiiiiiiäJiSJilltlffliiläiJii
iiissÄSiiiiiffliiaiyiirT^-ffla-r^T^^^iffr
•« iti4 lijl
r^iip^ippN, 2iMMK^^iS^^MAT
.j

ij
■■■;'

fHiflkHäSmltfH'ilH T'l^iriiriii" ' [.,'' lli-'Ü:-^! ■■ :

'liiiT-'i J:
« [ .•■■'■'- \' \ i:;' :
'&M\j\m\&^^ \-[\' , T : r ff i . ■ "^ ■ ; f
Bi^hi iii&^
^i^^|:|;p^j[-;|i|j:ii}i;iNi^p;; ■^.■t-r^: iTi :.. ;i ^rp,,'!'.
.1.1.!
1 :
i,i ' .i L. _. ..:. "
fr »l(j|
-
?■:[ 1 'IP 1. .L'ilü: ! M i M 1 i 1 LJJ .üLlrNii; 1 ,:, '. J t.-.l 1 1 i - ■
;■■

H:lrS;.:: :hi ii' " 1: :i ^r M" l-INI i.lL r^LÜ .i-H:'!: I: ■ ■ 1 J ■! • M ' .... rr -.^_ -
•l:; i;:ü:^|-iij;:;:;;::, ! ^.^j ■:•;;•.L ..];•;;, ■.::.; 1 ;■;>*"-^ ;■'£ .,: :Ti. \ 1 1
*
■ - -: ■.'''■ \ \ ' ■' ■ ■[ '■■?. A ■■ ■ ..
— .. — ....:
:
^. --M i':: - ti: . ' \ ' ^': . ..;. " i. i .:.
i; i i SH-iiJ.iii N:.! i !..i i M i ' i.i ii i i i ; i M i i ; i ; 7T
:::,;;«ip:;-. « "i ^i,; ■. : ' ■ i
: : ■--+■;
m .mm m . am ZM-. i , .1 ^ . ,.i i :
—-■

■■ ..J:.
( nm ■"■' <■■■■ i" i [■- -: -. L.

^4.i ^ii:;Üjiiii :
iU:::U.::^.:_i^-_^-l I1- 1 |-;:.- ., ^....4- 4 ^..-L.
■ >!
i
i.
-r 4-
—h- il_
.... i
'■'•'-M-^'-^P'-T . T- ,..,-,..,.-; ,.r
i ; Z ■'—r~ -

iiiiiiiiiiEESl::Ep2iiii:=l::
6;.
l'
._
! fe ^i ■'■'■ '■ "■ '■■■■ "[ ■ '■■' IHÜ
!V;;::TV ■! • ipi^:: ■" ! •:
■ ...L-iJ 1
.!
1_ ^ .
r! •:■ -
;l,i.l3:jJÜ .' . ■ —. .
---4-
, „ ... .
v_
_L
L... -- (■■* t"—

j < . k UM i : . i < ... ,| 1

.. . i L H ■•■! ■ J 4 .i:U,C-lf,;;
: ::
. . •■;,;.•., -J 'i i' i i i -4— |
; E KLM ■■■\ n I'.- «M i ! 1 1 , . i i 1 1 , ! 1 1 ! ! 1 . i

^'M*H^ifrrr^^±T;HQ^:iTiJ::^^^
:
: JiB;. j ; -r hi.^'A. \ U. : I ' n :
ill n .■_ T 1 '
►-
i 4-Ji_j-
1 1
i .
| 'l™
, 31 MM i::'i' 4n i i i ; 1 it i 1 , i i ! . I ' ' i i
i i t
1 1 .;..-.{

"iliPPill*^ ^^^ . |... r--i--'TLT^thTlT r

i i
ri ■

£i ,;,,; ii IIHAJ J i..., .:: :

:i ,.. .. A i [w,\ i
: I | r ■i'.i 1

IT" i:: ;i ■■■-■■■ ■ ■ - . -i,- ■ ■ , r, ' ■■ , * ' " ^ i 1

...;.
" I 1 " ':
1 • i '■■"
:
" i,: ■ Üjjj "■'
H ' :
-:- "
;

■'
"
: "'
": ' ■ 1 ' !
! '
' '■"-■■-; [il;
' '
;
'
!
iii*
.
1
■■ !: 1 -k 1

s.2 ._.

r\ i - ■t-t-1o'!
j.
tu——
m
:
:! i

:p ■

i ■■ T—|— ....
' '■ ' ! T ; ■■ l""'T t1'.-" -
!
'^ | t^ir*'' K'i|!^i|'r:Upv,'":|,:!,'^!,?"'H:!!'! j !
j ' j ,!
' i"" i riL ' l ; :; ! '
■ r. '' 't.
"
....
1
■ ;
M pyj mm
!' j".1:,:'!::-:-: !:; :;,;|:::; ^"-IMI i!:::;,'::L:. [! :.|"*'l .: ^ !..■■■■ |'r:- :*[': ':-:: '; "j ■ '. ' 1 | ;^ ■ . |: ■* 1;: |
:: :
■ V.l. .!':!' :^'l ... ■■' ■
öd
Ki;
rrttfr ■4- ; r
»M. j.. ,[.,, ..,,.11.1(1^, .. j.... ,.,.;.,..., ,,.:,..,..,.M.,, |...,,.. ...,t......; ..,!(...[....,,... l;.., .-.i..^....,...,,. . ....
-fpl Lu fl
►teuSr i. f. '■: ' riüb ■ r r hr" : ri ■ i ■ i r 'nr r.-vT'"T t r, i- ^.. rv. t ■
Sp i;:.-L::

■ ÜU LX.L: u-L_LL ! L ' ..'. .•* : :

* i? LL i T *'LL' L.L I ['LL — —i- :*
l:;!:;lii
1
■^
— 1 ■tf-i

^i
tB
re ?TTT im hrLi Uf

--|- —j— — —J- fi-

T:* ;^>; \myi \iM\.u ■ ^Ht>i 1«««-: ■* »|:4-- Jl iftii- |lp
is 1 IB
:;! J 1

L
M «$« n 31m iiiii«: mm
94
'«»••
^ . - "- -- — . - ...■-. >,—
WW? »-^^.^ JJ^Vr. A,,
k^M
t ^iiiyiiiiiy^iiiiiiijiip^

iii!!i^:itiiiiiHiiS!;i;;;;i;iPiii}i«s;i;iiii!iiiiiffl^
illlll if jiüHii iii!l|H|Miy!i^T!!^R9!:?11B3TK??:t!^ffi

.!■■"' ■■ mmrmmmmm^f^
[mr**^^.- *~" -'' ~'^ '^ -^-A-*"- ■
aiiriT!'r!"Tj!r::::::::;:i"r""!!;,'::::::!iy;!,::w:,aTm,,!,^iii!,";!"^ ^a^'-'-ir

"T^^^r; ■ ■> i . n ■
»»«f-^.r^.^r
"Ir
pHif^lN^ ||fi^ii|iiiP|| ■■ .:'.: ■.■:■ r- :,;■ ^:J::;i :£! :tj

lilliiir'iniLiyiJiiiiiiia^-^iiiiiaMiiiÄ^^iiiüiiiiL^iiu.^

IW'* ' 'n^Mfl mSi A

— ■ in i
r

i
i

•. •^ilSlüiL^ IL s :
. ^ im***. y-^'Jt * ^_.
 ■Mlimiiim

ll i IIHW ^ •*—
«W^-^'^MT x
-"- -'■•'■- — " - ^-^ -
I

T" -
*'- • iflW ^^'* ■-■
1
■ J'^V- "l^ Jt,
py T'1 T'^ wYf'VTT'T'V 'W\" I'T"
wli^i;!t!li!i;:l.lii:ii!l!;':!;:ih,l:W,;i,i:J!hli,!i1ifH:,iy«.;;;-::,^
iaiilMiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiy!iiili,ilJiyyi1:.=!.:.:'i.::::!: ^ i
f
i^Jiilliiiu'U.niH
1im i:it
■ mmmmm
ii?iiiiiiiiiiiii!ii!i!!ii!iii!!iii8i^r^!^rL'r:ia-^:^2;;!:r^
1EIE
||U .; IV^TOI
SUEiti inEU :! 4
:

I
 I
>

' r» A« " ^^.-^ ,^i>- .V,.- tMtj

TT^W ' ''iT^r'MitiijW'1 TlülW^ii immTW^PlPPT?niiPilg^i?f^^

I m piiiPiiiipiii:::iiiin:tmiirh:ittiii;!Jii«t: jrh^i^iili.l.i.^SäH^S^s^iigllBilffii
SliJaWifflyitiHLtHinMH^iiiiiiiMäiMbyHÜliiihli
IMiü
iii 11
^•mj* •äiihL
§ I
SS^^^JiiiPlilllmi^^uiiillfflöIliffliiiil^^iiiilliiiiiHul^

I«

mmmmm^-'^mm
'm**^.^.^ ■.— i. •
- ■ -
-
- - ^
äillifes i * .'■!. i " M'' ,:.:„ [..^..l^i' Z'l ■ i^!!ii,st:iVfc::h,"i^Li-"i^:; * iS^I»-ilifiC:

. _-
"- -.' "* H^1i.!iiÄliSH:HÜ«!!!*:mii!Älii>,;-htii:i!,iii,;jM!iy!ii^
iiiiiiäimgiJffilüiiaiSüiiiäl öä
i
0 ill m\ m mi »
rtf

:.:j~....;-.i.::£ii::;:i::::;::i::::[::;;;:i:ii::::^
^.iiiiiiiiiii.ii^jiiiiiiiii.ijiiffiiisiiia&iiii^^Miis^^

Hiiiliiilii||'!;'«-^»iH-=H=;mH^j||y|i;^H-; T-H !-=-^

^^u,: .-..^tys.H^ia^^i^'^Ä^iÄBBKSiPiiiRfe'J^

■?- ' i———y

iW^'»^ J' ■• ^^ ''^-^ . •> -■i*
 .liiiiaiiiiHiyiiii^

> I ■■!■ —mmmimiW*

^Hmm
«Wtt*^-,-MP
L r- -
-
• —-•-»
' -■
m**9w ■i^B
• ■
mi**~**mmmimm
 (

** ~ '■» ■«min Mil m] ■yp^yn m ■ ■■■ — "^

, _ m.^ rM ■. ~ZL
 T'IITT r^T'T'rJh I':'! Mi ^PPIPi^P^fT^P] WWf FWFWWt
''

-r^'— ■■■'■ ■' i .l»:* . ■ —

,r
rr _ up ,
^"!l!:T'11IP,'S,!'!l!Ml;!llt^;iM!t!!,t|!i,»!!W
uafiÄöiaissÄaöaäEaEK^sfiäiiiiyaiKassii
!W!|,|i;i',i-!H;;i:-n|thi}«-|'IM^|:'l
„iijüiiiipßlliiiii;
i
■Mir. life S m
BE ! 11 «nt ii ilsi iii«
m ^i .^ii_
i
Rft « f
■mitramii:qitwu:niin:inii!l>aTOtiwmu|nvuini>nirii|<|n>::ii::ilvuim^^

." . ■•'-- ^/^^^^sasssz^TLi _^__ : i si

r? HBipiiiiiaiffiiiiiitipMiiiiffii»

»IliililiiiliWISIiiySgililliBliiHIilBlllllSliO!

iiiflSiiyijJ!yil!ttllBi!Si;;uliiiiiiiijy^,i:;;ffi»
. : Biii5uLaiii!}Hii£^iiaiiiii«ffi..; 1LJiiH^B.j,;,.u:^j;:LL^JBi.:^iiap
iffliB!!f^Pffisiii!8Fi:mr^nn"in^sr^^iiTir:"ic::;;,?,,:'r!,i7^i:"T

<

TTT
 !:
'Bfi!!iMi:ii«i!!"Ti':"l!HBiiii?''!'i ;H!i!8iB8P'!l T i'v
&nHll!8m3ifait9Hi»UwUBlBHUiihMi
iiSiiüiniliUi;ii;:iiiiiiyii0^s;il!fflillS.«^!liiiiy
l!|Piiiiiiiiiii!J
r

f:
IfETgmm r WT
1wm : BUB!
H
it? i 1 li 11
tb il & £~ «i- ml I a i
'■\i im ;ii
Mmmi'T':"mnE:nm%m:z '•L:"::::::iiii:!:^::!i:!!!:i:!:ric^r-~rcz^r"r'rTi:::iE

ii i. *HM m
• ■ • «m ■ ^..r.. -. ^ ,^. J»r - - ■ ^
iiBiiiiiiiÄiHiiiSffiiiini^iiiip^iiiifei^
WTIW-KJIliii

»WP
wwr^v^ '
 I
11^:::;:";:!: T°^
Sa'iii; iili a^ raUlwjiifc'iRffljii^ r^iBSxt-ji'^v-ii. Hnn
, , ,
Slll!lPi:iil!iiil!i8iP^ 'u ^fflS:;!^ri!!1T^rri! 1i;^l';*:^

<
 1

'■

1
■- 1 —
iiiBHii'iiii;s:;^!;iiiiiii^r!fraii^
♦"^^r^ i ii B%% "y"

^ ■

Mp*^^5S=^S^Ssffi^£"!S2i»
iiliiiiiiiÄiiiiiiiiHiiiiies^^^trrsiraSH^r

■ — - -M
«W^F-^r^^r Uä* u^
 ^!lil!liliiH"^r>.'...f^.HS.'''i|fr^n)|l(!ili

liiHiHii!iiii8iiiiiiitiT-^^!i^'r!rr:;;r,,!i^^^^

, /•. ^*^~l: ■ - ^a*

 r
äSiiläiyi'«fe::Hlii!T!"i:«S
E '.i;^nt!ja;i;iKH*i4TO™;'« : n i. iilllOui ' Htlininmi>»»niiiii4fliM i' Ti "ili^ ' "•tninoiMiiiir: I; r i :"TiiiT:n:,Ml
iiBifiii!iiiii«iffiiiiii5!;z3]£^sssr:ii::i;:i:;!:!i"::';m7^r^
ailiyiiyiiliiiliillilHiliiiäÖlffi^^^riiC^::"!^^™^

'

- ' - - rf
ÄWä^^^r
Mhm trf ilr iMM
> '■* "i nm^mmmmmf
^^ 'me&*-~~ —
praiM^a

i
I
r—r—
 ^ROH
I
_..... i_.
IHTW- juam AV nqp
i^ia^^äks^iBä^ ^safefe^s^aars^sHS

[
 „MM
■^tm
■

APPENDIX G. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Definition Unit

ALT Altitude foot

CG, eg Center of gravity

OWN Down

fig., figs. Figure, figures

FLT Flight

FS Fuselage station inch

fwd Forward

GRWT, grwt Gross weight pound

HQRS Handling Qualities Rating Scale

IGE In ground effect

!
KCAS Knots calibrated airspeed knot

KTAS Knots true airspeed knot

LT, It Left

LONG. Longitudinal

i
NACA National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics

NO., no. Number

OGE Out of ground effect

PS1, psi

RPM, rpm
Pound(s) per square inch

Revolution(s) per minute

lb/in.2

rpm
r
RT, rt Right

SUP, slip Shaft horsepower

130

-- ~...^*^~-™^*>^~" i -
I
J r
-
Abbreviation Definition Unit

SL Sea level

S/N Serial number

STD, std Standard

TRQ Hngine output torque ft-lb

WT Weight pound

Symbol Definition Unit

A Rotor disc area ft2

a Speed of sound ft/sec

Cp Power coefficient

cT Thrust coefficient

f Equivalent flat plate area ft2

II Skid height foot

HD Density altitude foot

Hp Pressure altitude foot

Distance from center line of main

rotor shaft to center line of a
90-tlegree gearbox output shaft foot

i
M Mach number

NE Engine speed rpm

N
R Main rotor speed rpm

NTR Tail rotor speed rpm

P Engine output torque pressure in. of Hg

R Rotor radius foot

T Temperature T, T
131

. ■/L^"•jlgügy^B?^>,.l^,^.
——■w^»»^"-
J
Symbol Definition Unit

V
cul Calibrated airspeed knot

V
II Maximum airspeed for level flight knot

VL Limit airspeed knot

vT True airspeed knot

r Degree(s) Centigrade degree

T Degree(s) Fahrenheit degree

A Difference

6
COLL Collective control position inch

5
D1R Directional control position inch

S
LAT Lateral cyclic control position inch

6
LONG. Longitudinal cyclic control position inch

M Main rotor tip speed ratio

P Air density slug/ft3

a Density ratio

a Rotor rotational frequency rad/scc

Subscript Definition

a Ambient

HNG Kngine

std. s Standard

t Test

TR Tail rotor

MR Main rotor

tip Main rotor tip

132

l IHIP BPI i„
- J wr^w*^ *-j~'""-'-' -*' - ■ -
ft-
DISTRIBUTION

Test Final
Agency PIMl« Reporte

Commanding General
US Army Aviation Systems Command
ATTN: AMSAV-EF 12
PO Box 209
St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Commanding General
US Army Materiel Command
ATTN: AMCPM-UA
PO Box 209
St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Commanding General
US Army Materiel Command
ATTN: AMCRD-FQ 2
AMCSF-A 1
AMCQA 1
Washington, DC 20315

HQDA (DARD-ZA) 2 2
Washington, DC 20310

HQDA (DALO-AL-Z) I 2
Washington, DC 20310

Commanding General
US Army Combat Developments Command
ATTN: USACDC LnO II II
PO Box 209
St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Director
US Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory Complex
f
ATTN: SAVDL-D
Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California 94035

v\iT- '-- ^ - "■■'

 Teat Final
Agency Plans Reports

Deputy Director
US Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory Complex
ATTN: SAVDL-SR 2 2
PO Box 209
St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Commanding Officer
l7>ustis Directorate
US Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory
ATTN: SAVDL-EU-TD 4
Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604

Deputy Director 2
US Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory Complex
Mail Stop 124
Langlcy Research Center
Hampton, Virginia 23365

Commanding General
US Army Test and Evaluation Command
ATTN: AMSTE-BG 2 2
USMC LnO I 1
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

Commanding General
US Army Aviation Center
ATTN: ATSAV-AM
Fort Rucker, Alabama 36362

Commanding General
US Army Primary Helicopter School
Fort Wolters, Texas 76067

President
US Army Aviation Test Board
Fort Rucker, Alabama 36362 !

Director
US Army Board for Aviation Accident Research
ATTN: BAAR-PP-OC
Fort Rucker, Alabama

President
36360

US Army Maintenance Board

f
ATTN: AMXMB-ME-A
Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

5 -
! . .- mm ^PW "^ **"" - -« .^_^Md
T r
,
Test Final
Agency Plan« Report«

Commanding General
US Army Rlcctronics Command
ATTN: AMSRL-VL-D - I
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 07703

Director 1 1
US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory
Fort Ruckcr, Alabama 36360

Commanding General
US Army Weapons Command
ATTN: AMSWE-REW (Airborne Armament Flying) - 2
Rock Island Arsenal
Rock Island, Illinois 61201

Commanding Officer
US Army Bell Plant Activity
ATTN: SAVBE - 5
Fort Worth, Texas 76101

Department of Transportation Library

FOB-10A Services Branch, TAD-494.6 - 2
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20590

Director 1 2
Marine Corps Development and Education Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134

Commander 1 1
Naval Air Test Center (FT 23)
Patuxent River, Maryland 20670

US Air Force
Aeronautical Systems Division
ATTN: ASD-ENFDP - 1
ASD/SDQH (LTC Eastm) - 20
i >
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433

US Air Force
Flight Dynamics Laboratory (AFSC)
ATTN: D00 (Library)
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
- 1
f

■-■,•"?■-—r." i ^■pgwl^f^^■^l 'u »^-^ ■•-■ ■

r r
Tc«l Final
AgICIMM Plans Reports

Air Force Flight Test Center

ATTN: SSD 2
TGSE 2
Hdwards Air Force Base, California 93523

Lycoming Division of Avco Corporation

Stratford Plant
550 South Main Street
Stratford, Connecticut 06497

Bell Helicopter Company

Military Marketing Sales Engineering
PO Box 482
Fort Worth, Texas 76101

Defense Documentation Center

Cameron Station
k
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

i
/

<

■■IIWI P '
-^^*^ ^':- •> . ^ ^—.
t <-••"■

>;Nn ASSiFitn
Secvmty CU>»ific»tion
■—

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA • R fc 0

(STurlty flmMMlllcmtion ol till», body ol mbittmet and Indanlnj annolaUon mutt t* «n>«-«d whtt Ihm ovrmll f port i» ctatttlltdj
oniciNATiNS ACTIVITY fCa«por«M «utfiorj 4«, RtPOHT ICCURITV CLASSIFICATION

US ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS TEST ACTIVITY UNCLASSIFIED

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 93523 26. 6ROUP

TAIL ROTOR PERFORMANCE AND TRANSLATIONAL FLIGHT HANDLING QUALITIES TESTS,

Ull-Ill HELICOPTER
4 DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (-TVp* o''«port and/nc/u*lv* d«(*«>
FINAL REPORT 11 June through 9 August 1971
i AUTHORISI (Flnl nam«, mlddl» Inllltl, Imtl nmot»)

RODGER L. FINNESTEAD, Project Officer/Engineer

WILLIAM A. GRAHAM, JR., LTC, TC, US Army, Project Pilot
• REPOR T DATE 7a. TOTAL NO. OF PASES 76. NO. OF REFI
JANUARY 1972 14
••. CONTRACT OR ORAN I NO. 9«. ORIOINATOR'S REPORT NuKOERISI

b. PROJEC T NO USAASTA PROJECT NO. 71-18

RDTE PROJECT NO. 1X179191D684
c. •6. OTHER REPORT NOIt) (Any olhmr numb»n thml may be mfl0fd
Ihl» rtporl)
AVSCOM PROJECT NO. 71-18
d. NA
10 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Distribution limited to US Government agencies only; test and evaluation, January 1972.
Other requests for this document must be referred to the Commanding General, AVSCOM,
ATTN: AMSAV-EF, PO Box 209, St. Louis, Missouri 63166.
II SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE* 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

US ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS COMMAND

ATTN: AMSAV-EF
PO BOX 209, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63166
I] ABSTR

^Engineering flight tests were conducted on the UH-1H helicopter to evaluate the
performance and handling qualities during hover, translational flight, and forward
flight. Tests were conducted in California at Edwards Air Force Base and at test
sites near Bishop during the period 13 July to 9 August 1971. The UH-1H
helicopter is being purchased by the US Air Force to perform search and rescue
missions. Selected performance parameters and handling qualities were
quantitatively and qualitatively evaluatedwFor the conditions tested, the UH-1H
does not comply with paragraphs 3.2.!?[ 3.3.2, and 3.3.6 of the military
specification, MIL-H-850IA. There were thre\ deficiencies, the correction of which
appears essential for adequate mission accomplishment: (1) insufficient longitudinal
control within the approved gross-weight/centerW-gravity envelope, (2) insufficient
directional control, and (3) directional instabil^y between 10 and 18 knots at
relative azimuths between 210 and 320 degreesN

•%»S POM € Mmt*^ RSPLACBS

««PLACBS DO FORM 147».
I47S. I JAN «4. WHICH It
DD • •«•V«tl4 /«5 OMOLBT« FOR ARMY US« UNCLASSIFIED
Security BSSSIMSM

-* - i — . , ^ /-. .'JT^-JL*-.: JAi U^A

r r\a ASS1FIED
S^urity CEMBI ICT
KBV «ONOS
LINK A
ROLK I WT ROLK
LINK LINK C
NOLt I NT
•^1

UH-IH helicopter
Kvaluatc performance and handling qualities
Perform search and rescue missions
Performance parameters
Handling qualities
Qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated
Docs not comply
Three deficiencies

UNCLASSIFIED
Security CtaMlflMtion

. ssggaagz!Z£ ■ -
i