Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:48:29.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-imagining rotorcraft advanced design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2018

J. D. Sinsay
J. D. Sinsay*
Affiliation:
US Army, Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center Moffett Field, California, USA
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Advanced design offices have traditionally applied conceptual design techniques based on semi-empirical methods in an attempt to develop an accurate prediction of aircraft designs at the end of the development process. Continuing advances in computer capability and rotorcraft analysis software present an opportunity to re-think conceptual design to include the greater use of physics-based analyses. A roadmap for developing this capability is outlined, taking into account techniques and ideas from Model-Based Systems Engineering, Design Thinking and Multidisciplinary Optimisation. Recent activities that demonstrate some of these desired capabilities are briefly described along with lessons learned.

Keywords

Model Based Systems EngineeringConceptual designOptimisationRotorcraft
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1256 , October 2018 , pp. 1497 - 1521
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Torenbeek, E. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982, Delft.Google Scholar
2. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 5th ed, AIAA, 2012.Google Scholar
3. Roskam, J. Airplane Design, University of Kansas, 1985.Google Scholar
4. Davis, S., Rosenstein, H., Stanzione, K.A. and Wisniewski, J.S. The helicopter sizing and performance computer program, user’s manual, Tech Rep NASA CR 168897, NASA, October 1979.Google Scholar
5. Johnson, W. NDARC: NASA design and analysis of rotorcraft, Tech Rep NASA TP 2015–218751, NASA, April 2015.Google Scholar
6. Prouty, R.W. Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control, PWS Publishers, 1986, Los Angeles, US.Google Scholar
7. Anonymous, Engineering Design Handbook, Helicopter Engineering, Part One: Preliminary Design, Tech Rep AMC Pamphlet 706-201, AMC, 1974.Google Scholar
8. Tishchenko, M., Nekrasov, A. and Radin, A. Helicopters: Selection of Design Parameters, Mashinostroyeniye Press, 1976, Moscow.Google Scholar
9. McMasters, J.H. and Cummings, R.M. Rethinking the airplane design process – an early 21st century perspective, 42nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 2004.Google Scholar
10. Carlson, R.M. Helicopter performance—transportation’s latest chromosome: the 21st Annual Alexander A. Nikolsky Lecture, J American Helicopter Society, January 2002.Google Scholar
11. Russell, C. and Basset, P.-M. Conceptual design of environmentally friendly rotorcraft – a comparison of NASA and ONERA approaches, 71st AHS Annual Forum, May 2015.Google Scholar
12. Kroo, I. Innovations in Aeronautics: 2004 Dryden Lecture, January, 2004.Google Scholar
13. Kolonay, R.M. A physics-based distributed collaborative design process for military aerospace vehicle development and technology assessment Int J Agile Systems and Management, 2014, 7, (3/4), pp. 242–260.Google Scholar
14. Roth, G.L., Livingston, J.W., Blair, M. and Kolonay, R. CREATE-AV DaVinci: Computationally Based Engineering for Conceptual Design, AIAA–2010–1231, Orlando, FL, January 2010.Google Scholar
15. Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W.N., Seymour, S.J. and Biemer, S.M. Systems Engineering Principles and Practice, Wiley, 2nd ed, 2011, Hoboken, US.Google Scholar
16. Schrage, D.P. and Mavris, D.N. Integrated Product/Process Design/Development (IPPD) through robust design simulation: The key for affordable rotorcraft, AHS 51st Annual Forum, May 1995.Google Scholar
17. Schrage, D.P. and McCandless, W. Integrated Product/Process Development Approach for Balancing Technology Push and Pull between the User and Developer, AHS International 68th Annual Forum, May 2012.Google Scholar
18. Arruda, J., Gavrilovski, A., Ahn, B., Chae, H.-G., Spero, E. and Mavris, D.N. The Capability Assessment and Tradeoff Environment (CATE) for advanced aerosapce vehicle and technology assessment Procedia Computer Science, 2014, 28, pp. 583–590.Google Scholar
19. Systems Engineering Vision 2020, Tech Rep INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02, INCOSE, September 2007.Google Scholar
20. Price, M., Raghunathan, S. and Curran, R. An integrated systems engineering approach to aircraft design Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2006, 42, pp. 331–376.Google Scholar
21. Martins, J.R. and Lambe, A.B. Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures AIAA J, 2013, 51, pp. 2049–2075.Google Scholar
22. Moore, K.T., Naylor, B.A. and Gray, J.S. The development of an open source framework for Multidisciplinary analysis & optimization, paper AIAA-2008-6069, 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, September 2008.Google Scholar
23. Martins, J.R., Marriage, C. and Tedford, N.P. pyMDO: an object-oriented framework for multidisciplinary design optimization ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, August 2009, 36, (4), pp. 20:1–20:25.Google Scholar
24. Ortun, B., Bailly, J., Mercier des Rochettes, H. and Delrieux, Y. Recent advances in rotor aerodynamic optimization, including structural data update, 5th Decennial AHS AeroMechanics Specialists’ Conference, January 2014.Google Scholar
25. Belie, G. Non-technical barriers to multidisciplinary optimization in the aerospace industry, Paper AIAA-2002-5439, 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, September 2002.Google Scholar
26. Tischler, L. Ideo’s David Kelley on “Design Thinking”, Fast Company, 2009.Google Scholar
27. Vincenti, W.G. What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993, Baltimore, US.Google Scholar
28. Johnson, W. and Sinsay, J.D. Rotorcraft conceptual design environment, 2nd International Forum on Rotorcraft Multidisciplinary Technology, October 2009.Google Scholar
29. Scott, R., Sinsay, J.D., Dinning, M.W. and McMichael, S.R. Consideration of mission effectiveness and cost in the assessment of future military rotorcraft, AHS International Technical Meeting on Aeromechanics for Vertical Lift, January 2016.Google Scholar
30. Lawrence, B., Tobias, E.L., Berger, T., Tischler, M.B., Theodore, C.R. and Elmore, J. Integrating Flight Dynamics & Control Analysis and Simulation in Rotorcraft Conceptual Design, AHS 71st Annual Forum, May 2016.Google Scholar
31. Sinsay, J.D. and Alonso, J.J. Optimization of a lift-offset compound helicopter in a multidisciplinary analysis environment, AHS 71st Annual Forum and Technology Display, May 2015.Google Scholar
32. Rohl, P.J., Dorman, P., Sutton, M., Kumar, D. and Cesnik, C.E. A multidisciplinary design environment for composite rotor blades, Paper AIAA-2012-1842, 53rd AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, April 2012.Google Scholar
33. Sinsay, J.D. and Nuñez, G.F. Toward right-fidelity rotorcraft conceptual design, Paper AIAA-2010-2756, AIAA Multidisciplinary Optimization Specialists’ Conference, April 2010.Google Scholar
34. Gloudemans, J.R. and McDonald, R. User defined components in the openVSP parametric geometry tool, Paper AIAA–2015–2547, 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, 2015.Google Scholar
35. Sinsay, J.D., Hadka, D.M. and Lego, S.M. An integrated design environment for NDARC, AHS International Technical Meeting on Aeromechanics for Vertical Lift, January 2016.Google Scholar