GYROPLANE
GYROPLANE
GYROPLANE
AIAA 2011-1191
Gyroplane Rotor Aerodynamics Revisited Blade Flapping and RPM Variation in Zero-g Flight
Eugene E. Niemi, Jr.,1 and B.V.Raghu Gowda 2
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854
This paper reviews some phenomena related to gyroplane rotors: the concept of hump
speed, and the behavior of an autorotating rotor encountering zero-g flight. Government
accident reports on small sport gyroplanes are discussed, and the phenomena of thrust line
offset, horizontal stabilizer use and rotor shaft pitch changes are discussed qualitatively.
Equations for the rotor system alone, uncoupled from any airframe, are summarized and
used to predict the behavior of rotor blades experiencing the equivalent of zero-g flight.
Small scale rotor model tests on a 3 ft diameter autorotating rotor are presented, both
qualitatively regarding zero-g flight and then quantitatively at high advance ratios regarding
rotor hump speed.
Nomenclature
a
B
b
c
cdo
cl
dCM
e
g
Ih
Ip
l
n
q
R
V
W
x
xc
s
1
2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
I. Introduction
YROPLANE is the generic term for aircraft that rely on an autorotating rotor for their primary lift. Sometimes
the term autogyro or gyrocopter is also used, but technically these are both proprietary names. No typecertified production gyroplanes are currently manufactured in the United States, although some are still in the
certification process. However, sport gyroplanes have maintained their popularity, and see extensive use in many
areas of this country and overseas. Also, a considerable number of recent journal articles (referenced later) show the
continued strong interest in this type of aircraft. Leishman1 gives a summary of the history of gyroplane (autogyro)
development, and a few points from his paper will be discussed later in the present article. Probably the most recent
seminal report on gyroplanes is that presented by the British Civil Aviation Authority in Ref. 2, illustrating the
current serious interest in gyroplane aerodynamics, especially overseas.
While production gyroplanes generally have a good safety record, there still continues to be a significant
accident rate with sport gyroplanes. The accident rate is high enough to warrant a technical discussion for some of
the reasons. One of these important reasons is the situation of zero-g flight. Government accident reports on this
type of aircraft can be found in Refs. 3 and 4. Although some of the information presented in the current paper has
been discussed in qualitative form in the popular literature,5,6 this paper presents the information on a more
quantitative technical level.
A number of different designs of FAA type-certified gyroplanes have been manufactured in the past, and Fig. 1
illustrates a typical configuration. They usually have a 3-bladed articulated rotor, a horizontal stabilizer, and a
pusher propeller as common features. These rotors have cyclic pitch control, but collective pitch is fixed at a
relatively low angle, except for those designs that have a two position collective to provide for jump takeoffs. Sport
gyroplanes, on the other hand, usually have a 2-bladed teetering rotor, pusher propeller, and a small horizontal
stabilizer that is often no more than a flat plate having a short moment arm, as seen in Fig. 2. Early versions of sport
gyroplanes sometimes had no horizontal stabilizer at all. Because of the simple configuration of the teetering rotor,
rotor shaft tilt is used to achieve the same effect as cyclic pitch control. A jet propelled, folding gyroplane
configuration was even once proposed for functioning as a pilot ejection seat.
Fig. 1 Typical production gyroplane of the 1970s (note 3-bladed fully articulated rotor)
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
General performance data on sport gyroplanes can be found in the works of Schad7,8 and Niemi,9,10 and more
technical information on stability and control of sport gyroplanes can be found in the extensive works of Houston
and others.11-15
To understand how the rpm of an autorotating rotor varies under load, we must look at the concept of
accelerating and decelerating torques.
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(1)
Fig. 4 Section of rotor blade airfoil from inboard accelerating torque region
(Courtesy of Leishman and AIAA)
Figure 5 shows a plan view of a rotor blade showing both the inboard accelerating torque region as well as the
outboard decelerating torque region. The far inboard section of the rotor is the stalled region.
Fig. 5 Plan view of rotor blade showing accelerating and decelerating torque regions
(Courtesy of Leishman and AIAA)
An overall plan view of the entire rotor disk with accelerating and decelerating torque regions is shown in Fig. 6.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Fig. 6 Plan view of rotor disk showing the three regions of operation, acceleration,
deceleration, and stall area (From Ref. 16, FAA)
An increase in rearward cyclic or shaft angle of attack at a constant forward speed increases the proportion of the
disk where accelerating torques act and the rotor rpm increases to a new steady-state value. This would be
accompanied by more lift and a resulting climb. Conversely, a decrease in rearward cyclic or shaft angle of attack
increases the region of decelerating torques in the rotor disk, and the rotor slows down to a new equilibrium rpm,
accompanied by a decrease in lift and a descent. This is always occurring automatically in response to the pilots
cyclic stick inputs to maintain the desired flight condition for whatever gross weight and velocity the aircraft is
operating at.
Two characteristics of gyroplane rotors will first be discussed here, the concept of hump speed when starting
the rotor, and the rotor behavior in flight when encountering zero-g operation.
B. Rotor Hump Speed
The early sport gyroplane pilots followed a self-training procedure whereby the pilot learned to fly the gyroplane
as an unpowered glider in towed flight behind an automobile, or sometimes on floats behind a motorboat. This
type of operation is illustrated in Fig. 7 (now pilot training is just as often done in two seat powered gyroplanes).
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
These sport gyroplanes had rotors that had to be hand started from rest before commencing the take-off run. The
procedure would typically be as follows, assuming no wind: With the gyroplane sitting at the end of the runway
behind the tow car, the pilot would reach up and gradually start turning the rotor by hand. He would continue this
procedure until he reached the maximum rpm he could physically achieve, typically on the order of 100 rpm. At
that point, he would tilt the rotor shaft back to around 9o and the automobile would quickly accelerate to 15 to 18
mph and hold this speed. If this were done properly, the air passing through the rotor would gradually accelerate it
to approx 200-250 rpm, then the rotor shaft could be tilted back to its full 18o and the car could gradually accelerate
to something on the order of 30-40 mph. The procedure was a little different if wind existed. Takeoff would
typically occur at approximately 30 mph and 300 rotor rpm (variations on all these numbers could exist, of course).
If the car accelerated too quickly (too high an advance ratio) or the shaft was tilted too far back early in the
procedure, the rotor rpm would decrease, accompanied by blade flapping to the stops, the so called mast bumping
phenomenon, which could damage the rotor or the rotor head assembly. Many early pilots had trouble doing the
correct procedure properly. Typically the first take-off ground run in this case was on the order of 1000 ft, but
subsequent takeoffs could be done with a short ground roll on the order of a hundred feet if automobile speed and
rotor shaft angle were handled properly. Accomplishing this procedure in a float mounted hydroglider could be
extremely difficult if there was much wave action. In that case, it was very difficult to avoid some mast bumping.
The term hump speed then came to be applied to the minimum rpm that had to be achieved by hand to make a
successful takeoff.
In more recent years, sport gyroplanes have been designed with a small (typically one hp) motor mounted at the
top of the rotor mast to spin the rotor up to approximately 200 rpm prior to starting the takeoff roll (see Fig. 2 again).
With this addition, the take-off roll could be reduced to 100 feet. Alternatively, flexible shaft drives have been used
for a power takeoff from the main engine to pre-rotate the rotor for takeoff.
C. Zero-g Flight
Zero-g flight is a maneuver that should never be attempted in a gyroplane, but which has often occurred
unintentionally with low time gyroplane pilots. Typically, this maneuver is performed in the same manner as it is
deliberately done by the famous Vomit Comet airplane, by making a sharp pull up into a climb, followed by a
gradual pushover into a dive. At the end of the dive, a pullout again follows before the airspeed builds up too much.
If done properly (which really means improperly in the case of a gyroplane), zero-g occurs. During this maneuver,
the rotor is producing no lift and its rotational speed decreases rapidly, and this will result in excessive blade
flapping when lift is applied again. This excessive flapping can force the rotor blades down into the pusher
propeller or vertical tail surfaces. Furthermore, if power is applied during the zero-g portion of the maneuver and
the propeller thrust line does not pass through the rotorcraft c.g., this could lead to rapid pitch up, or more
commonly pitch down (the so-called buntover), causing the rotorcraft to tumble inverted a few times, with similar
disastrous consequences.
As examples of the allowable rpm ranges for typical production gyroplane rotors, Table 1 below gives some
values.
Table 1. Production gyroplane rotor rpm limits
Gyroplane
Gross weight
Rotor diameter
designation
(lb)
(ft)
Gyroplane A17
Gyroplane B18
1550
1800
26
35
Never exceed
speed, Vne
(mph)
Maximum
rotor rpm
Minimum rotor
rpm
106
97
480
320
300
200
The upper limit on the allowable rpm range is usually due to centrifugal force limits, while the lower rpm limits
quoted (which could occur during partial unloading of the rotor or flight at very light weights) would be to prevent
excessive blade flapping during subsequent loading of the blades again. Leishman1 alludes to this situation, but does
not stress it seriously. Warnings against this maneuver have been presented often in the popular literature, but these
types of accidents continue to happen in the sport gyroplane community. The small, low moment arm horizontal
stabilizer or inadvertent thrust line offset does not help to prevent the situation either.
This characteristic of rapid rotor slowdown with decrease in shaft angle as the rotor is unloaded is noticed
immediately by gyroplane pilots when they land and begin taxiing, or stop taxiing even in a wind and reduce the
cyclic pitch or shaft angle to zero.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Wd#$
2eq cos sin lq( cos e sin ( q( cos ( )
g
1
c( R. / 0 u( x c4 cos 5 dx 0 u( x c9: sin 5 dx=
2
78
78
(2)
This equation can be simplified considerably if the shaft pitching angular velocity q is much less than the rotor
angular velocity , and if the rotor shaft angle of attack and blade flapping angles are small. Furthermore, if it is
assumed that the rotor pitches about the rotor hub center, l = 0, and Eq. 2 simplifies to
Ih >Ih
eWdCM
g
1
c( R. / 0 u( x c4 cos 5 dx 0 u( x c9: sin 5 dx=
2
78
(3)
78
This equation reduces to the flapping equation of Ref. 21 for the special case of no rotor shaft pitching, i.e., for q = q
= 0 and for = constant.
The rotational equation, as derived in Ref. 19, simplifies to Eq. 4 below:
Ip
c2 R4
2
D /0 u2 cl sin 5 x cos dx
n1
xc
1.0
(4)
2n1
b
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Solutions to Eqs. 3 and 4 for a typical gyroplane rotor are presented later in this paper. Equations 3 and 4 are also
used for comparison with model rotor tests, as well as for predicting the behavior of a full scale rotor.
The collective pitch setting could be manually adjusted between tests by loosening two screws on each blade
grip block and rotating the blades to the desired pitch setting. No provision was necessary for cyclic pitch control,
this being simulated by rotor shaft tilt. Complete geometric and inertial data for the model rotor are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Model rotor geometric and inertia characteristics
Geometric Parameters
Values
Diameter
36.24 in
Number of blades
3
Chord
1.96 in
Solidity,
0.104
Airfoil section
NASA 0012
Blade twist
None
Cutout radius
3.31 in
Flapping hinge offset
1.00 in (5.5% radius)
Blade weight moment
0.222 ft-lb
Blade flapping inertia
0.00588 slug-ft2
Lock number,
2.1
A simple test stand was built to allow rotor shaft angle changes that simulated a cyclic pitch change, with the
rotor system designed to pivot about the center of the rotor hub; which remained located at the center of the wind
tunnel while the rotor disk was changing angle of attack. A detailed description and illustration of the test stand can
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
be found in Ref. 19. The wind tunnel used was a 4 ft x 4 ft open jet wind tunnel at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst. This tunnel has a maximum speed of 60 ft/s.
B. Experimental Procedure
The model was used for both quantitative and qualitative evaluation of hump speed behavior and
rotor blade flapping under various operating conditions. The qualitative results will be reported first.
1. Qualitative Evaluation of Rotor Hump Speed
Qualitative experiments to explore the concept of hump speed were first conducted as follows: The blade
collective pitch and shaft angle of attack were first set at the desired values. The rotor was then powered to
approximately 800 rpm using a small electric motor temporarily attached to the lower end of the rotor shaft. The
wind tunnel was then started and the driving torque was removed from the rotor. The tunnel jet speed was then
increased to its maximum value and steady state autorotation of the model was established.
This procedure was repeated for several different shaft angles of attack and three collective pitch settings: 0o,
o
+1 , and +2o. All tests were conducted at the maximum tunnel velocity of approximately 60 fps. The upper limit on
shaft angle of attack was selected to keep the model rotor rpm below a maximum value of 2500 rpm, this limit being
based on the maximum allowable centrifugal force in the flapping hinge pin. Autorotation was successfully achieved
in all these cases, indicating that the initial rotor rpm of 800 was above the hump speed required for the tunnel
speed of 60 fps and shaft angle of attack initially set. As the collective pitch setting was set at higher values, the
shaft angle of attack required to maintain autorotation increased, while the advance ratio during autorotation
decreased. Tests were not conducted at negative angles of collective pitch. Table 3 summarizes these experimental
results.
Table 3. Summary of conditions required for rotor model autorotation
Tunnel velocity, V
Minimum shaft angle, s,
Advance ratio,
Collective pitch angle, o
(deg)
(ft/s)
for autorotation (deg)
0
1
2
3
60
60
60
58
6.8
9
10.8
>24
0.37
0.31
0.22
not achieved
As seen from the table, at o = 0o, the minimum shaft angle that would allow steady state autorotation was
6.8 , corresponding to an advance ratio of 0.37. At o = 1o, the lowest shaft angle allowing autorotation was 9o,
achieved at an advance ratio of 0.31. At o = 2o, the minimum shaft angle allowing autorotation was 10.8o, at an
advance ratio of 0.22. Operation at a collective pitch angle of +3o was found to be impossible for a tunnel speed of
58 fps and a shaft angle of attack of 24o or less. During an attempt to obtain autorotation under these conditions, the
rotor would immediately slow down with the tunnel on when the driving torque was removed, even at the high
positive shaft angle of attack. This showed that the hump speed had to be greater than 800 rpm in this case, or that
the decelerating torques were greater than the accelerating torques for this collective pitch regardless of shaft angle.
Full scale rotors will autorotate at collective pitch settings as high as 6o, but Reynolds number effects prevent
small rotor models from autorotating at such high pitch settings.
o
where the gyroplane tumbles, creating an unrecoverable flight situation). In the case of the wind tunnel model, if the
model rotor shaft was maintained at a negative angle of attack, the rpm would rapidly decay to zero, and then the
rotor would accelerate in the reverse direction, accompanied by blade flapping motion to the 30o stops.
Obviously, these tests had to be done carefully to prevent damage to the blades and were not conducted on a
prolonged basis. This behavior confirms the hump-speed concept discussed earlier. Rotor blades that need to be
hand-started by sport gyroplane pilots have to be set on the hub at low pitch angles of -1o to perhaps 0o. If power
assist prerotation is available, they can be set on the order of +1o and then give better overall performance. Steady
state test data were also taken in a quantitative manner, as reported next.
A. Steady State Rotor Angular Velocity and Blade Flapping Angle Prediction
The figures below give some of the steady state performance data for the model rotor. Figure 9 shows
experimental data for rotor angular velocity versus shaft angle of attack for a model collective pitch of 2o. The
agreement between theory and experiment is seen to be generally good down to the lower rotor angular velocities.
2800
Test data, =2
2400
2000
Theory, Cd min
=.016
1600
1200
800
400
0
0
12
16
20
24
28
Figure 10 presents a comparison between theory and experiment for the rotor blade flapping angles at 0o and
180 azimuth angle. Again, the agreement between theory and experiment is seen to be reasonable. Similar data for
blade collective pitch settings of 0o and 1o are reported in Ref. 23. Theory-experiment agreement is also good at
these pitch settings.
o
8.0
4.0
Test data, = 0
Test data, = 180
0.0
______ Theory
-4.0
-8.0
10.0
14.0
18.0
22.0
Shaft angle of attack - s ( deg.)
26.0
Fig. 10 Blade flapping angles vs shaft angle of attack, 0 = 2o, 3 ft diameter model
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Angular velocity ,
( rad./sec.)
The theory was compared with available experimental data for the model rotor decelerating from an initial
angular velocity of 76 rads/s at a constant tunnel speed of 32ft/s. Figure 11 shows the comparison of experiment and
theory carried out to 9 seconds time. It can be seen that the agreement is generally good, especially considering
some estimates that had to be made for the rotor characteristics.
80
70
Theory
60
Experiment
50
40
0
10
Time, t (seconds)
Fig. 11 Comparision of theory and experiment for a 6 ft diameter,
4 bladed, decelerating rotor, 0 = 3o, s= 17.5 o, V= 32ft/s
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
A similar comparison of theory and experiment was made for the 6 ft rotor accelerating from an angular velocity
just above the hump speed. Near the hump speed, rotor behavior is critically dependent on airfoil section drag
coefficient data, and care must be taken to use reasonable data for the Reynolds numbers expected in operation. The
comparison in Fig. 12 for these conditions indicates that there is good agreement out to about 11 seconds of
calculation.
Angular velocity ,
( rad./sec.)
60
50
40
Theory
30
Experiment
20
Hump speed
10
0
0
10
12
Time, t (seconds)
Fig. 12 Comparision of theory and experiment for a 6 ft diameter,
4 bladed, accelerating rotor, 0 = 3o, s= 17.5o, V= 32ft/s
In light of the level of agreement shown in all the preceding figures, the theory presented can be seen to provide a
good tool for predicting prototype rotor behavior. This will be considered next.
Values
30 ft
3
9 in
0.0478
NASA 0015
6o
none
1 ft
0.3 ft
294 ft-lb
90 slug-ft2
5.75
300 slug-ft2
4
Time, t (secs.)
400
Rotor RPM
380
360
340
320
0
4
Time, t (secs.)
13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
10
8
6
4
= 180
2
0
-2
0
4
Time, t (secs.)
10
8
6
4
= 0
2
0
-2
0
4
Time, t (secs.)
The blade flapping angle excursion is not severe, and the rotor rpm decays from an initial value of 380 to a
minimum of approximately 365 and then starts to recover again. This rpm variation is not serious, but in an actual
maneuver with the velocity initially decreasing in the climb portion of the zero-g, the rpm decrease would be even
greater.
Next, a more severe maneuver was considered where the rotor shaft is pitched down over a longer time period
through zero to a negative angle of attack and then returned back to the original state. The rotor system behavior is
shown in Fig. 14.
8
4
0
-4
-8
0
4
Time, t ( secs.)
Fig. 14a Rotor dynamics for pitchdown through negative shaft angles of attack, shaft angle
of attack vs. time, o = 0.2, CTo = 0.005
14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Rotor RPM
400
380
360
340
320
0
4
Time, t ( secs.)
10
6
= 180
2
-2
0
4
Time, t ( secs.)
10
6
= 0
-2
0
Time, t ( secs.)
Fig. 14d Rotor dynamics for pitchdown through
negative shaft angles of attack, blade flapping angle vs. time for = 0
In this case, the rotor rpm has decreased from 380 down to approximately 335, and shows little sign of
recovery when the rotor shaft is pitched back to a positive angle. The rpm decay has brought the rotor
rpm down near the hump speed in which case rpm recovery would be too slow. This rotor rpm decay is
much more serious, and does not show signs of a recovery to the original rpm.
VI. Conclusions
Equations for the behavior of a pitching rotor in autorotation have been derived and verified both
qualitatively and quantitatively using data from two small rotor models. The equations have been used to predict the
15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
behavior of a prototype gyroplane rotor undergoing pitching maneuvers. It is shown that extended operation with an
unloaded rotor can lead to serious problems where the rotor rpm may not increase again during an attempted
recovery, and negative blade flapping may occur. Possible collisions between the rotor blades and a pusher
propeller or vertical tail surface can occur, especially if propeller thrust line location or horizontal stabilizer design is
improper. This is a characteristic of autorotating rotors, which should always be flown in flight conditions
maintaining a positive g load on the rotor.
References
1
Leishman, J.G., Development of the Autogyro: A Technical Perspective, Journal of Aircraft, 41 (4), July-Aug. 2004.
Anon., The Aerodynamics of Gyroplanes, CAA Paper 2009/02, UK Civil Aviation Authority, West Sussex, England, August
2010.
3
Anon., Airworthiness Review of Air Command Gyroplanes, Air Accidents Investigation branch, Aldershot, England, U.K.,
Sept. 1991.
4
Gremminger, G., Safety Report: Gyroplane Accident Causes per NTSB Report, Popular Rotorcraft Association, Mentone,
Indiana, Sept. 2002.
5
Anon., Pilot Talk, Zero g Flight, Popular Rotorcraft Flying, 3(4), 1965.
Cudney, A., Watch That Zero G, Popular Rotorcraft Flying, 8(5), 1970.
Schad, J. L., Readers Forum Small Autogyro Performance, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 10 (3), July 1965,
pp 39-43.
Schad, J. L., Gyrocopter Modifications and Their Performance, Popular Rotorcraft Flying, 4(2), 1966.
9
Niemi, E., The Effect of Various Cabin Designs on the Performance of a Small, Unstreamlined Autogyro, M.S. Thesis, M.E.
Dept., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, January 1964.
10
Niemi, E., Know Your Gliding Speed and Range, Popular Rotorcraft Flying, 2(3), 1964.
11
Houston, S.S., Identification of Autogyro Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristics, Journal of Guidance, Control
and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 3, May-June 1998, pp. 391-399.
12
Houston, S.S., Validation of a Rotorcraft Mathematical Model for Autogyro Simulation, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 3,
May-June 2000, pp. 403-409.
13
Houston, S.S., and Thomson, D.G., Calculation of Rotorcraft Inflow Coefficients Using Blade Flapping Measurements,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 5, Sept-Oct 2009, pp. 1569-1576.
14
Thomson, D.G., Houston, S.S., and Spathopoulos, V.M., Experiments in Autogyro Airworthiness for Improved Handling
Qualities, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 50, No. 4, Oct. 2005, pp. 295-301.
15
Murakami, Y., and Houston, S.S., Dynamic Inflow Modeling for Autorotating Rotors, Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 112, No.
1127, Jan. 2008, pp. 47-53.
16
Anon., Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, FAA, Washington, D.C., 2000.
17
McCulloch J-2 Gyroplane Approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual, McCulloch Aircraft Corporation, May 1970.
18
Air and Space 18A Gyroplane, FAA Approved Gyroplane Flight Manual, Air and Space Corporation, May 1965.
19
Niemi, E., A Method for Determining the Effects of Rapid Inflow Changes on the Dynamics of an Autorotating Rotor, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, April 1974.
16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
20
Niemi, E., A Mathematical Model for Predicting the Dynamics of an Autorotating Helicopter Rotor, Proceedings of the
SIAM 1986 National Meeting, Boston, MA, July 21-25, 1986.
21
Gessow, A. and Crim, A., A Method for Studying the Transient Blade-Flapping Behavior of Lifting Rotors at Extreme
Operating Conditions, NACA TN 3366, Jan. 1955.
22
Razak, K., Blade Section Variation on Small Scale Rotors, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 11, 1943.
23
Niemi, E., and Cromack, D.,Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Data for a Wind Milling Model Rotor, Journal of
the American Helicopter Society, 21(1), pp. 27-31, Jan. 1976.
24
Lock, C.N.H., and Townend, H.C.H., Wind Tunnel Experiments on a Model Autogyro at Small Angles of Incidence, R & M
No. 1154, British A.R.C., March 1928.
17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics