Guidelines for Reducing Helicopter

Parasite Drag
Charles N. Keys
Senior Aerodynamics Engineer
Robert Wiesner
Vehicle PerformanceManager
Boeing Vertol Company
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania

AC, = drag increment

This paper presents an analysis of the considerations = engine exhaust cant angle, deg
6
involved in reducing the drag of new helicopter fuselage
configurations within practical design constraints. In- INTRODUCTION
cluded are drag reduction guidelines for fuselage com-
ponents such as the nose section, cabin, afterbody, hubs, The importance of reducing helicopter cruise
engine naceiles, landing gear and protuberances. The power requirements is increasingly evident in
guidelines are based primarily on wind tunnel test data light of the higher speed demanded of new heli-
and analytical studies conducted on numerous tandem and copter designs and the current energy crisis.
single rotor aircraft. As cited by Stepniewskil in Fig. 1,the energy
consumption per person of current transport
NOTATION
helicopter configurations i s generally above the
= frontal area, ft2 level of other short haul modes of transportation.
= drag coefficient based on frontal area Means available to improve forward flight per-
= fuselage cabin section equivalent diameter formance include optimizing the rotor geometry
JZq77, ft to reduce the induced and profiie power require-
= engine momentum drag, lb ments, and designing a low drag airframe to
= nacelle diameter, f t minimize parasite power requirements. As shown
= equivalent flat plate area, ft2 by the breakdown of level flight power required
= hub interference drag factor in Fig. 2, the maximum reduction in power is
=length of fuselage, f t achieved by reducing the airframe or parasite
= length of afterbody subject to lateral con- drag, since this represents over 45% of the total
traction, f t power required. A secondary benefit provided
= length of afterbody subject to longitudinal by the reduction in parasite drag is the improve-
contraction, f t ment in the flow environment behind the fuselage.
= mass flow, lb sec/ft For single rotor aircraft, the increase in wake
= f r e e stream dynamic pressure, lb/ft2 momentum will result in improved tail rotor and
= nose section/canopy corner radius, f t stabilizer effectiveness.
= airfoil thickness to chord ratio The drag levels of current production and ex-
= engine exhaust velocity, ft/sec perimental helicopters a r e summarized in Fig. 3 .
= free stream velocity, ft/sec As shown, current transport helicopters have
= fuselage width, ft weight to drag (equivalent flat plate area) ratios
= pylon width, ft of 1000 o r less. The helicopter component drag
= afterbody camber, ft breakdown associated with this level is illustrated
= distance between engine nacelle and in Fig. 4 for a typical single rotor vehicle. This
fuselage, ft data was developed from drag/weight trends and
=hub to pylon gap, f t reflects an aircraft with side loading access,
= fuselage angle of attack, deg conventional articulated main and tail rotor hubs,
31
 32 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY
700 MACH 2
Y
SUPERSONIC
TRANSPORT

0 TRANSPORT
200 TILT-ROTOR
u,

Z SHORT-RANGE
2
JET TRANSPORT
+
L
I,

lo 1
30 50 70 100 200 100 lam ISM
SPEED mph

Figure 1. Energy consumption index.

2 MAX GROSS WEIGHT -1000 LBS
and engine nacelles positioned adjacent t o the
airframe. As noted, the largest drag producing
items a r e the hub and landing gear, which account Figure 3. Drag summary for current helicopter con-
f o r over 50% of the total aircraft drag. Also figurations.
contained in Fig. 4 a r e the component drag levels
obtainable through the use of the drag reduction
drag levels by over half. An improvement of this
concepts discussed in this paper. These con-
magnitude corresponds to a 30% decrease in
figuration improvements inc1;de such items a s
cruise fuel consumption.
retractable gear, faired hingeless main rotor
hub, flex s t r a p tail rotor, and streamlined fuse- GUIDELINES
lage, with properly positioned and faired pro-
The development of the external lines of a vehicle
tuberances. Incorporation of these potential r e -
represents a trade-off between the aerodynamic
ductions will result in an aircraft with 66% lower
drag, a s witnessed in Fig. 5, and will reduce the
current disparity between fixed wing2and helicopter Drag l e v e l o f c u r r e n t
0 production
configuration
'I SEA LeVEL/STANDARD DAY
$$:?;.potential d r a g l e v e l
......
"'.of new d e s i g n

Figure 4. Drag breakdown for typical 20,000-lb single

rotor helicopter.
JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 33

,OGUNSHIP HELICOPTER MODEL

DATA (CANOPY + FUSELAGE)

RADIUa
CANOPY
CORNER A AIRCRAFT CANOPY DATA
(REFERENCE 3 ) CORRECTED
/Lcmm
TURBOPROPS
RC FOR FUSELAGE EFFECTS
/
.16[
0
/' /D
d / 0
P
/" & / O n

P ' /TURBOPROP
TRANSPORTS
EXECUTIVE

BOMBER

I
.
'0
.
.04
..
.08
..
.12
..
.16
.
.
.20
.
.
.24
CORNER RADIUS/FUSELAGE WIDTH RATIO,RC/W
/ HELICOPTER DRAG
LEVEL
pooo Figure 6. Effect of canopy corner radius on fuselage drag

rn
rn CURRENT PRODUCTION witnessed in Fig. 7 is due to the favorable pressure
n HELICOPTERS gradient which exists between the leading edge
10 20 30 40 50 and the aft portion of the nose.
GROSS WEIGWT - 1000 LB Cabin Section. The helicopter cabin is com-
posed of a constant section in response to load
Figure 5. Helicopter/fixed-wing aircraft drag trends. carrying requirements. To reduce the drag of
the cabin, originating from c r o s s flow effects
at cruise angle of attack (trim drag), it is desirable
shape, weight, and manufacturing cost. To assist that the c r o s s section shape be circular. The
in studies aimed a t determining the optimum com- variation in fuselage drag with cross section shape
bination of these factors, design guidelines for
reducing parasite drag a r e discussed below. The
0 CH-47 NOSE
data used t o develop these guidelines a r e based El SYMMETRICAL NOSE
on the results of wind tunnel tests and analytical
studies conducted during the development of
numerous tandem and single rotor aircraft in-
cluding the CH-46, CH-47, BO-105,HLH and
YUH-61A.
Basic Fuselage
The basic fuselage consists of the cockpit en-
closure o r nose section, cabin, and afterbocly/tail
boom. The following discussion addresses the
key items involved in minimizing the drag of these
components.
Nose Section. The shape of the noge section
is generally dictated by visibility considerations.
Of critical concern in selecting a low drag nose
shape is the corner radii. As shown in Fig. 6,
a t corner radii to fuselage width ratios (RJ w )
below 0.1, there is a noticeable increase in drag.
Changes in nose contour f r o m a symmetrical
-12 -8 - I . . . . .
0 4 8
to an asymmetrical shape, a s utilized on most
helicopters, produce little o r no change in drag
FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG

a s depicted in Fig. 7. The relative insensitivity Figure 7. Effect of fuselage nose section shape on drag.
 34 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

TYPICAL SINGLe ROTOR

0 HELICOPTER w h TEST DATA
AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE
DATA (WFEWNCE 3 )

FUSELAGE ANGLE
OF ATTACK -
DEG.

I FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK, a - DEG

I Figure 8. Effect of fuselage cross-section shape on drag.

Figure 10. Effect of afterbody camber on lift and drag.

is illustrated in Fig. 8 for a quar re,^ ~ i r c u l a r , ~

and typical helicopter c r o s s section. As shown, doors should be flush with the surface contours and
the drag r i s e of a square fuselage section is four door tracks recessed.
times greater than a circular section at 5" angle Afterbody. The afterbody shape represents
of attack. In addition t o the use of a circular the largest d r a g contributing a r e a of the basic
fuselage to minimize cabin drag, windows and fuselage. By tapering the afterbody lines gradually,
the adverse pressure gradient is minimized and
flow separation is avoided. The incremental
pressure drag a s a function of contraction ratio
! (1, JD-Contraction Length/Equivalent Cabin diam-
a = O0 LATERAL eter) is illustrated in Fig. 9. The fuselage pressure
CONTRACTION
RATIO drag was derived by subtracting the estimated
z SYMBOL A I R C R A F Ta ~ Y/D*
- skin friction drag f r o m wind tunnel test result^.^
V M-47 0 As noted, a contraction ratio of at least 2.0 is
CH-47 MOD. 1.3 required to obtain minimum afterbody pressure
0 BO-105 0.7 drag. The optimum 1,/D value for minimum
BO-105 1-07 total drag (pressure plus skin friction) is between
MOD. 2.0 and 2.5. The data shown in Fig. 9 includes
0 YUH-61A 2.1 bodies with and without lateral contraction indi-
cating that pressure drag is reduced by lateral
contraction, longitudinal contraction o r a com-
bination of both.
Many afterbody designs a r e prohibited from
utilizing the ideal contraction ratios and shapes
due t o design requirements. Rear loading after-
body configurations, for example, often possess
negative camber and small lateral contraction
ratios. As shown in Fig. 10, negative afterbody

I Figure 9. Effect of afterbody contraction ratio on drag. camber shifts the fuselage z e r o lift angle of
 JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 35

;/D*=-. 275 I I \
STRAKES OFF

CH-46 TYPE
AFTERBODY
ON SURFACE
. - 0 4 AFTERBODY
a
U

0
LATERALCONTRACTION
RATIO. QXY/D*

Figure 11. Effect of camber on drag. VORTICES

AWAY FROM
SURFACE
attack and minimum drag point to higher angles
of attack relative to symmetrical configurations. 5
Since most helicopters cruise at angles of attack STRAKES INSTALLED ON THE BELFAST W 1
of from -5 to -T,this shift tends to increase
the drag and cruise download. A summary of
the drag r i s e due to negative camber is presented
in Fig. 11 over a range of contraction ratios. HIGH CROWN.LILIE
As noted, the drag penalty due to negative camber \
i s reduced by employing increased lateral con-
traction. More data is required t o totally define
the interaction between camber and contraction;
however, the available data indicates that a lateral
contraction ratio of 1.3 o r higher is required t o
minimize the drag due t o negative camber.
Two techniques which a r e employed to reduce HIGH CROWN AFTERBODY ON' THE C-141
the drag of cambered r e a r loading afterbodies
a r e the installation of strakes and the ,use 'of high Figure 12. Utilization of high crown afterbody and strakes
crown designs. These techniques, illustrated in on fixed-wing aircraft.
Fig. 1 2 , ~ swere
~ developed f o r fixed wing a i r -
craft such a s the Belfast and C-141, respectively.
The high crown achieves drag reduction by de- resulted in an 8% reduction in basic fuselage
creasing the static pressure on the upper portion drag. Strakes provide approximately the same
of the afterbody, thereby redirecting the local drag reduction a s the high crown line as illustrated
airflow. This results in an increase in the ef- in Fig. 13. The strake installation on the CH-46
fective lateral contraction ratio and an increase also provides an improvement in directional
in ramp a r e a pressure. stability.
The strakes function t o reduce drag by forcing Although negative camber provides an unfavorable
the two fuselage vortices formed by the inter- increase in drag, positive camber can be employed
section of a i r from the side and bottom of the to shift the drag bucket to a desired nose down
afterbody off the surface and downstream. The cruise angle of attack. An example is the spoiler
suction created by vortices is reduced by dis- installation on the BO-105, which was designed
pacing them from the surface. to deflect the turbulent fuselage wake and trailing
Drag reductions associated with high crown vortices away from the tail rotor, thereby im-
I
and strake installations were verified during proving directional stability. This installation
wind tunnel tests of a CH-46 model. As shown consists of a 2 ft2 flat plate mounted on the lower
in Fig. 13, the CH-46 engine compartment ef- portion of the fuselage. As shown in Fig. 14, the
fectively raised the afterbody crown line which positive camber effect caused by this installation
36 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER

STRAKE DRAG

-
-8 -4
FUSELAGE ANGLe OF ATTACK

HIGH CROWN
ENGINE COMPARTMENT DRAG
0 4
-
8
DEG

FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG

I CROWN
ENGINE C O ~ A R T + N T

BO-105 CRUISE a

-20 -10 0 10 20
FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG
Figure 13. Effect of strakes and high crown afterbody on Figure 14. Effect of BO-105 spoiler on lift and drag.
the CH-46 helicopter fuselage drag.

associated with this installation is a deciding

reduced the fuselage drag by an amount equal factor in determining i t s usefulness.
t o the pressure drag of the spoiler, and resulted To achieve drag values below the faired designs
in no drag penalty at the -7" cruise angle of attack. will require the development,of new hub concepts
M a i n Rotor Hub
A summary of hub drag trends is presented in
Fig. 15 a s a function of maximum gross weight.
As shown, aircraft with hingeless rotor systems
have hub drag values approximately 30% l e s s
than corresponding articulated configurations.
This percentage is attributed to the absence of
flap and lag hinges, the removal of lag dampers,
and the installation of streamlined shank shapes.
Utilizing the hingeless rotor a s a base, it is shown
in Fig. 15, that an additional reduction in hub
drag of approximately 30% is achieved by fairing
the center section, pitch bearing housing, pitch
arms, and blade attachment fittings. Similar
attempts to fair articulated rotors were unsuc-
cessful because of the large number of cutouts
required to allow for flap and lag motion.
Boundary layer control (BLC) techniques (air
injection or blowing) in conjunction with hub
fairings have been used to reduce hub drag. As
4 6 8 10 20
MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT* -
4 0 60
1000 LB
*THRUST PER ROTOR FOR TANDEM
ROTOR AIRCRAFT
noted in Fig. 15, BLC provides a small benefit a t
cruise angles of attack; however, the power penalty Figure 15. Hub drag trends.
JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 37

a ,/s r u m M B rUTI
7 I,, IUu: w. DIlr

OL 4 8 12 16
v 20 24 28 32
HUB T O PYLON GAP, I N

Figure 17. Effect of hub/fuselage gap.

Landing Gda?'
A summary of landing gear drag trends is pre-
sented in Fig. 18 for wheeled gear, skid gear
and faired skid arrangements. As shown, the
skid gear is 40% lower in drag than the wheel
gear. Additional reductions in skid gear drag
a r e achieved by utilizing streamlined section
tubing in lieu of the conventional circular shapes.
The magnitude of wheeled gear drag depends
HUB-PYLON INTERFERENCE on the configuration (i.e., tricycle, quadricycle,
number wheels per strut, etc.); however,-for
DRAG FACTOR, Ki
typical installations, up t o 50% of the drag of
wheeled gear is due t o the wheels. Wheel frontal
Figure 16. Effect of hub/pylon gap on interference drag.
areas, therefore, should be minimized within
ground flotation requirements, and the distance
between t i r e s on dual wheel configurations kept
with low frontal a r e a s such a s the flex strap con-
t o a t least one t i r e width to reduce mutual inter-
cept. The advantages of the flex strap design a r e
the low profile shank and center section, due
t o the elimination of the pitch bearing housing
and flap/lag hinges. Flex s t r a p type main rotor
hubs have been flown on small aircraft such a s
the OH-6; however, they have not, a s yet, been
evaluated on larger transport size helicopters.
A sizeable percentage of the hub drag is due
to hub/fuselage interference effects. As shown
in Fig. 16, the interference drag decreases rapidly
a s the hub to fuselage clearance is increased.
However, a s shown in Fig. 17, a s the hub height
is increased, more of the rotor shaft and controls
a r e exposed, which increase the basic hub drag
and offset the interference drag reduction. To
benefit from the reduction in hub interference
drag with height requires that the controls be
hidden inside the shaft and the swashplate placed 4 6 810 20 40 60
at the base of the shaft a s on the Enstrom F-28. MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT - 1000 LB
This permits the installation of a thin low drag
shaft fairing. Figure 18. Landing gear drag trends.
38 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

ameter from the fuselage. Nacelle installations

which a r e situated closer than a 0.8 diameter
due t o width restrictions or other considerations
require sizeable juncture fairing to insure low
wHEEIEDGEAR2
AFe = 6.5FT drag.
m Protuberances
cl
WEIGHT
Protuberances include such items a s antennas,
lights, handholds, and windshield wipers. The
drag of bluff body protuberances a r e relatively
large because they operate a t a subcritical Reyn-
olds number. The use of fairings and selective
positioning can result in sizeable drag reduction
benefits. Reference 3 notes that the optimum fine-
ness ratio (length to height) of half body or blister
type fairings is 10 to 1, with the nose or forebody
contour of sufficient length to avoid a blunt leading
edge.
An example of the drag benefits of streamlining
protuberances is illustrated by the antenna wind
tunnel test data shown in Fig. 21. As noted, the
/ (REFERENCE 6 ) antenna configuration consists of a 1-in. diameter
tube on both sides of the fuselage. The penalty
I for this installation is 1.2 ft2. Replacing the tube
100 120 140 160 180 200
CRUISE SPEED - KT with a 25% thick streamline strut contour reduced
the antenna drag by 50% (optimum airfoil c r o s s
Figure 19. Effect of gear retraction on cruise fuel. section fineness ratio is 3.7).
Items such a s antennas and lights a r e best located
aft of the cockpit a r e a due to the supervelocity
ference e f f e ~ t sThe
. ~ best method to reduce gear observed in the cockpit region and relatively small
drag obviously is retraction; however, the drag boundary layer growth. Low protuberance drag is
saving must be evaluated against the weight empty achieved only when all door tracks, footsteps,
penalty. The trade between weight empty increase handholds and door handles a r e recessed and
and cruise fuel saving associated with gear r e - rounded edges a r e incorpora'ted on all items
traction is shown in Fig. 19 for a 20,000 lb air- protruding into the a i r stream.
craft. The assumed weight empty penalty for
gear retraction is 1%of gross weight, or 200 lb
f o r the depicted vehic1e.Q~ noted, f o r a two-
hour mission, gear retraction is desirable for
aircraft with design cruise speeds above 145 kts.
For aircraft designs a t o r below this point, gear
retraction is not beneficial from a payload stand-
point.
Engine Nacelle
For aircraft configurations with the engines
mounted externally, it is important t o (1) stream-
line the external lines of the nacelle and (2) min-
imize the interference drag between the nacelle
and fuselage. The guidelines for minimizing
afterbody drag previously discussed a r e applicable
to defining the shape of the nacelle.
The impact of the nacelle location relative to
the fuselage on interference drag is illustrated DISTANCE RATIO, y/Dn
in Fig. 20. As shown, minimum nacelle drag is
obtained when the unit is located 0.8 to 1.0 di- Figure 20. Effect of nacelle location on interference drag.
JANUARY 1975 GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING DRAG 39

power. The additional diffusion caused by the

ejector results in reduced Ve and increased drag.
Therefore, from a forward drag reduction view-
26- point, the degree of ejector cooling should be
CYLINDRICAL minimized.
CROSS SECTION
Roughness and Leakage
To reduce the drag due to roughness and leakage,
all doors, windows and access panels (including
fasteners and hinges) should b e designed flush
with the skin and sealed to prevent leakage. Leak-
age is particularly prevalent in low pressure
regions such a s the nose and pylon a r e a s where
the use of flush seals about the hub and door/
I , I
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 window openings will help minimize drag.
Surface roughness drag is reduced through the
FUSELAGE ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG. use of butt joints on all exterior airframe struc-
Figure 21. Effect of streamlining on antenna drag, tures, and flush rivets on streamlined components
(fuselage, tail and nacelle). Studies4 indicate that
the drag increment due to the discrete roughness
Momentum Losses of streamlined VTOL aircraft components is re-
Momentum losses occur when the a i r stream is duced f r o m 9 to 5% through the use of flush rivets
diverted into the aircraft f o r the purposes of over the entire aircraft. Flush rivets employed
cooling the transmissions, hydraulic systems and over the forward one-third of the components
engines, and providing a i r for the heating-ventila- reduces the penalty from 9 to 7%.
tion systems. A momentum loss also results due GUIDELINES SUMMARY
to the change in velocity of the a i r entering and
exiting the engines at high speedi. A cockpit enclosure corner radius of 0.1 (or
Large size cooling a i r inlets a r e required to meet greater) fuselage width is required f o r low
the high power, hot day hover cooling requirements nose pressure drag.
of various components (i.e., transmission oil)
with blowers employed to circulate the a i r . The WEIGHT FLOW = 9 LB/SEC
drag penalty for this type of installation is min- (2) ENGINES
imized by providing generous inlet radii to prevent
a i r spillage from producing separation, and direct-
ing the exhaust a i r f r o m the system aft to recover
a portion of the inlet momentum loss.
The momentum drag o r thrust of the engine a s
a function of the aircraft forward speed, mass EXHAUST
N VELOCITY
flow, exhaust velocity and cant angle is stated 2: I DRAG
below:
Dm = m ( V , - V , cos 6)
As noted by this equation, the engine momentum
drag is zero o r negative (thrusting) when V , cos
6 2 V,,. Therefore, to minimize the engine drag, ;/ " THRUST
the exhaust cant angle utilized should be kept to
a minimum and the exhaust diffusion minimized to
maintain maximum exhaust velocity. Typically,
turboshaft engines provided by the manufacturer
include tail pipe designs which produce positive
thrust a t speeds below 150 kt a s shown in Fig. 22.
However, ejectors which consist of a shroud over , , I
60 100 140 180 220
the tial pipe a r e often added to the basic engine AIRSPEED - KT
design to provide additional hover cooling and
reduce back pressure to provide increased engine Figure 22. Example of engine momentum drag/thrust.
40 CHARLES N. KEYS AND ROBERT WIESNER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

The fuselage c r o s s section shape should in-

' generous inlet radii and the exhausts directed
clude generous corner radii to reduce the aft to reduce momentum drag.
drag due to c r o s s flow effects at cruise angles Skid gear a r e typically 40% lower in drag than
of attack. A circular c r o s s section is desirable. wheeled gear. F o r wheeled gear configurations,
' An afterbody contraction ratio of 2.0 to 2.5 retraction is desirable f r o m a performance
is required to minimize the afterbody pressure standpoint at cruise airspeeds of approximately
drag which is the largest contributor to basic 145 kt o r above (two o r more hour mission).
fuselage drag.
.
Cambered r e a r loading afterbodies require a
lateral contraction ratio of 1.3 o r higher to
REFERENCES
reduce the drag penalty due to camber. High 1. Stepniewski, W. Z., "Civilian Vertical-Lift Systems
crown and strake installations a r e also effec- and Aircraft," presented at Aeronautica ' I 3 US/USSR
Symposium and Display, Moscow, Russia, July 1973.
tive in reducing cambered afterbody drag.
2. Stepniewski, W. Z., "Basic Aerodynamics and Per-
' Hingeless rotor hubs possess l e s s drag than
formance of the Helicopter," VonKarman Institute/
articulated configurations. Both hingeless AGARD Lecture Series No. 63, Brussels, Belgium,
and elastomeric hub designs, due to their April 1913.
reduced blade root motion, a r e more easily 3. Hoerner, Dr. Ing., S. F., "Fluid-Dynamic Drag," pub-
adaptable to fairing installations which can lished by the author, 1965.
provide up to a 40% reduction in drag. 4. Gabriel. E., "Drag Estimation of V/STOL Aircraft,"
Boeing Vertol Report D8-2194-1, September 1968.
, No significant reduction in hub drag for current
designs is achieved by increasing the hub/ 5. McCluney, B., "Improving the Belfast," FLIGHT
International, August 1967.
pylon gap, because of offsetting effects of in-
6. Davis, S. M. and Wisniewski, J. S., "User's Manual
creased shaft and control drag, unless the for Hescomp the Helicopter Sizing and Performance
pitch links a r e placed inside the shaft and a Computer Program," developed under NASA Contract
thin fairing designed around the shaft. No. NAS2-6101 for the NASA Ames Research Center,
. Cooling air inlets should be designed with Moffett Field, California, September 1973.