Helicopter UAV - Required Power

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the power requirements for a UAV helicopter in hover, analyzing the conflicting results regarding required power at varying altitudes. The user is using specific design constants and equations from helicopter principles to calculate the power needed, noting that required power appears to decrease with altitude, which is counterintuitive for helicopters with higher gross takeoff weights (GTOW). Key observations include the relationship between air density, induced power, and profile power, as well as the implications for maximum operational ceiling. The user also explores momentum theory to estimate thrust and power requirements, concluding that more data and refined factors of merit (FOM) are necessary for accurate predictions. Ultimately, the analysis suggests that the UAV could theoretically achieve significant altitudes, depending on fuel type and efficiency.
Gibsons77
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I'm currently doing conceptual performance analysis of a UAV helicopter in hover. I'm having some conflicting results however, and if anyone could help me out, that would be great. Here are some of the basic design constants I'm working with:

GTOW: 95kg
κ = 1.15 (induced power factor)
σ = 0.07 (solidity ratio)
A = 6.16m^2 (main blade area)
ΩR = 204.17 m/s (tip speed)
CDo = 0.01 (profile drag coefficient)
P(available) = 15,221 W

I'm using this equation, from Principles of Helicopters - Leishman:

P(required) = P(induced) + P(profile)
P(required) = {[κW^(3/2)]/sqrt(2*ρ*A)} + {[ρA(ΩR)^3]*(σ*CDo/8)}

I'm trying to find my performance ceiling in hover, which occurs at P(excess) = P(available) - P(required) = 0.

However, I'm getting that my required power decreases with increasing altitude. This is contrary to helicopters with greater GTOW's. Now, from the equation, I can see that as my density decreases, my induced power term increases and my profile power decreases. This is of course, what I would expect, because of the following:

- while maintaining a constant tip speed (RPM) at a higher altitude, you need more torque and subsequently more power to maintain the same amount of thrust, as thrust=weight (in hover)
- the profile power decreases because the amount of skin friction reduces due to the lower density

Now, I'm trying to determine the maximum ceiling for my UAV. What this essentially tells me, is that, at this particular GTOW (and anything smaller than 150kg), my ceiling is infinite? Ahhh please help me make sense of this. Thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The Power required might be decreasing, but so is the thrust, as it's also dependent on density, there is a differential in the rates, however.

Too tired to work it out properly, but using Momentum Theory
(hover)
T=2pAVi^2
P=T*Vi=sqrt(T^3/(2pA))
then rearranging
T^3/(2A*P^2)=p

p is the target air density
T=mass*g
A=disk area
P=Power ideal(only induced)
FOM=0.8(guess)
P=FOM*MaxShaftPower

Spreadsheet came up with 0.44
Air is 1.22 ASL
Can't find a density TO altitude calculator, but chart puts it about 9km or 30,000ft

Momentum theory is not accurate, that altitude is pushing the tropopause, and I pulled the FOM out of a hat, so consider that an unobtainable upper theory limit.

Need more data(and time) to increase accuracy, like an actual FOM, min/max collective, etc. Your vessel has to actually be able to climb to the altitude also, no teleportation like the math pretends.
 
At 0.5 FOM(lowest bound) ~1.1358 maybe 1300m

W=FV
You have 15211W, and gravity gives you 932N resistance for 16.32m/s ideal ascent
FOM(0.8)=9000m/16.32m/s=552s to reach alt
FOM(0.5)=1300m/16.32m/s=80s to reach alt
15211W*552s = 8,396,472J energy required
15211W*80s = 1,216,880J
Assuming fuel fraction of 0.9(rocket mass to orbit)
85.5kg fuel
9000m=0.0987MJ/kg needed
1300m=0.014MJ/kg needed
0.5 (aircraft fuel fraction)
47.5kg fuel
0.177MJ/kg
0.025MJ/kg

Lead-acid battery=0.1MJ/kg
Lithium battery=1.8MJ/kg
gas=46MJ/kg
H2=123MJ/kg

So it is ideally possible with electric or chemical fuel.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Back
Top