DOT/FAA/RD-90/3 Helicopter Physical andPerformance Data

Research and Development Service P on DWashington, D.C. 20591

AD-A243 805 Edwin D. McConkey

I~i!1 E II II il IilIlllJ Illf 111 11ff 1Robert K. AnollMargaret B. Renton

James Young

ELECT9 Systems Control Technology, Inc.

DEC3 11991 1611 N. Kent Street, Suite 910Arlington, VA 22209

August 1991

Final Report

Thj, . ..-,, This document is available to the public• " , ' ' -' - e , -Pn ap, p ofor P~llY :it., cd . through the National Technical Informationdin bqutno. i~ .- , '" ' J Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

U.S. Departmentof Transportation

91-1!9257 Federa( Aviation

g#11 111111 Administrtion

91 1230 014

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange.The United States Government assumes no liability for the contentsor use thereof.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1 Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOT/FAA/RD-90/3

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report DateAugust 1991

Helicopter Physica! and Performance Data 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Autnor (s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Edwin D. McConkey, Robert K. Anoll, Margaret B. Renton. James Young SCT 91 RR-27

9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)Systems Control Technology. Inc.1611 North Kent Street, Suite 910 11. Contract or Grant No.Arlington, Virginia 22209 DTFA01-87-C-00014

12 Soonsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type Report and Period CovereaU S Department of Final ReportFederal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agen,, CodeWashington, D.C. 20591 ARD-30

15. Supplementary NotesARD - 30 - Vertical Flight Program Office

AAS - 100 - Design and Operations Criteria Division

6. Abstract

A determination of physical and performance data for eight civil helicopters was made. The helicopters used inthe study were chosen to exhibit a wide range of characteristics representative of the current civil fleet. Flightmanual data as well as certification, flight test, and computer generated performance data were used to completethe study. Approach and departure profiles were developed for several gross weights and ambient conditionsand translated into graphs. A menu-driven database was designed to provide easy access to the data.

The airspace required for approaches is dependent upon pilot skill and desireo approach slope. Pilots can flyapproaches steeper than the current standard 8:1 surface if required though pilot workload tends to increase andcomfort levels tend to decrease.

The airspace required for departures is a function of aircraft performance and ambient conditions. Threetypes of departure procedures were studied: "optimum" with respect to airspace, manufacturer's recommended,and Category A Results show that minimum VFR heliport airspace requirements are dictated by departureprofiles. Current flight manual departure procedures often break the 8:1 surface described in Heliport Design.Advisory Circular 150,'5390-2. Implications are considered in detail in Heliport VFR Airspace Based onHelicopter Performance. DOT'FAA/RD-90/4.

This is one of a series of five reports that addresses helicopter performance profiles and their relationship totine VFR protected :magainary surfaces of approaches and departures at heliports. The other four are:

1) Helport VFR Airspace Desiqn Based or, HeLcopter Porforniance, DOT FAA/RD-90,4.2) Operational Survey - VFR Heliport Approaches and Departures, DOT/FAA/RD-90-53) Rotorcraft Acceleration and Climb Performance Model, DOT/FAA/RD-90-6. and4 Helicopter Relected Takeoff Airspace Requirements, DOT/FAA!RD-90/7

Key Worc- 18. Distribution Statement

Rotorcraft Helicopter Performance This document is available to the publicApr)roach Profiles Departure Profiles throa,;t" the Nationa! Tcchnicai informationVFR Airsoace Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.Height/Velocity Curves

9 Security ClassFf. 1 o th s reRot) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 2. No. of Paces 22. PriceUnclassified Unclassified :1196

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of this document is authorized

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pae

Introduction ............................................................ 1

Methodology............................................................ 1

Source Data ............................................................ 4

Data Traceability ...................................................... 4

Performance Data Generation ........................................... 9

Approach Profiles ..................................................... 17

Departure Profiles .......................... ........................ 24

Discussion ............................................................ 24

Conclusion ............................................................ 33

References ............................................................ 35

Acronyms .............................................................. 37

Appendix A Subcontractor Summary Reports ........................... A-I

Appendix B Departure Profiles ...................................... B-1

Accesion For .

NTIS CrFA&IDTiC Te 3 j

jt: s _i i0;1

By ...

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Pge

Figure 1 Methodology Flow Diagram .................................... 2Figure 2 NASA VFR Altitude Profiles ................................. 15Figure 3 NASA Characteristic Approach Profiles ...................... 16Figure 4 FAATC S 76 7.125 Degree Approach Profile ................... 18Figure 5 FAATC S 76 8.0 Degree Approach Profile ..................... 19Figure 6 FAATC S 76 10.0 Degree Approach Profile .................... 20Figure 7 FAATC S 76 Composite Approach Profiles ..................... 21Figure 8 40 Knots Approach Profiles ................................. 25Figure 9 50 Knots Approach Profiles ................................. 26Figure 10 70 Knots Approach Profiles ................................. 27Figure 11 90 Knots Approach Profiles ................................. 28Figure 12 H-V+5 Knots Departure Procedure ............................ 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Physical Data Base File ...................................... 5Table 2 Performance Data Source Traceability Matrix ................. 10Table 3 Physical Data Base Traceability Matrix ...................... 11Table 4 NASA Approach Test Helicopter Characteristics .............. 14Table 5 Approach Rate of Descent Limits ............................. 22Table 6 Maximum Rates of Descent .................................... 22Table 7 Achievable Approach Slopes .................................. 23Table 8 Approach Procedures ......................................... 29Table 9 Departure Procedures ........................................ 30

iv

INTRODUCTION

Current FAA criteria for visual meteorological conditions (VMC)heliport takeoff/landing surfaces and approach/departure airspace isbased on operational judgment. This report documents the methodology,assumptions, analyses, and discussion of a study cond'2cted by SystemsControl Technology, Inc. to determine approach and departure performanceof eight civil helicopters. These eight helicopters were chosen as arepresentative sample of the current civil fleet. The conclusions drawnas a result of this study are discussed in "Heliport VFR Airspace Baseoon Helicopter Performance," DOT/FAA/RD-90/4. The entirety of theseanalyses will be considered to determine if current FAA VMC requirementsfor heliport airspace and real estate should be modified. Airspacerequirements related to rejected takeoff and one engine inoperative (OEl)capability for heliports intended to support Category A operations arediscussed in "Helicopter Rejected Takeoff Airspace Requirements,"DOT/FAA/RD-90/7.

METHODOLOGY

The objective of the study was to assemble and generate helicopterphysical and performance data, traceable to flight manuals andmanufacturer data, to be used to make recommendations regarding changesto heliport airspace and real estate requirements. The product of thestudy is a data base of physical and performance data stored on a floppydisk. The data was generated to support the computation of helicopterapproach and departure profiles. The data base provides the FAA with thecapability to test operational VMC takeoff and landing scenarios under avariety of helicopter loading and ambient conditions. This chapterexplains the methodology used to create this product.

A flowchart of the methodology used to achieve the required productis shown in figure 1. After reviewing previous studies of heliport realestate and airspace requirements, a list of helicopters for the study waschosen. Source data for each helicopter was gathered and reviewed. Fromthese source data a physical data base of the helicopters' character-istics was developed. Physical and- performance data were provided to asubcontractor to generate more detailed departure performance data usinga helicopter sizing and performance computer program. Departureprocedures were applied to this computer-generated performance data toproduce departure profiles. Approach profiles were derived from flightmanual approach procedures and results of VMC approach testing performedby the FAA Technical Center and NASA. A menu driven program was writtento provide the user easy access to the physical, approach and departureprofiles data, and all were stored on a floppy disk. Graphs of theprofiles were generated separately for this report.

SCT reviewed a previous study of heliport airspace and real estaterequirements that was generated for the FAA in 1980 by PACER Systems,Inc. The study cited an earlier performance analysis of twelvehelicopters and generalized the results to determine heliport airspaceand real estate requirements. As a result of this generalization alltraceability to individual helicopter flight manuals was erased. Twoactions were recommended in the report with regard to VFR airspace andreal estate requirements; that current VFR obstacle surfaces for ground

PREVIOUS STUDIES

HELICOPTER MODELS

DATA SOURCES

1 1

PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE

DATA DATA

APPROACH SU B CONT RA C TOR

PROCEDURES ANALYSIS

VISUAL APPROACH DEARUR

STUDIESL PROCEDURES

PROFILES

S DATA BASE GRAPHS I

PROGRAM

FIGURE 1. METHODOLOGY FLOW DIAGRAM

2

level heliports be applied to both fixed and mobile offshore helicopterlanding facilities, and to amend rotorcraft flight manual standards toinclude performance charts to determine vertical climb capability, bestangle of climb airspeed, hover performance and acceleration distance toreach selected airspeeds at various combinations of weight, altitude andtemperature. As a consequence of choosing not to implement therecommended changes to the flight manual standards, the report suggestedthat the FAA require additional real estate and airspace to accommodatethe execution of a level acceleration through effective translationallift prior to the beginning of a climb for all helicopters. Theserecommendations were not well-received by the rotorcraft industry for avariety of operational and economic reasons. Primary among these wasthat historically, safe operations had been conducted using the currentreal estate and airspace requirements so that the imposition ofadditional requirements was thought to not be warranted.

The intent of this study was to analyze the performance of eighthelicopters and retain traceability to their respective flight manuals.Eight helicopters were chosen for the study on the basis that theyrepresent a substantial portion of the current civil fleet and cover awide range of gross weights, engine types and instrument equipage. Thetable that follows illustrates these qualifying characteristics of theeight helicopters chosen for the study. Percent fleet figures weredetermined by the number of aircraft titled in the U.S. as of October1987 and were obtained from the 1988 Helicopter Annual published byHelicopter Association International. The specific variation of eachhelicopter used in the study is listed.

HELICOPTER GROSS WEIGHT ENGINE NO. % FLEET VFR/IFR

F 28F 2600 LYC HIO-360-FlAD 1 4 VFRMD 369/500 3000 ALL 250-C20B 1 8 VFRB 206 A/B 3200 ALL 250-C20J 1 17 VFRAS 355 5071 ALL 250-C20F 2 2 VFR/IFRMBB BO 105 5512 ALL 250-C20B 2 2 VFRS 76 10500 ALL 250-C30S 2 2 VFR/IFRAS 332 18959 TMECA MAKILA IA 2 .1 VFR/IFRBV 234 48500 LYC AL5512 2 .1 VFR/IFR

TOTAL % FLEET 35.2

HELICOPTER MODEL VARIATION NAME

F 28F F 28F Enstrom FalconMD 369/500 MD 500E McDonnell Douglas 500EB 206 A/B B 206B III Bell Jet Ranger IIIAS 355 AS 355F Aerospatiale Twin StarMBB BO 105 MBB BO 105 CBS Messerschmitt-Bolkow-

Blohm GmbH Twin Jet IIS 76 S 76A Sikorsky SpiritAS 332 AS 332C Aerospatiale Super PumaBV 234 BV 234 LR Boeing Vertol Passenger

Chinook

3

SOURCE DATA

Based on the completeness of military helicopter flight manualsreviewed by SCT for previous studies it was originally planned that allthe information needed to conduct this study would be available in thecivil helicopter flight manuals. A request was made to the FAAcoordinator at each manufacturer's facility for a flight manual.Enstrom, Bell, and Aerospatiale each sent a master copy of theirrespective helicopter flight manual(s). Complete flight manuals were notreceived from all manufacturers, but all manufacturers were extremelyhelpful in providing sections of their flight manuals and relevantinformation. After intensive review of each flight manual and flightmanual sections provided, it was apparent that additional performance andphysical data were needed to perform this study. Most of the additionalinformation was requested and obtained from the manufacturers but somewere available from the FAA and existing documentation.

The Official Helicopter Blue Book published by Helicopter FinancialServices Inc. contains a variety of information on rotorcraft. Thisguide was consulted when other sources failed to yield specificinformation.

DATA TRACEABILITY

Physical data for the eight helicopters of this study are housedwithin the physical data base file stored on the floppy disk delivered aspart of this task to the FAA. This data base file is presented astable 1. A description of each physical data category of the data basefile in order of presentation follows. The corresponding category titlesshown in table I are listed in parentheses. Not applicable isrepresented by N/A while a dash indicates the data was not available.

Name (NAME). The name of the aircraft is abbreviated. The eightaircraft are the Enstrom F 28F, McDonnell Douglas 500E, Bell 206B Ill,Aerospatiale 355F, MBB B0105 CBS, Sikorsky S 76A, Aerospatiale 332C andBoeing Vertol 234 LR.

Engine Manufacturer (ENG MANU). Each engine manufacturer is listed.Lycoming, Allison and Turbomeca are represented.

Engine Number (ENG NO). The number of engines per aircraft. Threesingle engine and five twin engine aircraft are used for this study.

Engine Model (ENG MODEL). The manufacturer's engine model number.

Takeoff Power Available (PR TO). The takeoff power available perPngine for each aircraft in terms of horsepower.

Maximum Continuous Power Available (PR MAX). The power available foraximum continuous operation per engine in units of horsepower.

Single Engine 30 Minute Power Available (PR 130M). For twin engineaircraft, the 30 minute power available rating for a single engine afterthe power loss of the other engine occurs is shown in terms of horsepower.

4

0 - -. C - a- C ~0oI-e.-r"o.C

~ -

Ill) a- OCS Cd C I~~I C--

-o '- 0 C ... CWCC) g.m - OICIIflOaOOO -

a CCOa-InCO .0 ~aa-g.ma.aa--Oa-r.ae- - a C-I--

LA ---- Cde-AU.ma-C C CC

C C, LA~-~.-~-.C~-- a-aC C...OC)I.OP~O - LA ZZO-10

* r.-C~.OOC-C-I

O 0CdC10 In IC CCInCC-I-..CC)Ca-CCO-O In

In .. C41, 0 COC.-.C-o..0In -o a C-i 0 c-I g.m a- OO0t-a-OCO - 0CICdIn~

C-dInl..mCII)OCC LA CI----0-0- - -. (.4 - ~-0-- 0

C'1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-I II) C - C-I 1-4 0 IC) In C 0-

= F-. C Cd ml, - IC) g.m aIn LA

0 1fl C-. L) -.0 -0 C C-I -O C~~CIa LA

LA 0-C CC a--C C g.m 0~ C 0 Ino Ing.m0~CCdO-OC .- LA

C 0C~I C-----In C C C C 0 0 00 C

a, In *~InCgC a--C .. InCICIa-

C ~- a. = a.a -C-ICC-IC 0.

C C In 0 In 0. 00

- t.00.C-IOOO 114 (II

a I,, 0010.0.0 COO C C OCr-InC II LA 00CC C

In .O L. I.flInOCICOCC Lb C dOOC -C

.0 0 CCC CI CI

* 0- C C.- 0 0 0 C.- OaInOC..00C -

C-ICInC-)-O CIn In C-I In -, In .- In-0 LA In C - 0 0.00 0 0 C 0 0

C .. 00 LA ~.C0COCC C CC-ICC . - .~ 0 0InC.I.OC~

a- 0-

C C 0 C 0 0In OCCCC10InC -C C - g.m OC~0 C~-I CI C c-Cl--]

II C.d CI C-I CI .0 - Cd C 0 0 0 L C- IC. 0 .0 0C 0InIn.OC . - - LA

C C In~nm IC' -C.00~ -a-Co-n-a- 0 00CC. CC-

- 0- C CO-a-InC .0 In 0 C In C C C

CInInC-C-I In CI 0 In C C-I C C-I WI

In IC LA

C -~ C-IInfl a-

- -COIn LAa r.laInInOI0.I'' CCC I .- I-C~I CSC C

0 1400.000 0* 0 0 0 0 CIn 0. C InCCInInCIn

C 1.0 *-)*- ~a- 0'-,--- LA OInCInIflC-dCWI CC-.~CC.- C.

In ~ ~ - -. aC In-C-C CCC a-

C Lb -~ S. C C- C. 0I-.- <C C 0 - C 0 e-. inCI 0 0 C

InInIC- C InC0F-0

a - .- II-. CIC IC 0 LAa- InC Cd~

~LA a-C, I- I oC CCC 0 .InC. ILl -- C LA- - COO-C IC CCC Lb

- aaa In~-.td~ '~--0 - 0000.00000 00000000

LId -.4 a aCOOCOICILALA .0 InCC-Ia-InC-IC~

- C (.4 III LA LA ->1 = C C CC IC IC 0. CC C CO IC

C C 0 0 C 0 = In In In In In In = a- C-ICC- C-a-.. a

InInIn.0.0

1.0 a- In 0 0 0 0 0 C C-__ - CII-] 0 In In 0 0 -0 0- a.......................................- C-

-. -, C-. CCOII LA CCC IC)

- C WICC-.C-.,00 WI In -- C-.- In C-. - F-. a- In a- C- III . = C C Z~. C. -

C-I 0-I In .0 - In .1.1 .0

- C LIIC In

- r~. C I-- IC C-(CCO.C.C C

a C-d.Op~)a-~CC

C CCC 0 .0I~I...........1 (C)C- . .00 0 CC 0 CC'.. -fl - 0000

* ara -C~ LA LA COCa-COO

C 100000.- IlIC, C Id.0 LA

CIInInC. UflL)I) = 0 0<. .-. 0 0 1:1.

C - CI I- C C - .0 0- In C-. 0a- C C Ca- ~ Cd -. 0~ I.-~ -. ~ ~0 C--

r-)InF-'flInIIS.00 j~ CC00In0.OC.C

C C 0 0 0 C' 0 C-I 0 0 0- C C' ). In - C -dl

- InC-dIn CA C-IC .0In LAInaaa .o.OC. C 0

C - a 0 C 0 0 1' 0 ~I

a- 0 -0CInIn oIno-InInCInCCCC C

LA IC) CD Cl C- II-] .n a

a CI C Cd In a In In r) 11

LA C aC - CC IC C CC) InC. Ca- -0In)flCC I C-IICCIfl- 0C-InC-IIn0-InC -

000000 0.ID OC-.ICC-dC-dIn CC-I -.1 L1fl-lIC)WCCC1 Ca InOLALALALA a - CI Cd F, 1 C-IC 0 L~1 C C ~I>-C0InLA - d tI.t.CCV- -0a~

000000 ICC LACCC CCC a <1

O C-I C-I C-I Cl In C C IC

0 a .oarda-OCI 002

a- -InIn.0.OInCIn C 0n-.,.,r~-l0-w -. - a .00-0-InC-a-LA In .

a LA OCC-LS0-'C I~I0- CC C Iii Ina.0InInInInIn oooaao~oC Lb 1.4.0 -........... Cd 00.0OCOCIC

a a a a a a LA a C In IC) I In 0 ~0 a- C a 0 0 l1 -** a- In a- 0

00000 Cl . InInIn a- C~

In In In In In 0 C In In-a o C

LA a a a a C LAIn a a .a ..a a 0>-a a C C C C - a

- C C - C C

- C 0. C OCIOC rIO C OCCI. Ina

LA - LA a C I.I..0.OCCCInC-, C ICO-OCOCInC LA LI. LA C CC 0In.~CInC-d CCOIn~0InC-I

C C C II. In - Cd In In In C-I InLCO-.OCCCCSO C InC InC C In 0 In 0C C II In - .0 In In 0. C C C C' In C C IC C a C In C C

0.COICCInCC a

O - In In C IC) C C-- C a-

CII C .1- LA C

III 0

:3

Takeoff Transmission Power Available (TR TO). The takeoff poweravailable limit of the main gearbox in units of horsepower.

Maximum Continuous Transmission Power Available (TR MAX). The maingearbox maximum continuous power available limit, in horsepower.

,ingle Engine Transmission Power Available (TR IENG). The maingearbox power available limit for a twin engine aircraft in the oneengine inoperative condition, in horsepower.

Number of Main Rotor Blades (RS BLM). The number of blades in themain rotor.

Number of Tail Rotor Blades (RS BLT). The number of tail rotorblades.

Main Rotor Revolutions Per Minute (RS RPMM). The number ofrevolutions per minute of the main rotor.

Tail Rotor Revolutions Per Mir~te (RS RPMT). The number of tailrotor revolutions per minute.

Main Rotor Diameter (RS DIAM). The diameter of the main rotor of theaircraft, in feet.

Tail Rotor Diameter (RS DIAT). The tail rotor diameter of theaircraft, in feet.

Main Rotor Chord (RS CHORM). The chord of the main rotor as measuredin feet.

Tail Rotor Chord (RS CHORT). The tail rotor's chord, in feet.

Main Rotor Disc Area (RS DAREAM). The disc area of the main rotor infeet squared.

Tail Rotor Disc Area (RS DAREAT. The tail rotor disc area in termsof square feet.

Main Rotor Disc Loading (RS DISCLD). The disc loading in dimensionsof pounds per square feet. Disc loading is calculated by dividing thehelicopter's maximum gross weight by the main rotor disc area.

Main Rotor Power Loading (RS PWRLD). The power loading is determinedby dividing the helicopter's maximum gross weight by the total takeoffpower available and is measured in units of pounds per horsepower.

Fuselage Length (EX LFUSE). The length of the fuselage is measuredin feet from nose to tail of the aircraft and may include portions of thevertical stabilizer.

Fuselage Length With Tail Rotor Turning (EX TTURN). The length ofthe fuselage is measured in feet and includes the extreme point describedby the tail rotor arc.

6

Fuselage Length With Main and Tail Rotors Turning (EX BTURN). Thelength of the fuselage is meas-ed in feet and includes the extremepoints of the arcs described by both the ma]' -nL tail rotors.

Fuselage Width (EX WFUSE'. The maximum fuselage width of theaircraft measured in feet.

Widest Point Width (EX WIPT). The widest point of the aircraft .iunits of feet as determined by any fuselage structure which may includethe horizontal stabilizer'.

Landing Gear Type (EX GEPT). The type of landing gear (skid orwheel) and configuration if fitted with wheels (tri or quad with single(SF) or dual (DF) wheels in forward position and single wh -cls in aftposition (SA)).

Landing Gear Width (EX WLGP). The width of the landing gear measuredin feet.

Landing Gear Length (EX GELG). The length of the landing gearmeasured in feet.

Ground To Main Rotor Hub Height (EX HUBHT). The height measured infeet from the ground to the top of the main rotor hub of the aircraft.

Ground To Tail Rotor Arc Height (EX TARCHT). The height measured infeet from the ground to the top of the arc described by the tail rotor.

Ground Clearance (EX GFUSE). The height measured it feet from theground to the lowest point on the aircraft.

Standard Seating (AC SEAT). The normal seating capacity of theaircraft in terms of number or persons.

High Density Seating (AC DENS). The absolute seating capacity of theaircraft in terms of the number of personF.

daximum Gross Weight (WT GROSS). The maximum gross weight of theaircraft in pounds.

Empty Gross Weight (W7 EMPTY). The empty gross weight of an aircraftin normal configuration with oil and undrainable fuel, in pounds.

Fuel Weight (WT FUEL). The weight of a standard tank of fuel, inpounds.

External Load Weight (WT LOAD). The maximum weight in pounds of anysling load or material that can be suspended from the helicopter's cargohook.

Standard Fuel Tank Capacity (FUE TANK). The standard fuel capacityof the aircraft, in gallons.

Maximum Range (RAN MAX). The maximum distance in nautical miles thatthe aircraft can achieve at maximum gross weight with a full fuel load atsea level on a standard day.

Endurance (RAN ENDCR). The maximum time the helicopter can stayaloft at economy cruise speed in hours.

Service Ceiling (PER SC). The maximum operating altitude of theaircraft in feet at sea level and standard day temperature.

Single Engine Service Ceiling, Standard Day (PER CC1STD). Themaximum operating altitude in feet of a twin engine aircraft with oneengine inoperative at sea level on a standard day temperature.

Single Engine Service Ceiling, Hot Day (PER SCIHOT). The maximumoperating altitude in feet of a twin engine aircraft with one engineinoperative at sea level and hot day temperature.

Hover Ceiling, In-Ground-Effect, Standard Day (PER HIGE). The

maximum altitude in feet at which an aircraft can hover in-ground-effecton a standard day.

Hover Ceiling, In-Ground-Effect, Hot Day (PER HIGEHT). The maximumaltitude in feet at which an aircraft can hover in-ground-effect on a hot

day.

Hover Ceiling, Out-of-Ground-Effect, Standard Day (PER HOGE). Themaximum altitude in feet at which an aircraft can hover out-of-groundeffect on a standard day.

Hover Ceiling, Out-of-Ground-Effect, Hot Day (PER HOGEHT). Themaximum altitude in feet at which an aircraft can hover out-of-groundeffect on a hot day.

Oblique Rate of Climb (PER ROCOB). The maximum rate of climb in feet

per minute of an aircraft with some forward airspeed.

Vertical Rate of Climb (PER ROCVE). The rate of climb in feet perminute of an aircraft with no forward airspeed.

Single Engine Rate of Climb (PER ROCI). The maximum rate of climb infeet per minute of a twin engine aircraft with one engine inoperative.

Never Exceed Speed (PER VNE). The maximum allowable speed of theaircraft measured in knots.

VFR Certification Date (CERT VFR). The date of FAA certification forvisual flight.

IFR Certification Date (CERT IFR). The date of the FAA certification

for instrument flight.

A number of data sources were used to generate the physical and

performance data of this report. Helicopter flight manuals were obtainedfrom helicopter manufacturers and in some cases, flight test results were

consulted. The Helicopter Blue Book, published by Helicopter Financial

Services Inc., was also referenced.

Helicopter flight manuals are the most reliable data source.Generally, a flight manual contains descriptions of the aircraftdimensions, physical characteristics, operating limitations, normal and

emergency proceduLes, performance data, weight and balance data, systemsand servicing information, conversion charts and tables, optionalequipment, and FAA approved supplements. Hcwever, not all flight manualscontain the same detail of description. Table 2 compares the informationneeded to generate the departure performance data contained in thisreport with its availability in each of the eight flight manuals andother data sources used for this study. An "F" marked in a columnindicates that the data was available in the flight manual. Informationneeded that was not available in the flight manual was requested from theFAA coordinator at each manufacturer's facility. The informationsupplied by this resource is indicated by an "M". Subcontractor-generated data is represented by an "S". As a last resort, data wasgathered from the Helicopter Blue Book and is indicated by a "B". Theperformance data obtained from the Blue Book was considered to be theleast reliable in that the specific conditions stated at which the datawere valid often were not in agreement with data contained in the flightmanual for those same conditions.

Table 3 is a traceability matrix that directly relates the physicaldatabase file components to their source for each of the eight aircraft.The symbols used are the same as those in table 2 except for the additionof two new symbols; an "N" indicates the data type is not applicable tothe specific aircraft, and a "'-" shows that the data could not be

obtained.

PERFORMANCE DATA GENERATION

This section elaborates on the intermediate steps taken to preparefor the generation of approach and departure profiles. After the datasources were collected, information to develop departure profiles fordifferent combinations of gross weight, altitude and temperature were notreadily available. To obtain this information SCT employed a sub-contractor which used the Helicopter Sizing and Performance ComputerProgram (HESCOMP) to generate rates of climb, accelerations, distancesand times to accelerate and maximum climb angles as a function of forwardaispeed for the desired combinations of gross weight, altitude andtemperature for each aircraft. This computer model was originallydeveloped by Boeing Vertol Company under contract to NASA and the U.S.Navy. HESCOMP is widely accepted by industry and used to define designrequirements to meet specified mission requirements and to performsensitivity studies involving both design and performance trade-offs.

The application of HESCOMP pertaining to this study was in thesimulation of helicopter mission performance for which sizing detailswere known. HESCOMP was modified to include a more accuraterepresentation of low speed power characteristics, more detailed weightsalgorithms, center of gravity locations, advanced rotor characteristicsand maneuver analyses. When available, dimensional, propulsion,aerodynamics, weights, rotor limits, atmospheric, mission profile, rotortip speed schedule and engine cycle information, and rotor and propulsionperformance data were input into HESCOMP. A 10 percent data accuracy wasachieved using the model. The aircraft data used in the HESCOMPcalculations and the resultant performance data was then sent toaerodynamacists at each of the manufacturers. Upon review, threeaircraft were cited as having flawed data; the S76A, the BV234 LR and theAS355F. The performances of these aircraft were then recomputed by a

9

M~ilo -D0 31Yd <

C]33dS8[V IV1IO80

O133dStlIV NV IV-- -

M~ID~ Jo _u2vd aUvM8O3

w 8U3AcOH 0

C.) a38~lOC)3 U3MOd

G38i~lOD38 8i3AOd hVIIC.) ~IV C33dSUIV 3flJ.I

o I13fl3UO8I 3NlON3 L

wzI

4: 318VIlVAV

LL HO13M SSOUO - -

ww

o.o 4 (Nc

W 0 0 04r~zj >

10

MdAI HV3!0VtINN1 U. U. LL. U- .

0

R RLMHIO31 3Sf s _

HJIWN31 3EDV13sfld o L L c

OMOM1 8MOd 801ID8 M~n m M o c c

E0MCVOI O 810b ~mvw

V38IV SIG 80108 VI LLcoc c

vm UH1OiOMV" U. U- c c

cU 08O 80108 NIWM LL U.

LL ILU c83VC U.10 U.V <. ~ .

S fCld U008IOI 10 'O U. U. LL Uco LL LL

S3OY1B 8OiOH MMi 1O 'ON U. LL L U. U. L

kf3MOd NISSdSNV~'d z z Z m co LLYL) ~ 3MON3 310NISI

8l 3MOd NISStn~SNVHI 2 om c

0. U3Ad NOISSrSNY81 I-AO3NVI : : o [ j . _

bJ3PC3IND3~ 31.N I- U

I- HMM~ Sr dOH.= V U. 03 U. j U

13XYI3DN3 LU U. U . U - U .

S*IVNd113)0N U. UD. U U . Uj U

cn z

U. U - U

U. e n e

N on (n U-

11 C

31VO NOIIVIJII30 8:0 Z Z CO (n LL -L

033dS 0330X3 dMUN U- LL U- U- oLL L

WE1 O 3LV8 3NION3 319NIS Z z Z LL UL LL U- LL

cc

'300 3O01113I1 3AH "L U

xAVO 10H LL U- U- ,- U- U- U

'3S4 ONI 1133 daAOH

AWICIUHVONVIS U- U- U- U-'.)390 'DNI1i30 Ui3A0Hi

AVGIO .O110 - U- U- L- U- U U- U

3 AA8S NON GUONIS - U - U - U

AV 0VG 0i E*Jfl30 z z z Uo U- U- LM ~ 30AH3S 3N19N3 319)NISI

I LU

0

U ~ ALOVdVO NMI 13nt1 crdvCJNvLs U- U- U- U-L

< I~~H913M OVOI IVNM3ILX3 m m m m

1HU193M 13ni c c o oL

iHS43MSS0HO AdV3 U- LUm

S 9lItV3S AJI1SN30 H9114H m 2 o m z m

E)NIIV'3SO9-JVONVIS U- 1cc E c

C-i -33N U31 Ofltl9 LL U- U-

m IHS13H3~ U-H LL LL U-C

8l0108S MW4 01 GNflopd

H19N3-1 HVI3D VNIONV1 U-U - U

W. In u C4)co en

C 4 in go-n r_ _ _ _ _ _ _C MC__ _I _ _ _ _ _ _ U

12

second subcontractor. Summary reports of the analysis completed by eachof the subcontractors are contained in this report as appendix A.Assumptions, data traceability and a discussion of data accuracy arecovered.

The preparations made for the generation of approach profilesincluded the analysis of previously published approach test data. A NASAstudy (NASA-TN-D-8275) presented the variation in approach profile shapeas a function of approach speed determined from a total of 236 visualapproaches flown by 4 helicopters (table 4). The results of the studyshowed approach profile shape to be independent of helicopter grossweight. Average altitude profiles from initial conditions of 500 feet at50, 80 and 100 knots are shown in figure 2. The altitude standarddeviations are not significantly affected by variations in initialairspeed.

An example of the characteristic approach profile shape is shown infigure 3. This shape is representative of all data from the NASA study,but is graphed from specific data generated by one pilot performiLt8 Lwuapproaches at each airspeed. This characteristic shape results frompilots flying approaches they perceive as natural from a pilot'sperspective and comfortable to commercial passengers. As the initialairspeed decreases the concave down portion of the approach isaccentuated and the interception of the desired slope is delayed. Slopelines of 8:1, 7:1, 6:1 and 5:1 have been sketched into the figure andshow that the characteristic approaches (except for a segment between S00and 2500 feet from the helipad of the 100 knot approach) do not break thecurrent 8:1 approach surface.

Test data from FAA Technical Center VMC approach testing were alsoanalyzed. The tests were performed to validate current FAA heliportdesign approach surfaces criteria and to recommend modifications to thesurfaces, if appropriate. Heliport visual approach test data arepresented in DOT/FAA/CT-TN87/40. A total of 270 straight-in approacheswere performed, 108 for which no specific approach angles were requiredto be flown by the pilot. The remaining 162 approaches were comprised of54 approaches flown per required approach angle (7, 8 and 10 degrees).Ninety approaches were performed using a Sikorsky S-76, 130 using a BellUH-1H and 50 using a Hughes OH-6. Initial approach conditions consisLedof a 70 knot entrance into the approach from an altitude of 500 feet.

Initially the approach test data were assumed to be characterized bya Gaussian (Normal) distribution. Questions arose during the dataanalysis regarding the validity of this assumption. A follow-up projectwas established to study the characteristics of the underlyingdistributions of the approach test data. The results of this effort arereported in "Analysis of Distributions of Visual MeteorologicalConditions (VMC) Heliport Data," DOT/FAA/CT-TN89/67. The report iswritten in two volumes. Volume 1 is a summary report and volume 2contains 1,054 pages including graphs depicting the results of thegraphical method used to determine the approach data distribution. Theresults of the effort showed that the assumption of a Normal distributionwas not valid. The majority of the data seemed to exhibitcharacteristics of some form of the Beta distribution. Airspace

13

0;~0 E 04L

(0 0.

Clm 0

4-,4

C,. d) :9 .2

0 4)4j oo C1 0 -WCD Uq 1 cn t-

0 0)elZV - .0 afl 4)

in. -i

0~0

4 coI

0~ to 0 '1

zL 0

CM tnO W bwD C>0Li.4 t- ~~ .9 V cnU

z

00

o ~ c 4) Lv

0 0

41

1600-

200-

41 to Stanldard devil. onf

0 wo 1000 i 500 7010 2500

o z000 4 000 6000 BOW ~

50 knots, 150 m (500 ft).

400-41200-

300-

600-

400 10

Ci a wo 10 1 00 ?000 2500.

a I - I - i

0 t000 4000 6 s~w It

80 knots, 150 m (500 ft).

ft

Im0

0 two tw w 80o 00.

100 knots, 150 mn (500 ft).

FIGURE 2. NASA VFR ALTITUDE PROFILES

InnNw

0

C.)\\ \ 4

0

CC.

16Q

envelopes depicting 10- 7 target levels of safety (6 sigma) werecomputed for the Normal, Beta, and Gamma distributions and plotted ongraphs along with the mean approach data.

Figures 4 through 6 are graphs depicting FAATC S-76 approach testdata excerpted from volume 2 of "Analysis of Distributions of VisualMeteorological Conditions (VMC) Heliport Data." These figures show themean approach profiles and the 10- 7 target level of safety envelopesfor each of these approach angles flown (7, 8, and 10 degrees). It isapparent that the relative deviation increases as the approach angleincreases. These figures also show that the 10- 7 envelope of the Betadistribution usually falls well inside the envelope of the Normaldistribution. This shows the overly conservative nature of the Normaldistribution when applied to the VFR approach data. At all three anglesthe mean profiles show the characteristic flight path to be on or abovethe required slope within 2000 feet of the helipad. A composite approachprofile plot for the three angles flown is shown as figure 7. Thisfigure was taken from volume 2 of "Heliport Visual Approach and DepartureAirspace Tests." Test pilots rated all three angles as adequate withrespect to safety, but considered both pilot visibility and passengercomfort as issues for the 10 degree approach.

Table 5 illustrates the approach rates of descent that must bemaintained to descend along a specified slope at a constant airspeed.Minimum autorotation rates of descent for each helicopter in this studywere determined for each combination of gross weight, altitude andtemperature. The smallest of these values per helicopter was chosen tobe the minimum autorotation rate of descent for all conditions. Fourhundred feet per minute was subtracted from each value to yield a valuefor the maximum assumed approach rate of descent attainable withoutentering into autorotation. These are shown in table 6 and correspondsto minimum power required airspeeds. Four hundred feet per minute wasused to provide an acceptable margin between the autorotation andapproach rates of descent to provide a control margin which allows for1) variations in specific helicopter performance, 2) light tailwind, and3) airspeed variations.

A comparison of tables 5 and 6 determine the combinations of approachslopes and speeds each helicopter can safely achieve with respect to theassumptions previously made, without entering into autorotation. Whenthe approach rate of descent is greater than the helicopter's maximumassumed rate of descent, the approach is undesirable. The achievableapproach slopes resulting from these comparisons are shown in table 7.The shaded blocks of the table indicate the approach speeds at theircorresponding slopes are undesirable. Based on the assumptions made,none of the aircraft listed can effect a 90 knot approach at the 5:1slope, while half cannot effect the 70 knot approach at the same slope.

APPROACH PROFILES

Approach profiles were developed by considering the characteristicshape (figure 3) and its variations with initial approach speeds asdetermined by NASA (reference 16). FAATC test data from references 22and 23 (figures 4 through 7) indicate that pilots can fly on or aboveslope approaches (7, 8, 10 degrees) though pilot workload tends to

17

00 \'0\

z .(

- 0),0CY) LI.-

0

Of rn

CDI-~ C.)

- D cc I

z w

~LL- It

LUr

-l - rr- c

- VI -.

-j z 9D 6

18

(00

<0.

z

ai 0

-, 0E

i0

0. 0

(L&J C

-IJ

00 000w

LkIi C.)CLI0 i0 f.. < 0I

LLU.

-JLL

IA C)

-LOC

0 ( - 0z -C1 V0< Ot (I)Ufl.l

o'-

~L-

zK

-~ ~ 0J).

CC)

EL.JJ

0c

-C) N C)

'U

LU 6

C)L

CD Lo C--O

a) 0~ - co

ND w 4

z) (f 0)- IL

OW C)

E 0 -E <) 3~ OF II

Z 20

0

z IxcoV

'4 0

n CZ 0

cn 7- .

04 ) L) LOo - -

-L C C .j

0.0 0

0

0N0

0

0

I0 <

uK 2DC 0

U)Lr M,~

Z0 0

N oz

0, -J

O U

N

0C)'-j (

> UC

L5 ** ?~ t9 LIZ ILL 00 0Gd 0lliYNJ

-j z1

TABLE 5. APPROACH RATE OF DESCENT LIMITS

APPROACH RATE OF DESCENT LIMITS (FT/MIN)

APPROACH SPEED (KNOTS)APPROACH

SLOPE90 70 50 40

S

8:1 1131 879 628 502

7:1 1285 999 714 571

6 1 1504 1170 836 668

5 1 1823 1418 1013 810

TABLE 6. MAXIMUM RATES OF DESCENT

HELICOPTER MAXIMUM RATE OF DESCENT (FT/MIN)MODEL

F 28F 890

MD 500E 1400

B 206B III 1110

AS 355F 1540

BO 105 CBS 1510

S 76A 1250

AS 332C 1670

BV 234 LR 1540

22

TABLE 7. ACHIEVABLE APPROACH SLOPES

ACHIEVABLE APPROACH SLOPES

APPROACH SPEED (KNOTS)HELICOPTER

MODEL8:1 7:1 6:1 5.1

F 28F 70 70 N/70I N/A 7050 40 50 40 50 40 .. .50 40

90 70 90 70 90 70 90 7050 40 50 40 50 40 50 40

B 206B111 90 70 go 70 go 70 go 70

50 40 I 50 40 50 40 50 40

AS355F 90 70 90 70 90 70 g0 [ 70

50 40 50 40 50 40 50 40

90 70 90 70 90 70 90 70BO 105 CBS50 40 50 40 50 40 50 40

S76A 90 70 go 70 90 70 _ _ 70

50 40 50 40 50 I 40 50 40

90 70 90 70 90 70 go 70AS 3320C 0 _____ 750 40 50 40 50 I 40 50 40

90 70 o90 70 90 70 90 70BV 234 LR50 40 50 40 50 1 40 5071 40

LEGEND

Operationally Desirable Approach Speeds/Slopes

Operationally Undesirable Approach Speeds/Slopes

N/A Not Applicable (90 kt Speed Exceeds Aircraft Vn,)

23

increase and comfort levels tend to decrease. Figures 8 through 11 showcharacteristic approaches made at initial speeds of 40, 50, 70 and 90knots for various slopes. As the initial speed increases, the slope isintercepted sooner. The approaches are flown to a 10 foot hover over a100 foot diameter pad.

Manufacturers' recommended flight manual approach procedures for eachhelicopter used in this study are shown in table 8. Table 7 coupled withthese procedures (when they provide adequate information) can be used todetermine desirable approach profiles for each aircraft. For example,the F 28F flight manual approach procedure recommends an approach speedof 52 knots at 8 to 10 degrees. Table 7 indicates that the F 28F, basedon the assumptions made, cannot fly 70 knot approaches at 8, 9.5 or 11.3degrees and 50 knot approaches at 11.3 degrees. Additionally, 90 knotapproaches for all slopes shown are unusable as the approach speedexceeds the designated Vne for the aircraft at gross weights greaterthan 2,350 lbs. Therefore, the 70 knot 8:1 approach, the 50 knot 8:1,7:1 and 6:1 approaches' and 90 knot approaches of figure 9 are desirableapproaches for the F 28F. Coupled with the approach procedure intable 8, realistic approaches for the F 28F are the 50 knot 7:1 and 6:1approaches.

DEPARTURE PROFILES

Departure profiles were generated by integrating the subcontractor-provided data with departure procedures listed in flight manuals. Acomputer model was developed for each helicopter takeoff procedure andtailored to the individual helicopter's characteristics. Gross weightlimits, hover performance and temperature, height-velocity and altitudelimitations were incorporated in the models. The takeoff proceduresrecommended in each flight manual are listed in table 9.

In developing each departure profile the horizontal distancesrequired to intercept 8:1, 7:1, 6:1 and 5:1 slopes during departure werecalculated. In addition to using the takeoff procedures stated in theflight manuals, "optimum" departure procedures were derived. Thesedeparture procedures were based on obeying the limits of the H-V diagramby flying a five knot parallel path to the diagram. An example of thisis shown in figure 12 and is labeled "H-V+5 KTS". When the flight manualdeparture procedure was not defined well enough, one was developed toconsist of a level acceleration, slight rotation and climb out at thebest rate of climb speed.

Category A departures were provided for three aircraft. For theBV 234LR, only one departure procedure was recommended. This departureprocedure was modified to create an additional procedure by climbing outat VToss instead of best rate of climb speed.

The departure profiles are contained in appendix B of this report.

DISCUSSION

The FAATC test data has shown that the airspace required forapproaches is more a function of approach slope and pilot skill thanaircraft performance. As figures 8 through 11 indicate, a pilot can flyan approach above or on the desired slope, if required. At greater

24

000

0 0 L

0 U C.UCo CO )l

a .) C>~ lE E2 Cl U

1~~~~ 4'a). hh

0>0

SSSS555 Izccc

LU

I 0 LLJ

* I 0S I L ___

LL

S) 2

C)lLO

C)-

LU

LO~~ Z0 o c

(i33J)3ani0

25o

- C)77 C)co C)

CLC

'Na CN_ l- N' N 0>C)CC) 'N C

0~LU

N N C) LN' C> ~ .

N N N O

0) U)

ClEN N UO

C: N NN N N N LI.. C.

N~~L N mL

N N N CSN N N Z 0

N N NC)

CN CN C) Cl) CoC C) C o

No m

(13A 3anC) W26

co C

Cv)

U,)

M m c0

0 > C)00

U,

< C.)QL

C) 0'Sj w

U)l

0)

CC)

I I I C

0CUTo

U, *C)

aa

0 0

aa-CcaC 0 L

CL

'50 >,

CC) 0.

C')0

L.ILU

LC) a LO)

LUJI 0

o 0

LU

C0 Cl)a LO 0

0LU ZC0z

aL, F-00/

Cl)

S I U

to C8 an ILO v q m m c

C03J) ~ 3aiii

28S

TABLE 8. APPROACH PROCEDURES

HELICOPTER FLIGHT MANUAL PROCEDURE

F 28F Establish 8-10 degree approach angle and adjustairspeed to 52 knots. As landing area isapproached, reduce airspeed and rate of descentuntil a zero ground speed hovering altitude of2-5 feet is attained.

MD 500E None.

B 206B III Establish flight path as required for type ofapproach being made.

AS 355F On final approach fly at about 45 knots. Fromhover, reduce pitch slowly and control landinguntil touchdown.

MBB BO 105 CBS After entering approach pattern, reduce airspeedto 100-110 knots. Start final descent asdirected and maintain airspeed to visual contactat decision height. Reduce airspeed andinitiate a smooth flare.

S 76A Cat A: Establish approach to arrive at landingdecision point (100 ft above touchdown elevationat 50 knots and not more than 750 fpm rate ofdescent). Continue descent to about 50 feetabove touchdown, then reduce the rate of descentwith a cyclic flare to about 20 degrees nose up.Level the nose to 5-10 degrees at about 30 feetabove touchdown. Establish hover.Cat B: Establish approach to arrive at a point100 ft above the touchdown elevation at 50 knotsat a rate of descent of no more than 500 fpm.Decelerate to pass 50 feet and 40 knots andcontinue approach and deceleration to hover.

AS 332C Cat A: Proceed with final approach to reachlanding decision point (100 ft at 40 knots witha rate of descent between 300-500 fpm). At thecritical decision point slowly decrease speed to30 knots and continue descent to height of 15feet.Cat B: Gradually reduce speed to descend to 80feet over the landing area at 40 knots. Recom-mended rate of descent is 300 fpm. From 15 ftgradually increase collective pitch to obtainfinal reduction in speed and to cancel rate ofdescent. Land.

BV 234 LR Cat A: Stabilized descent at 400 fpm at 60knots through landing decision point at 150 ft.Rotate helicopter nose up as required to arriveat the desired touchdown point.

29

TABLE 9. TAKEOFF PROCEDURES

HELICOPTER FLIGHT MANUAL PROCEDURE

F 28F Establish 2 ft HIGE, accelerate into effectivetranslational lift, establish rate of climb andfollow flight profile given in H-V diagram.

MD 500E Follow recommended takeoff profile shown on H-Vdiagram.

B 206B III Establish HIGE, accelerate to obtain desired rateof climb and airspeed.

AS 355F Establish HIGE, initiate forward flight in aslight climb to 55 kt (optimum climb speed).

MBB BO 105 CBS Establish 6 ft HIGE, level acceleration to 40 kt,climbing acceleration to CDP of 45 kt and 30 ft,climb out at best rate of climb.

S 76A Cat A: Establish 5 ft HIGE, accelerate forwardand maintain a 5-10 ft wheel height, at 35 ktrotate nose up and maintain 35 kt, at CDP of 40 ftaccelerate to best rate of climb speed.Cat B: Establish 5 ft HIGE, accelerate forwardand maintain a 5-10 ft wheel height, achieve 45-50kt and raise nose to maintain 52 kt, climb untilobstructions are cleared.

AS 332C Cat A: Establish 15 ft HIGE, forward flight tobest rate of climb speed, climb to constant bestrate of climb speed.Takeoff-Transition to Forward Flight-Climb:Establish 15 ft HIGE, maintain acceleration pathnearly parallel to the ground, at best rate ofclimb speed less 10 kt adjust to obtain andstabilize best rate of climb speed.

BV 234 LR Cat A: Establish 15 ft HIGE, accelerate forward

to 30 kt maintaining 10-20 ft height, rotate toVCDP, climb to HCDP at VCDP, gradually acceleratewhile climbing to best rate of climb speed.

30

FLIGHT MANUAL

240- --7-: 7I

220 - -

ISO

-1

- - NOTE: AVOID FLIGHT WITHIN SHADED A

- AFTER INITIATING FLARE FOR A NORMAL

31

initial airspeeds, approaches are initiated and intercept the desiredslope sooner. Approaches flown at slower airspeeds initially overshootthe slope, delaying its interception. The NASA test data (reference 16)support this variation in characteristic approach profile shape. Theairspace required to perform these approaches is dependent upon thedesired approach slope flown.

The airspace required for departures is dependent upon aircraftperformance and ambient conditions. Appendix B contains departureprofiles for 8 aircraft at 18 combinations of gross weight, altitude andtemperature. Maximum allowable weight, 85% maximum gross weight and 70%maximum gross weight were matched with standard (ISA) and hot day (ISA+20 C) temperatures and altitudes of sea level, 2000 and 4000 feet. Asthe departure profiles indicate, aircraft performance decreases withincreases in gross weight, altitude and temperature.

The performance data for the BV 234LR, the S76A and the AS 355F werecalculated by a different subcontractor than were the other fivehelicopters. Two assumptions used in these calculations were alsodifferent:

1) takeoff power was used instead of maximum continuous power, and

2) a maximum tip path plane of 45 degrees was used instead of 25degrees.

These assumptions yield data that produce very similar climbout anglesfor airspeeds in the 40 to 60 knot range and shorter level accelerationdistances below 40 knots.

An explanation of anomalies in some departure profiles follows. ForMD 500E departure profiles, two hover IGE heights are used. The flightmanual procedure recommends HIGE at 7.5 feet while flight manualperformance data indicate HIGE at 3.5 feet. The B 206B III flight manualdid not recommend a specific departure procedure so one was developedthat flies the H-V+5 knots departure until reaching best rate of climbspeed where a climb out is effected. The BV 234LR's maximum allowabletakeoff weight is below the 85% maximum gross weight at 4000 feetpressure altitude, hot day conditions. Therefore, the 100% maximumallowable and 85% maximum gross weight profiles were not presented forthese conditions. Also, BV 234LR manufacturer's recommended procedurestates that "at the CDP adjust the helicopter to accelerate whileclimbing to best climb speed." To represent this properly on thedeparture graph an intercept at Vy of 100 ft. above the CDP was used.This enables the aircraft to properly accelerate while maintaining apositive climb rate.

The height-velocity diagram defines an envelope of airspeed andheight above the ground from which a safe power-off or one engineinoperative (OEI) landing cannot be made. The non-existence ordisappearance of an H-V diagram indicates that at the stated conditions,the aircraft is able to continue the takeoff or land safely, regardlessof the point during takeoff at which an engine failure occurs. For allbut two of the AS 355F gross weight, temperature and altitudecombinations, the H-V diagram does not exist. A vertical departure is

32

the "optimum" departure for those 16 cases without an H-V diagram. Halfof the "optimum" departure profiles for the AS 332C are verticaldepartures due to the disappearance of the H-V diagram at thosecombinations of gross weight, altitude and temperature. Some departureprofiles for the AS 332C and the MBB BO 105 CBS fall "inside" the H-V+5knots departure profiles. This occurs because the angle of climbs aregreater at airspeeds used in these procedures as compared to the H-V+5knots procedure.

CONCLUSION

The airspace required to perform approaches is dependent uponapproach slope and pilot skill more than aircraft performance. Thisanalysis has shown not only 8:1 approach slopes to be achievable at theinitial airspeeds studied, but also 7:1, 6:1 and 5:1 approach slopes.The constraints placed on aircraft in achieving approach slopes wereflight manual procedures and autorotative rate of descent limits.

As evidenced by this study, minimum VMC airspace requirements aredictated by aircraft departure performance. Current flight manualdeparture procedures regularly violate the 8:1 FAA heliport designdeparture surface at the combinations of gross weight, altitude andtemperature studied.

The results of this analysis are used to determine airspacerequirements in "Heliport VFR Airspace Based on Helicopter Performance,"DOT/FAA/RD-90/4. Rejected takeoff and one engine inoperative (OEI)capability are related to airspace requirements for heliports intended tosupport Category A operations in "Helicopter Rejected Takeoff AirspaceRequirements," DOT/FAA/RD-90/7.

33

REFERENCES

1. AS 332 C Flixht Manual, Aerospatiale Helicopter Corporation,Marignane, Cedex (France), October 14, 1981.

2. AS 355F Flight Manual, Aerospatiale Helicopter Corporation,Marignane, Cedex (France), November 20, 1981.

3. Bell Model 206B Jet Ranger - III Flight Manual, Bell HelicopterTextron, Fort Worth, TX, Revision 15, November 11, 1986.

4. Boeinx Vertol 234 Flight Manual, Boeing Helicopter Company,Philadelphia, PA.

5. Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft, FAA AC 27-1, August 29,1985.

6. Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft, FAA AC 29-2A,September 16, 1987.

7. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 14 CFR Part 27, "AirworthinessStandards: Normal Category Rotorcraft," Subpart B, Flight-Performance, The Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.,January 1988.

8. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 14 CFR Part 29, "AirworthinessStandards: Transport Category Rotorcraft," Subpart B, Flight-Performance, The Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.,January 1988.

9. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 14 CFR Part 77, "Objects AffectingNavigable Airspace," Subpart C, Obstruction Standards; rnragraph77.29, Airport Imaginary Surfaces for Heliports, The Office of theFederal Register, Washington, D.C., January 1988.

10. Davis, S.J., Rosenstein, H., Stanzione, K.A., "User's Manual forHESCOMP; The Helicopter Sizing and Performance Computer Program,"Boeing Vertol Company, D210-10699-2, Second Revision, October 1979.

11. "Development of a Heliport Classification Method and an Analysis ofHeliport Real Estate and Airspace Requirements," PACER Systems, Inc.,DOT/FAA/RD-81/35, June 1981.

12. Enstrom F28F Operator's Manual and FAA Approved Rotorcraft FlightManual, The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, Menominee, Michigan,Revised January 8, 1986.

13. Heliport Design, FAA AC 150/5390-2, January 4, 1988.

14. Hughes 500E Model 369E Flight Manual, Hughes Helicopters, Inc.,Culver City, California, November 23, 1982.

15. MBB BO 105 Flight Manual, MBB Helicopter Corporation, West Chester,PA, Revised April 22, 1983.

35

16. Moen, Gene C., DiCarlo, Daniel J., and Yenni, Kenneth R., "AParametr'c Analysis of Visual Approaches for Helicopters," NASALang.ey Research Center, Hampton, VA, NASA TN D-8275, December 1976.

17. The Official Helicopter Blue Book, Volume VI, Edition 2, HelicopterFina--ial Services, Inc., Skokie, IL, 1985.

18. Rosenstein, Harold J., Stanzione, Kaydon A., "Computer Ai4edHelicopter Design," Boeing Vertol Company, AHS 37th Annual Forum, IewOrleans, LA, May 1981.

19. Sikorsky S-76A Flight Manual, Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford,Connecticut, November 21, 1978.

20. "Study of Helicopter Performance and Terminal Instrument Procedures,"PACER Systems, Inc., DOT/FAA/RD-80/58, June 1980.

21. "Study of Heliport Airspace and Real Estate Requirements," PACER

Systems, Inc., DOT/FAA/RD-80/107, August 1980.

22. Weiss, Rosanne M., Wolf, Christopher J., Harris, Maureen, andTriantos, James, "Heliport Visual Approach and Departure AirspaceTests - Volumes I and II," Federal Aviation Administration TechnicalCenter, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ, DOT/FAA/CT-TN87/40,August 1988.

23. Wolf, Christopher, J., "Analysis of Distributions of VisualMeteorological Conditions (VMC) Heliport Data, Volume 1 - Summary andVolume 2 - Appendices," Federal Aviation Administration TechnicalCenter, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ, DOT/FAA/CT-TN89/67,March 1990.

24. 1988 Helicopter Annual, Helicopter Association International,Alexandria, VA, January 1988.

36

ACRONYMS

AC Advisory CircularA/S Above SlopeCAT CategoryCDP Critical Decision PointDOT Department of TransportationFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFAATC Federal Aviation Administration Technical CenterH-V Height-VelocityHAl Helicopter Association InternationalHCDP Height at Critical Decision PointHESCOMP Helicopter Sizing and Performance Computer ProgramHIGE Hover-In-Ground-EffectIFR Instrument Flight RulesISA International Standard AtmosphereKT KnotN/A Not ApplicableNASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationOEl One Engine InoperativeS/U Slope UnachievableSCT Systems Control Technology, Inc.VCDP Velocity at Critical Decision PointVFR Visual Flight RulesVMC Visual Meteorological ConditionsVNE Never Exceed Speed

37

APPENDIX A

SUBCONTRACTOR SUMMARY REPORTS

FIRST SUBCONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY REPORT(Praxis Technologies, Incorporated)

I. METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted using rotary-wing performance computer programsoriginally developed under contract to NASA and the U.S. Navy. Singleand tandem rotor helicopter designs were analyzed using a Subcontractormodified version of HESCOMP, The Helicopter Sizing and PerformanceComputer Program. HESCOMP is a widely accepted sizing and performancecomputer program within the rotary-wing and V/STOL industry. HESCOMP hasbeen modified to include a more accurate representation of the low-speedpower characteristics, more detailed weights algorithms, center ofgravity locations, advanced rotor characteristics, and maneuveranalyses. Wherever possible, HESCOMP was correlated with actual flighttest data from various civil and military helicopters. Becausedetermination of the low speed powers required are critical to accuratelyassess takeoff and climb out capabilities, special consideration wasgiven to the transition flight mode.

To simplify the approach to methodology assessment, the requiredengineering tasks were divided into seven areas: 1. geometriccharacteristics, 2. engine modeling, 3. airframe download, 4. dragprediction, 5. aerodynamics, 6. main and tail rotor performance, and7. general performance. The prediction of air vehicle performance isbased on an integration of these technology areas, which are separatelyaddressed. Tasks 1-6 are external calculations which were then used asinput to HESCOMP.

1. Geometric Characteristics

Accurate specification of air vehicle characteristics is essential tomathematical modeling programs, particularly to HESCOMP. The ability toprovide three-dimensional helicopter data permits increased accuracyduring performance analysis. The helicopters under study were physically"dissected" in order to be represented in the performance algorithms. 1nthe case of the single rotor helicopter, the total fuselage length (inaddition to the nose, tail, and constant sections) included the tailboom, the length of which, in turn, is established by the relationshipbetween the main and tail rotors and separation distance. Additionalconcerns included main rotor and fuselage separation height, tail boomrelative position on fuselage, center of gravity locations, lighting andgear configuration, horizontal and vertical tail relative positions,engine nacelle locations, and rotor pylon geometry. Fuselage finenessratios, locations of maximum height and width, wetted areas, and overalllength were also provided as input.

Additional considerations for the tandem rotor helicopter included rotoroverlap, aft rotor pylon geometry and shaft inclination, and afterbodydesign.

The geometric characteristics for each helicopter under study wereobtained from the appropriate corresponding flight manuals.

2. Engine Modeling

Basic turboshaft engine performance is determined through non-dimension-

alized parameters as a function of Mach number versus turbine inlet

temperature, T4.1. Referred engine parameters include horsepower, fuel

flow, gas geiecaLor speed, and power turbine speed. Engine ratings from

ground idle to maximum or contingency power setting are indicated.Non-dimensionalized engine shaft horsepower available and associated fuelflow are functions of the maximum static sea level installed power andambient pressure and temperature ratios. Non-dimensionalized gas

generator and power turbine speeds are functions of temperature ratio.Because of the normalized, referred format, all engine data are valid for

any ambient condition, whether standard or nonstandard. With theexception of referred power, none of the engine parameters are dependent

upon power turbine speed.

Manufacturer's data on some engines show significant variations in bothreferred power and lapse rate with respect to changes in altitude. These

variations are due to Reynold's number effects. It has been found thatthese effects can be accounted for by means of a multiplicative factor onpower available, which is a function of the Reynold's number based oncompressor inlet conditions, compressor blade geometry, and tip speed.

It is imperative to have an accurate prediction of the engine poweravailable when computing performance parameters. Engine certificated

specifications were used for each configuration when available.Parameters that reduce engine power available to the rotor include

appropriate engine inlet and exhaust losses and accessory horsepower

extraction.

3. Airframe Download

Download is due to the presence of the airframe in the rotor downwash.

Download affects the performance ability of the helicopter anytime therotor downwash impinges on the airframe, such as in hover and verylow-speed flight. As an example, in order to hover, the rotor mustproduce enough thrust to equal the weight of the vehicle plus the

download. Typical values of the helicopter thrust-to-weight ratios arebetween 1.03 and 1.05. A semi-empirical method was used for estimating

download yielded correlation within ten percent for most of the availabledata. Airframe shape, perimeter area, and vertical location under rotorwere strip calculated as a function of fuselage station. Correspond-

ingly, the rotor wake contraction and dynamic pressure were also strip

calculated. The strip calculations were used to obtain the total

airframe download.

4. Drag Prediction

The total minimum profile drag is estimated using a detailed skinfriction and pressure drag calculation based on empirical trends. The

skin friction drag was obtained by computing the skin friction drag of aflat plate as a function of Reynold's number, Mach number, and surface

roughness, and then correcting the drag for three-dimensional effects.Pressure drag was computed using empirical equations defined as a

function of fineness ratio and the chordwise location of the maximum

thickness. Wherever possible, drag estimates were correlated with any

published data from the airframe manufacturers. Detailed drag estimates

A-2

for each airframe component were calculated and then summed to provide

total minimum drag.

5. Aerodynamics

Aerodynamics of the fuselage and horizontal and vertical tail surfaceswere determined for trimmed flight conditions. Aerodynamic contribution

of the vertical tail is important in determining the tail rotor thrust

requirements for anti-torque. The horizontal tail, if present, provides

fuselage pitch attitude in trim conditions. Both tail surface

contributions are dependent upon lift and drag coefficients, pitch or yaw

angle, surface area, and longitudinal and lateral locations in reference

to fuselage.

6. Main and Tail Rotor Performance

The calculation of the total contributions of thrust and propulsive force

from both the main and tail rotor systems are critical in predictinghelicopter performance. Main rotor performance was calculated using a

combination of momentum theory and empirical corrections. Main and tail

rotor performance was correlated with manufacturer supplied data for the

hover and minimum power required points. Total shaft horsepower requiredis dependent upon airfoil type, platform shape, blade number, twist,cutout, trim conditions, and gearbox efficiency. For single rotor

helicopters, tail rotor parameters were also included. Typically, the

four elements of main rotor power required are:

1. Induced Power - power required to generate lift.2. Profile Power - power required to turn the rotor.3. Parasite Power - power required to supply propulsive thrust in

forward flight.

4. Nonuniform Downwash Power - power correction due to nonuniforminflow and downwash effects in for,.'ardflight.

Tail rotor power required was calculated as a function of the main rotor

power required, the tail rotor arm length, vertical fin blockage andeffectiveness, and tail rotor aerodynamics.

Rotor power prediction has traditionally been associated with hover and

forward flight conditions. Transition powers from hover to minimum power

speeds are difficult to analyze. Within published literature, helicopterperformance data has been measured at hover and in forward flight at

airspeeds from just below the airspeed for minimum power out to the

maximum airspeed attainable. Climb performance is usually measured at

the airspeed for best rate of climb (approximately the same airspeed as

for minimum power required), and frequently, at the hover, or zeroairspeed, condition. Generally, no data are taken for the transitionairspeed range between hover and minimum power airspeed. For certain

performance conditions, the low speed transition corridor is vital tohelicopter operations. Most helicopters operate in the transition regime

for a brief period of time, constituting takeoff to climb out, or comingin for a landing. When a helicopter had sufficient power to hover, itusually had enough power to pass safely through transition.

A-3

Methodology to accurately predict the transition regime is non-existent.Neither the simple momentum analysis used at hover, nor the fixed winganalogy commonly used for forward flight is valid. A simplification ofthe rotor induced power in forward flight results from assuming a zerorotor angle of attack. Assuming a rotor ellipitical lift distribution incruise flight implies a uniform induced rotor downwash over the rotordisk. This downwash is small compared to the forward flight airspeed.However, as the helicopter's airspeed is reduced from cruise into thetransition regime, the rotor induced downwash becomes a significantportion of the flight airspeed, and increasingly non-uniform. Thisimplies that the classical forward flight equation assumptions are notnecessarily valid for predicting the transition powers required.

To obtain a reasonable estimation of power required at very low advanceratios where neither normal cruise nor hover rotor characteristicstotally describe the operating environment of the rotor, HESCOMP uses anempirical fairing technique. This method is based on a contractedinduced wake angle coupled with algorithms which insure a smoothtransition between hover and cruise. For this study, a correlation ofHESCOMP-type methodology with flight test data obtained from Edwards AirForce base for a variety of military helicopters was also used. Thisdatabase provides a statistical method of correlating the prediction oftransition power required based solely on inputs of hover and minimumpowers required. The predictive methodology used was well within tenpercent of the actual flight test data.

7. General Performance

Tasks 1 through 6 establish the mathematical algorithms necessary forinput to HESCOMP. This task consisted of using HESCOMP as a generalperformance tool which provided powers available and required to performa variety of mission requirements. Among the output from HESCOMP wereflight path angles and airspeeds for climb performance, and engine androtor performance for accelerations and takeoff distance calculations.Acceleration data were computed outside of HESCOMP. Time to program wasconsidered and an estimated cost savings was achieved by not linking theacceleration algorithms inside the main HESCOMP program.

II. ASSUMPTIONS

Several assumptions were required in the prediction of civil aviationhelicopter performance. Eight helicopter configurations were examined ofwhich five vehicles were multi-engine. The following assumptions apply:

1. Engine power available was assumed to collapse as the inversefunction of both pressure ratio and square root of the temperatureratio.

2. Longitudinal acceleration data were generated at maximum poweravailable or takeoff power.

3. Rate of climb data were generated at intermediate rated power or 30minute power rating.

4. Gearbox torque limits were applied as indicated by the flight manuals.

A-4

5. Vertical rate of climb efficiencies were held constant for each

configuration.

6. Transmission efficiencies were held constant at 97 percent.

7. Accessory horsepower extraction was estimated based on the installedavionics and held constant as a function of airspeed.

8. Rotor RPM was held constant at 100 percent.

9. One Engine Inoperative (OEI) powers required at hover and forward

airspeeds were assumed to be the same as all engines operating.

III. MANUFACTURER DATA USED

In order to accurately model the powers required and available throughoutthe low speed transitional flight regime, specific manufacturers' datawere used. Powers available and required for hover and minimum powerflight speed for steady state level flight was requested. Also, thevertical rate of climb at hover and the steady state rate of climb at agiven airspeed was requested. However, not all data was supplied fromthe manufacturers, decreasing the accuracy of performance prediction.Otherwise, performance predictions are estimated to be within ten percentof the flight test data.

The following data were supplied by manufacturers and used accordingly:

NOTE: All rates of climb are in feet per minute.

GW = vehicle gross weight (lb) used for matching powers andclimb rate

HPavl = maximum engine horsepower availableQlmt = engine torque limit as percentage of sea level engine

power availableHPmin = minimum horsepower required to maintain level flightVmin = true airspeed (knots) corresponding to HPminHPhov = horsepower required for hoverfroc = forward rate of climb at VclVcl = horizontal airspeed (knots) corresponding to froe

1. Enstrom F 28F 2. McDonnell Douglas 500E

GW = 2,600 GW = 3,000HPavl = 225 HPavl = 420Qlmt = N/A Qlmt = N/AHPmin = 126 at 2,350 lb HPmin = 139 at 2,100 lbVmin = 50 Vmin = 50HPhov = 245 HPhov = 332froc = 1,440 at 2,350 lb froc = 1,875 at 375 HPVcl = 50 Vcl = 50

A-5

3. Bell 206B III 4. Aerospatiale AS 355F

GW = 3,200 GW = 5,071HPavl = 420 HPavl = 840Qlmt = N/A Qlmt = N/AHPmin = 158 HPmin = 323Vmin = 50 Vmin = 55HPhov 300 HPhov = 564froc = 1,186 froc = 1,856Vcl = 50 Vcl = 55

5. MBB BO 105 CBS 6. Sikorsky S 76A

GW = 5,271 GW =10,500HPavl = 840 HPavl = 1,300Qlmt = 86% Qlmt = N/AHPmin = 314 HPmin = 564Vmin = 65 Vmin = 75HPhov = 550 HPhov = 1,242froc = 1,461 froc = 1,491Vcl = 65 Vcl = 75

7. Aerospatiale AS 332C 8. Boeing Vertol 234 LR

GW =18,959 GW =48,500HPavl = 3,322 HPavl = 8,707Qlmt = 90% Qlmt = N/AHPmin 1,293 HPmin = 3,933Vmin = 75 Vmin = 90HPhov 2,599 HPhov = 6,533froc = 1,772 froc = 2,545Vcl = 75 Vcl = 90

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The development of the analytical models proved to be a greater effortthan estimated due to the difficulty encountered in matching thecomputational data with the flight manual data. Matchingmanufacturer-supplied data (when provided) with computational data(horsepower required and corresponding rate of climb for a given trueairspeed) was straight-forward. Manufacturer's estimates of horsepowerextraction to drive accessories and transmission gearbox efficiency wouldhave been helpful in developing the models.

Information available in each specific helicopter flight manual was usedto collapse the data for different ambient conditions. Flight manualdata were used to provide a first estimate while waiting for morespecific data to be supplied from the manufacturers. Most flight manualdata introduced ten percent error just in graph plot interpretation.This error is magnified when collapsing the data for density altitude.When manufacturers' data were supplied, results changed. The datareceived from most manufacturers usually included several differentambient conditions, enabling a much more accurate, and simplified,approach. The flight manual is required for helicopter definition andoperating procedures but should not be used for performance matching withthe analytical model, unless a lower accuracy than 10% is acceptable.

A-6

Vertical rate of climb was not supplied in most flight manuals nor bymany of the manufacturers. This data would be very useful in estimatinghover and very low speed rate of climb performance. Helicopters havedifferent vertical drags which are difficult to accurately estimate.Vertical drag affects the vertical climb power required used to determinethe vertical rate of climb. Without a good vertical drag estimate, anaccurate vertical rate of climb is difficult to predict.

Realizing that data recorded during FAA flight qualification are limited,when used the data should be able to yield preliminary estimates of lowspeed performance. These additional data would enhance the accuracy ofthe low speed performance estimates. However, the effectiveness ofincreased accuracy above the level presented for this type of study isquestionable.

A-7

SECOND SUBCONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY REPORT

(University of Maryland, Aeronautical Engineering Department)

I. INTRODUCTION

This study was completed using HESCOMP (Helicopter Sizing and PerformanceComputer program) to determine the power required, rate of climb (ROC)and angle of climb (MOC) at the various weights, altitudes, and ambientconditions. The take-off and normal rated powers available for each ofthe aircraft were determined from the data supplied by SCT. Theacceleration distance and time were calculated using an externalproprietary program written in "C".

II. ACCELERATION DISTANCES AND TIMES

These data were determined by numerically integrating the accelerationcapabilities of the aircraft. The acceleration capabilities are afunction of the operating gross weight of the aircraft, the ambientconditions, power available, rotor system design, inertial loadings, andthe operational procedures (control and attitude limitations, IGE, OGE,etc).

The response of the rotor system to the control changes associated withthe transition from hover to forward acceleration is represented by anexponential function with an assumed time constant of one second. Thistime constant accounts for the delay associated with the thrust changerequired by the rotor system, thus disallowing instantaneous thrustchanges within the rotor system.

The acceleration capabilities of each helicopter were estimated usingsemi-empirical methods previously developed from an extensive database.These data represent airborne acceleration capabilities and do notrepresent ground runs with the associated landing gear coefficients offriction. This limitation requires the aircraft to have the ability tohover (i.e., airborne or at minimum in-ground-effect) at the specificoperating condition.

The airborne acceleration data are determined through scaling ofsemi-empirical data. The scaling requires knowledge of the maximum hoverweight capability of the aircraft at the operating ambient condition, theoperational weight of the aircraft, and the maximum speed of the aircraftat the operating ambient and weight.

Because of the limited scope of this study, it is imperative tounderstand the analytical procedure used to calculate the distance andtime associated to accelerate to a given airspeed. In conversations withPraxis Technologies personnel regarding their original approach to thisproblem it was determined that they undertook a more rigorous analyses.In the Praxis Technologies approach they determined maximum overallacceleration accounting for ground run where more favorable. Also, inthe original study the maximum thrust capability of the aircraft was usedto determine the propulsive capability with tip-path plane tilt limitedto 25 degrees. The ratio of the horizontal thrust less drag, to theweight of the helicopter was used to determine the acceleration. If thepower available was insufficient for ICE hover at a given condition, they

A-8

calculated the acceleration of the aircraft in a ground run beforeachieving flight. It was found that it was sometimes beneficial to keepthe aircraft on the ground regardless of the power required at certainconditions in order to gain enough speed to pull-up quickly onceachieving high speed.

There are several variables that must be accounted for when determiningtake-off procedures. When ground runs are involved, the accelerationcapabilities are different than with airborne conditions, and wouldprovide an inconsistent comparison with data provided at weights where atminimum hover IGE is achievable. Therefore, a consistent takeoffprocedure must be established to allow comparison of accelerationdistances and times. The consistency within the data provided has beenestablished by requiring airborne flight acceleration capability. Noattempt was made to determine the trade-off between a ground run andairborne IGE flight due to the limited scope of this study.

In the case where the aircraft was not power limited and the PraxisTechnologies study included a ground run, a difference in theacceleration distance and time would be expected. The data supplied byour approach would probably be somewhat more optimistic than the Praxisdata up to maybe 40 or 50 knots and less optimistic at higher speedsdepending on the take-off conditions. The reason for this is that duringa ground run the aircraft has to overcome significant frictional forcesat low speeds, but will accelerate very quickly once this is achie"ed.Output data from HESCOMP can be matched to the flight test data suppiledfor each aircraft by a variety of combinations of input. A match wasmade to the ROC data supplied in all cases. All other data, if suppliedby SCT, was also matched.

A-9

APPENDIX BDEPARTURE PROFILES

r -LC)

- 'SV0

S 0)

wC) S

S. C)J> LC)SU)

0 8 , \, .05 <

LL LU 0

< C~C

p 0

LO 0

S S S CC)I) w

LL S

S 5C5

+ C)1.1..CI'SF

LL.

* SLO

0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C> C> uLn Cl LO C Ln V) CD SL

Ln v v co Sv

(133=1)3anii55

B-255

C

a: ,

w cc

CO( 555

1.1+ 55 55,, v

ml ~cra0 L

> 0

0.0 *

Cl z

o S <S N

.~j. S Ii...

CD QLU S ) > Sl wOm4 Sn cm

(1 3 1 S S S S l

I- S B-3

T- 8

LC)

LC)S C)

LUI

55 L~W LL

C)

LU LU

LL 5"' ZM5 0C

<L C) LL

0 CV5555 0 80

55,55 U) C

S5)

'4 )+4 0

C

0 C) 0) C) 0) U 0 ) C) U) C) IC) LO CD Cr C) C) V C's - -

B- 4

0 0

u-w

'S) +)

Sn U-)

0 04

LLLCo)

Q LL

0

LLI i I

0~ 0< Uco

IN

04 C-5

+ CV

SI LAI

Cl)CCZ CC

0 <

Sr E

L%\ S LS . L L DL

SY 0

SU w

5 0

LL

LLZ

80 8 S D >U) S) S> U) )urn IV5 v V

U33:JS Saii

B-65

r 000 Q

ClV)

''II- XJ

mmml X x

- X 'x oU.

X) 0

Xr. XC XL

CL 0

LL z

X X X

WI X 5 U)LL X l

C) C> C) CX 0 ) 0 0 0 )

(13X 3aniiiii

B-0

IN,,

Cl)\IN1.j. \I \.\ J

LLI CS U

Su m

*H I N N I N \ \U45 I' \ IN

1 0

LLI I I LIJU-

INI 0

U)-

+ I N IN0~~1 IN0In 0 I 0 I In

0~ ~~~~ I ~ Cs

B-Sj

* Q'UD

* C,

(.CC C) S

*m ww LL Mui CD LL

0j p5 05 C~ 0

* 0

55 \ CDLO S 0

+ a:

C~ " 5 5

~ '5 *SL

* ~ 5 ~ I0LL z0.. ~ S \I C)

C> C> o 50 CCC.C.)

Q sn 0 n C l 0 l )U) CV SCJ

(13J 3ani0

B-9)

C,,U

(I) co~

mL p L-j LUJ

oLLILL> 1~ 5

*i% IN CL)m

55~, Ss ~ ~ s JL~jLU

IN\ LU LU

Cl)2)U a L

0~LL 00,0U, U,0 0 0cc

Lu C< C' CI CL

CL~d ~OfhI11

B-0

LCI+

cr5%

S <

S\9w w

a 5i

0i *. S.S W55 5 L5

S\%

. C) W

04S 5 * S C )

WtLL

S * S S

8\ a 8

vs CO Nr Qm c

(13J Kniiiw

B-11

CD

NCVN

N N

.j LN

(W/ N NZN

UN C) N N N>Nl CCCN

NL Nw: NL N

0N CN N0Li

IL. < N cc NL 0C

NO <

N N

N O 0 ' O 0 Li.Co..(n m N N c

N1 3J N Nn N w

U.. N N N 12

r-8

00 0

co'*)

(f)C)1 CD

LU L wZ a: CL

0 LL u

U- I cJ C0

I ww CD CD

LL 0

L C)

S ~ 0SL cc:~

U--

C')SL z

co C)

S L

~~C)5 ~SO

\IA

CS '.SC)~~~~ U' S) U' n C) U)LO IV co 0oN c

SJ3J 3cinii-)

B-13S

I-

INv

%

IN IN IS N NN S

Sl \ % N

o LL

C~CY

0 IN

\% \% 8 LSI S SQt

> '~ 0

SH S S

S S S INS S S 5

S S S 0S 5 5cc

Sj 'I IN I5 C

cc 0

Q

U, C

Lm

LIc)

(1.33:1) 3OflJJxfv

B- 14

r 8

OD 0

cV)

S S w

0 0 IL

LLJ-~ 5 " 'L

LIL

w

L~m 0Ci t : )wL 0L L

00~~ 00in~~~L

CC C )C' ~ CJ

B- 1

9CD

0)

9CD

Cl) CV)

LLU

0D LL

C0 z

'~d~) *C). Q

LL LU

5'l

C)LU LLILU

LLI

LL. 52 C

c0 09 00 0 WI

V)~ d LO~alB-+

7 8

S CD

N 5n

S Q

- 'S 0(ox NSN SV)

(I) N

I,, Np

N NN '

cr <

0L mLL

SL Cl Nl 0SC N

5 ""N ILU wND N

N' sMOO U) 02N CCLcE-

I.E Scn N NY

_____133_ I N S NL.L

I BS17

K)10cv

- S~ C)

(I) CV'

ww

LO0A % C~j Q

S S 4c<

w ID

LLL

Urn)

CC 0

LA~~CC 0 ) 0 LA 0 L L LL

(±Ld Con±I±<B-18C

LLIr'.a §

a aU

Z a:

F- a a

w cv,

CC Ca w

LL U)co + CeaJ

> a a

LL a a

aO W) a) L m ao CM C

(1 3= a a ' ii

a ~ ~ B a19aUJL

70Q

U*)CV)

Sl Co

S S

S 5)

0 77

>- Lc)~

0 ' LLJcc m

'U LU

LU LUn 5i

U)''(

+ U-

I- S LU

0 /

'S'

<w<

B-20

r0

C,

U)U

LL) C)U0 C0

U-S CD

*) 0', o I

Sl S 5

F+ SU 0-iS C)

S 5 5

55 SC)

Sr 'S:

S S S

\ 5<<

S 55a.

Ln W

B-21

7:00)

0o

KnS 0O

IN0

CDS

SU CO

0i(/) 0

x * 0

uLJo 0LLSS . 0

§ " \ N \ I \ , \I 'CS CS I

SL IN lk

S * Scc

* S S

LLiSi C

op 0o I * "

00 0

B- 22

70

Q 0)

'NN) 0z (-) 8,

w a: CL, C,,Nl CD N

S NCV)

N N)

L ) NoN 'N N 0..

cr N N

C -~ <

N N NaN<

N N

0

N N NNL N

i NM N0

NL N N

+l .NN N N0L.

N NN N N

C NCN0Dw N N N

UJ N. N0

+ N N NN N N:

'N N, N

N N '

N N w'N N N~~* N ' \ <

C)E 0-N N

N N>N N 0

NOC N N S 'Nn IV NV mUmcm V

(13N1 N Nii

NBN N23

co 00

U,

m 0

0

LLJ

CL 0

+ SU

0~c N 55N MN

p 0

N o 0 LLN NT m 0 m c

(13J 3s3N S 0N N N S&

70

U)C.,)

CDC0ClC)

wu

LOLLM u U,)

ULI

or 0

0C)l

0

0

+ U,

"SC.ui'9

S.<

Ln ~ ~ ~ ~ B 25 f M m I- V

ev)

C)Cl) C)C 0

LLU

LU'S 0

S 0)

* CO C)'0L IN, C

> Sl 0O~cr DUS SCS

\\o S

C5 C) SSu C

5' 5 5 5O

LU

LO CD

LU LU

m C/,oL 2 CI

00

2 cr B- 26

coo

00

C')

w Ni

m SU

S S w

LL N' ww SN 0

SN NU U'

D N

D o

N13= N 0 QiS B-27

Go 00a

xl 0

(/) * 00l1.1.1 5

S S SS Sj

LUi

0-

LLii

+ C) <

0

LU LUa: C) 0o2 ZzaoU=

D00

8 s 8) anug v)C

B- 28

70

Ct)

S C

00

w U S LLSj Q

C) w

w N 0'0c

LU U-

'O 'r 0 /

U- LU

(1)

5, 5 9 8 Ln 1

U') IV c m cm c

(J-33J)3orwii

B-29.

1 0

IS. 00 L% I

mJ RJ

cc <

w U IN00

w

oo 0I

LU LC0

I I I I N II

B- 3

CD,

umjR

WUJ 0~ LL

LS 55 N~

U.J~L S 55j 0L

u.J 0UCa:L cL 0I

j'S 5S -S S

(L +

SU r 0

S~ -

00

0 8 5, s Z CO Eon l 4 V V) C l - VUI3C1 0(r .i

B-3 1i:

770OD C0

cr)

ClC)Cl) 0

LLJ

0 LL0)

C) LL

0Q0

(V) N

B- 32

70

Cl) )

w S

uJ

0 J

LU C 0

w LO 0

IL

wr 0

U.,IL) ~~~ ~ C) C) Cs %

< '-

70

C),

C l ) ( 0 0

< C)

LLuJ

0 >- SSSSSS

Wz '~LU

Iii9 ± 7 LUICLC

-> 0LL

L0O

>0:

=) 0

U33-1) 3aruiIV

B- 34

ClC)

"S5

cSJ00

1j

LLI

o z-C,)o<

CC

(±3aj LOni1

LB- 35

T.0C0

(/)C0

LO

LU

S 00 LL

(L <

M 0

LUj

It) 0

2 LU

00o) <ItC)

0O :C

LO LLJUj C0

uB- 36

770

S U)

o

(I) C 0

W CV

* S S

S RU

0SL w~5

55 C) L

I- C)

5

C> w

SL V) 0

w > cwLL S '

CC C) LA C 0SU o

LO C S

<~ S L

SL S008S S

-S 'cc

LLI~ ~ a: (L L~

- S 'CSLh~O S 55

8 U9 8 59 8 Ln

LU1n 'w V m

CL3 S 3 Sii

o DZLU11-37

7: 0000

N LO

Cl)

- 0- LL-

W% CO H) JS N Er.

%% 08

>1J S5

S

CL~~ 2 :CN

cc m

. ILL

0 SN+N

N>N

C) 0

C) C,,N SN* SNI

NL N/N

N 3

N) 'Sd

N .NCLN NCNN N S

8~ No 8tW ~~~~ NT l m c

C03J)N 3aniii

B-38'

00 00* S LC)

_ CC

oLL uC LL

.40 0.0..

Iu - C w

LLJ

cJS S 0

' LO

0

0 Ur 0 U LUC') C' C~J 'J C

CV)3

77 C0

S (C)

C)f 'S

I.I.:i) S LSL5

(0L

Sl m

S S LL~S 5 0

S 5 5 0

+ Sl 0 D..

0 0 -i

> 0

+< 0Uco L

Cl)

CA0 U ) 0) C) 0 C) MU

(i33d) 3caniiv

B-40

7 0

!N 0,

j C~)C).

Cl))

CC~ H LD N cc Wl

0U 0 N) N

") 0

N- M

CJ

=)) 0

0LLI N N N CS~U' N t w

N* N\ ND

N NN0-

N NCN

N N N N NO

CN NO ND NO C) U)/)O C L

NN) N N -

(N3J N NN N

NN4 NI N N

C0co C0

0O

- S)

LIU <0

IN 0

w IN I\

w IN *

IN 5m -

I5 Z (- 0 <-

IN, IN N\ < < (

IN, 02c a

U~) S

IN I<

0 C> C>/-8~ C8'5"U, 8 U) L

S) IV IV-)C) CCL33J)3aniIB-42~SS~

MAXIMUM G.W., 4000 FEET, HOT DAY

The maximum allowable takeoff weight is below the 85% max grossweight limit and therefore a profile was not created at this weight.

B-43

co C)

LU')

Lr 0LLW

UU-

SU 5IN <

<. < Lu xcr L

LLU

I0 IDoJ I" L _

IN 0

CCD

co I\< ~id m IaInIIn

F--B- 4-mI

CD00 C)

C)

uC)

C

LU

a. 77 'D

DC ' 0

S c)

CCC

Lx L55 \'.

0 + DZ CC'5 N

> CN m"CSN"

C4 C/ C 0 00

C+4 C) ) 'J

B-45-

Cl))

ml S

Sl LUI

55 LU

LAL

0

ui ~ ~~ 0 L LJC

LL LA 0 ) - C)

<~~B 46D c l

0:) -0

CV),

wZ c" ~QJ C)~

'N 2 L) Lil0D 0, C)U LL

N'c' < OO LLN' 'Np-z<

NJ N Ui

LU C U0L ) 0NC)

CN

CD N~

CL~ C' s

Q)+ CC

LO LL

N0 LN N

NNNN 0 NN

~1. N N

4 N) CN N

N N)

N N)N N N

N) NO CN NO 0 C O C ONOv v C) c N N0

N13J Na i NN N

B-47N

* IC)

C,

C'C)wCL co LJU

IC)

Lu 0

~ 0 0 0c, CC 0 LUU*) C)J

(± ~ ~ ~ (. 0~lI1

LU L-4a:

85% MAX G.W., 4000 FEET, HOT DAY

This weight exceeds the maximum allowable takeoff weight for theBV 234 LR. A departure profile was therefore excluded at this weight.

B-49

00 C0

C-)5SO

(I)C)wV

LU

S 5 0cc LU C) Sw

LU SI

0

0 D~00

0> Z< c U

- M 2 cI< LI Lcf): C /

z )0

C-)

U) 0 C) 0) C) 0 UC) 0 UC) LUU') CC) LO ~ 0 ) C) -C LOL

B- 50

rD

0000

CC)

CC#

.UU

00

U-

0

c U 1

0

0 U, 0 UU 0 C

U) CL) C' C J C\(± ~ ~L) 0a~i

B--cc

00 C0

Cl) N

Co N)

LLLL0 N N0..NNNNNN N 0..

11.1.1 ~ NN

IL u

CC N> 0NsJ L ...

t < 0L- 0 N- N NW

< N N ) /

Nm NU N

N -

+ C)

0<CL

(133-) 3aniuiv

B- 52

'N' 0

(ItI)C)

w7N CN

In S

~~LuJLU

CDC)

00LLU

LJ

CIO-CL C/J

C\J oQ< M 0 -) 20

LLI 00<<1L

CmU

cm 0

IIn

r 0)

0l LO 0) O 0 LO 0 In 0> in LUV) IT) IT m co C\lj N'

(±3-d) 3can±i±1

B- 53

7S

w0

CCV

5 'S W0 SSSSSS 55555 S555

555~X 5\55I.-,~

cc..J 55clS5 N

C*LJ U o

0

LL C, C) N

CB- 54

70

00 C)C0

0C)

Cl) 0

LU

0 U0 <

LU LU CD..

5' LL' LL 28 UJ

00 <D 0

; < <Lu CrLU

-mx 0 L

NI )L

x C 04 U-) oQCC1

Ln0CV)fe +

~ 'Kx.

0 0 0 0 0 ) ) 00) U) C0 U' 0 LO 0) U-) 0) InIn C) l C~j Il

(133-) 3caniivB- 55

C)

U) "Sw

wL S L

C) "i

S C

LU a:Lp

LLo LL

UC) LU

UJ, C *S

08 <

LLLS 5*I-*S S C)

* U)Sn L'

cc

>0 C)5<5 C5

CC~ CL 5'

L* sUs>,S~

0 0 0 0 0 -LO U-) U> 0 a ) 0to

(133J) 3animv

B- 56

- C0

co C)

U))

LUw S SLL

u.J

LiLU

00oLLJ

~0

LLI z

Zfu

0. 0) 000O D 0 C) C)

U*Z -. 0

9OflILL<

C~)

C)

(I) LU

cc >

mLJ C) D5

0 ~~ IC) ..

ULJ

S S 0

0S <

C/)LO~ < C-H

j aD C)

I I I I LO

C) C) () C)J C') 0 -

B- 53

0

'5 0)

N 0>co CS()

S) SLU)

coS

Sj L

* 5 0

UC)

C) U-0 C0

o S \J L

S LCC- S C 0

00w L)

cc 85LI...U S r'

S S S SS SC)

* S S SS S S 0

Cl)

C) 0

LOL 0 LO C L CU) IVU IV 0 o'm5L13U - S S 55l

B-595

'S C)

5coH

Uf) S'S LIw

LL0

U) 55 0

CS"uiwSU '5 '

S S

0 C 0

+. a: .S S w

UC)

w zLLUJ H U

0IQ C

cn

UO

0a 0 0 0 0) 0 0 C)0Q U 0 U) 0) Ln 0 U) 0 in LU) IV) q, m co C4J N' -

B- 60

00 C0C0

- 5 0

C) WUCI)o '\ '

w SLL

LO) C

I-LOLL 9,

00

0I 0CL

LA. C 'Lt)LOj

o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 u

Lz (.) 8' <

B- IL a

0V L

N. 0

LL S Cs

* 0

S Si

SU SL

S S

S 5-

US LL

Lc 5i

w S S

U-) cc\S55C)S

LC wCV)l D

Ly a:Cc S S

S S

>

a

rr1TS 7* S S

a 0 55 SM

tn IV m mS m C tn

S 3 J S ' LLi

55 55 5 B-62

00 C0

7 0l

In

C

0 C)S

0 IM

0 00 U.

c 0

w zF- C-

IN", 0

Sn W

LU

a: C') LL CJFF±a) z a:~i

LL~B 63 C

0

01N')

(I) N

S5

) 5N w

N NN LLN N5

S N L

CM w

CN N o .N Ns * 0 0

NL * f) wN N N cQ

'N N C)0 u.XNN 'N N N

ND N

NO N

00CC 0=) - 0

LL~ IcooQ

LU 0

CEC,C'C)

w

ci

(ia3d) 3aniiii±v

B-64

00 C0

C,

Q LUNII NI

NL NL

N S 0

CcI0NU N

LLI

cc-L

05000 LL IL

CY/)

U,

cvccC'))

> I

0 0 0) 0 0 0> 0 0 0 .0O C) 0) a , 0 U, 0I U,) LU

Lc 1 CV) CV) N N I(L3=) 3aniiiiv

B-65

r: 0

0

0

Ul)

Cl))

00D

LU z

=) LL U)< 0 C0

Cl)wL

ww>0O

0

Lc)) 0) LO C) 0 L

(133:) 3Gflhiilv

B- 66

1Ln

(/) CV

c w

0UL, w

tzt

0 L0CC C)CL ' LLJ

Urn '

C) .

CE)

w w

CV)J ('Y) 0l

(13J 3aii

B-67

00 000D

LU LL

(/U) -ujCY, w

-J 0

0

C. LL

0 z

LLU j

CC/CC 0

ccw

0 0 0 0 0o ~~ ~~ cc U t)0 fU, ~ ~ ~ T a. CJ C'

C)~I 0an±C) 1m

B-68

Ul)

!7S

Sr w

CS 5i

SU L

(0* S

0

U) JC)~

-JS

LO U

LOU

ILr 0

C,)C

CC. a. xC

LU L

>0 C) C) 0 0 0

B-6-)

770

1~ 5C0

5 0)

Cl) S )

S u.wL !7 SL

05 SS 0 0.

ccJ

CL LL

0

LU

0 L

Cl)L

ILL

ClC)

Lc)L

0V LUUU

Cc: C)zi

(Jald Ua±I1

LL 2 w-C>

co 0

UC)

ClJ u i -

LL 5xS 5

U-

_l LU

0LL

0

LI. C)C) 0

cm0

It):

U.C-)

LOU

In ~ U CL 1 UD±d on;1B- 7

77 0

10

C/) Lu

~E C

0, 0l -

M LU

LLCL 0LU

C 0o I

0

Q, LU

woJ z<

LL U /

ILOCE)r

U, 0 V C

U,~ C )

(lr- ]C fl.LLa_

B- 7

r~ 0

a 0 -

(f) SLU

umi 9..C)

C)LU

w 0 LLO

0 L

c5 0 U-J< 0

D5 0

U) z 0)0C

Cl))II~ u..~< ~~oo

Ii V

B- 73

\ §

c~) ""S C,

Cl) c0

w0

w wLY. <

5555 ~ ~ 5

U )

5 S ~ S a.S) * S

LL LjS5

a -j 0

U) 0

Sc 0Sr 0

D Z S \UUS UJ SrL

D 5

To 2 Su

0

Lu a:S

0 2 cr. a.

S * 55

INSS

5 F16,0

S 55 0* ~S U)

0~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o 0 0 >C>~~~~* 55 LO 0

5

5S O l L

LO ~ ~~~ v Iq cS55)Cl ~

U33:3)\ S5Siu

B-74S

r§

ww

0

cc~

M LL.

i w 0

9-

0c 0 S0

Z0 S S CCS S S

U. S 5

D

S 8cc5

2 Cc uj 'Al

8 Lon ton, cLn IV v m m c C

(133:1L) S S 55.v

B-700

Wo C)

ww

0L 0

w 7 C w

I.-0

U' +

CDCl9)

o 0 LL D

0D 0'8 <~~"

Im''

' ' %O

'N, "~"a-" " "'

0 0 0 0 Q Q a '0 0

Il IV 0-mV) N c

U3= 3cin0i 0 Si0

B- 76

0 1r

a a wa aL

A a a

- a a L.oa a aw a a

a ~ 'INa

a a a,

a '5a 5 a ~cc

woL Li..

CC0DS a a wC

'Sas CCI

L<L La a 8

Cc a

a a a wa) aW aQ

an a aY a

U3J an a a z0 a "Ba7a

or cc r F

0

% LL

0 5 5

cc , U.

w LL +0> C

CL, > SY5

- ~ ~ C ~0 '8 .

LLJ cc\

.~LLLLL

s* s 8Sn IV IV m Y CY I

CL 3J S S 5 (

B-78 ~ ~ ~

rS

ClC)

Eu

N IN

IN, a -)L

LL N L

N N

NIN

N M

NN N0CL N N N

N NU

Nf IN CN , N

0: 0 N, L LON

- - N N NN N N

LL wD ,

88N~NU CC N

NC C

N0 > N > )(DN N' N> NO C O 0 L)ULf)~~ N)C

N3 = N Nui

B-7N

u.

(0r

'S 0

S \~.~~~SS

LC) <

>, Q

(±Md C/n±±0

a:-cc

.j~

C) 771.1. 55W

-Jr-- 5 0

< CY

wL SM 0 0

IC aLLL

<20 0 05' 0

55 U,

>S

055

*S5 m5

LO

CD55

\ SSS

5"MC) Co CD

C) Ln D LO C 0'. U

LO m N 0

(133 ) Kiiii

B-81

(J)'.j

0O 0

LU 0.

U- w

Sl 0

< W0 cccc LUO 1±

0 C\,LLW jZ0

W) ' S n-. 0 (1)

+ C)

>* C

55C

C)~ 55CU)* U') U) L)tc

&C)~~~ *l 5V5ci l

CL33J) 3CSrSlil

B-825

.j%

Cl) S C,S S

- . N 0

CL w

S 0

'S~ WIc

(I))00

(133J z(rW

B-83

ClC)

S5 c') 5,I

555 'S,0.. 5 5

SL S Sw S <5 555CL

0 . . L S S Ss5

~ SL L

0

< U-C)eS

S0 Cj, L S S

+-I

US S SCC S CDS

o ISV~L

CCI

M SL

5~V)

55)

5'SS

IWO) ton s IC UW IV c m S CY c

U33S S ini Si

B-84

rS

Cl))

ww

w LL0L 0

U) WNNN~j No

Cs) D Zx CC N

SJ 0

I~~gID LL N N

0. 0~ N 5OD 08

xj cc I-LO 2 Cc (

' No

N a

N N Na

0 SN ~SN o

CD ND5

C)~~ ~ ~ NOQ L )LNO m Nm 0m

*ti3d N S S

B-N85

Cl) L

w-JL

0 Si

u SL CY,

N Si

0. l5 5

MwW S S U..

S\ S5J S5ILO CC a~ a.

5D5

I-- j a:To L) <

S< S S

ul MLImC 2 CC CL.

m

a. '

+

(13=1 3SniuW

B-86

OD§

1~Q

-JL

C.,

> 0 L0

LUU

LUL-J 0I L

CC 0

o: z

=)00

In L U

IC)~ ~~~~~ % . . - .

B- 87

cr)

S CV)

SIL

CCC

w

o I

w0

LO 0I I II I a

o 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 L~ U) U) U) C/

IA ~ ~ C' C') N N

(±~d) an±I±QLI13-88

Coo

w-j

0 4 0

LU

0Lww

LLJ

U)

0L 0

0i 00 0 0

in c' 0~ej c~

B-S 9

r§

Cl)

ww-J

LU 0

0~ cc 55

S 0L

0 U)

S \ s S

0 + .0 w

0 L0

U, L

o 0C Q

0

ou g, C) uu0i 001O v~ wt t) C,) 04J 04 T- m

(±3J) 20flnlllV

13-90

Cl) CO)

LL(0

5 0)S C.,

0.. S 5SLLJ

1.11

LU L,

wwLA. lSS

iIM'~*oQ-~ 5Q

L) L5

'~S.

Ul) + C0> 0

\% <.

CC 0 i0

UJ W Q C/

CC B- 91

77 0

CV) W

ww

C,

w w<n 0 I n 0 I

In CV V CJ e

CL L-92

7 0

0U)

S C)

S w

CD)

cc N

CL <

0 S s s

cc CI

Cl S

U. "

I-U u.J + z

<~ 0LLJ C0)

LLA Uw0 cc LL -o

( L) a: zL00l* S 9') rr n

S% ' OC.) S *~ V \

*0 C) 0 > 0 0

C) LO SxS U' U,)CD U) 0 LUl) q Cl) cm'c

B-9 3

OD,,

S SJ

(J) Sr w

0L

0u 'l 2

SL :. 5L S w

SC a

CC C) S L

555 U

a: cw

D ,C

W0_~ a: a

±~ UQ

(08 8 8 'Lon 8 Lo 0 zLC m c

(i33J 3onLiWW

B-9

0

N")

NN c'r)

N N

N I NC N

a N

w N N N'LL

0L 0 0N

0 LL

'N N,

+- 0I.LJ~~~L N ccNS NNf.

I Nj* N N

N N N<

coNNNNNNNNNN:NNN L.L

NL w

< 0 IN

IN.'

LO~~ NO LO C r NL)qN Nj Nw V ci c

(133J N NN'-

B-95'

co C0CD

U))

wLL

a: LLS 0

C) 0

0 Li.CL~

U

4~L * S S

*5 '5C

(D ZC :

U)) iS 0

LLJ LLI

CC0 wL L J

00

0 0 0

B- 96

CN CUi

LLLU

P* 0 0 LL

N, INLL2L-< D 0

0 ~ ~ ~ N 0j"' N

< Nl a:

N N)46 %\ NCN

Nf Nl N

NL N% N

N " N N

N N

N N N N

w + 0

0 0 0 0 C0: 0 .jJ

C0 CL (I

(±~~L) LL±I1

B- 97

77

C,))

S w

0'SJ U)

SL 5S 0

> w,S SY

II. im~*5

U)S

* SLL

5LLJ~ n

CC '

CC0

CD DLO<- I

<UJ~ 0

LL~ d LQLL1

B- 98

70

(I) Sr LLw S

w- SL

S S Sa.

- ~ 0 0.U)j S 0

0L 5 I0

S S wQj S SI

S S*

CC > JS S

5,m S S

Sl S '

SL S S

U * * S

CC C)C

'(ci Dl 0 U-

cr0mW

LU 0

08S S LOU LUU)~~~C es cj y-(±Ld Wa~ii

D-9

00 C)C0

70

Uf) " I

LL

< LO C

U) ' LLI

L L..

S N S LU

w x

U' LU NU

+ DDC'C)

0

Cl) 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 j

In~ 2 ') I ~ a:J -C)~ anii

<-0

r0000

Cl) 'N ., Lw N LU

LL* 0

LLI ILU U)

C' LU

ILUi NL

CNJ U,

D Z NU C /

S LU C).(.1) SND\

Ll CLLJ 0

N'' Uj<,uc

o~~er C.

0-

(133J) Kan±iiiv

S w1.1. 55Li-

S 5 0

LL '

U, -

LLLLOm~ UUW

U-)-

+CCC

> ) 0 W0 U ) ~ . UU)~a 0) Lu c> C

CC C) Ccn CLi

B-102J

C.)

C,,

5C5Cl)) 'S L

'5S U

LU L0

'CS

LICL LL

0i 00

LL W

M CJ +S0>

3: 5, E

C,, ~\ 5 0 LIL,L '.U

CC S5

SL C /DD IZ.C

LU LLILL 2 iJCl) a:iS S 0 Lu p

Dcr ..

o< 0 0 0 0 0 C.j

In C, ) j C')

0 2 ccBin- O1

S U,55 X

M

S SjS SU

* SL

LL 0

S 5UrS

C

+ 0

U*) Cc5 C/) z5

5. <

a: 0 0

D c,

Cf) Su CC

Ln ~~ 8 ISLnLSO IV m N

U33:1 3anii5o

B-103

S7 8

m cc

S SL

> SUD S 5

m co16111 555 S~ 5, L.LS SLL

S S *

S * S~E1 S S CC

M Sl

*L CC)

* c*

O.(O

(ED

02 0

B- 104

co0

C,,

w1.1.1 '550

U CD5

*5,

CC S0 0

L) 2

0 8\1.1.1U C S

Q jjS\ S*

>CCCC,,i

0 0 0

U)~ ~ Cc ) C') N

(±3J) 3oniinv

B-104

r0

U,

- 0

(Big 0 LLI

alm 0

0aw~ Mw

__ Mw 0D0~ CL8o Lc

LL. ccSS CC C

ZCn

0L WD a.

U~~D 0 0.)

5 0o

(D 0 0

B-100

CO)

CV) 5S

I I

.55 \5\ 0 0S 0 <

L u.

D I-.a: ro.(

(.0 oQca: -. 'I, \% 0

U, C

+

>0+ 0O

CC 0U, C, C') N Na: a)Bai~

B-10

7:0

C) S

w Sw

M5 <

0 C)SS 0.

s, ,

555 0

CL 0

160+S

0 L0)

Cj inrw

(0 0* CE)

in L'l i n n 0 iO win W ~ Cc w cm cmI1

B- 107

cr)

LUU-

0 C0

t0 0

SS 0

om~ ' 'SC UtD S S

* SSS S 5

CC S

Xow cw

CD oQcF-, 01 L

CL Q M<+

UJ L w C

=180

LIJ Uj

cB-10

7: C0

GO CD,

CDD

CV)

w wU-

LU 0

w

LLU

0 WL

r- + Z

CCC

CD C') D~ Z' CC -(±3~W 30n1111

CC 0 LB-1on

r

I'L

S II

S.i

0

>

CC

W LL wLJI J~~

'SS. %*

L JS S W W

o .l ) U' SI

L

ww

Cl) 8

t I I In m cm I u

B-110

r. 5

cy,

00wM <C-

S

0 0

> 0

C),

"( CC, wILJ LL ', 5

5

(.E 0 So 0

j 1-

014 0

I ~L I I II0 0 0 0L

o~~~ D,0~ 0 0- j 0

(±-)~ XanCLi

B-Ill

U) C 00)

0 -5 '5 0 LL

CL 0 "S L'* < Uc. 0 WL C

Z a:ccL 0L =

< M 0

Cl) 8 0

D C/) ij CC0

-7 1) Cl L0Ij a: I I

0l 00CL < C)~ ~ N N - i

(±Ld 20fl±I±1

LLJB 112

TSSS S

S Sn

LII S

LL L0

u.J S w< C) 0

S w

I-. 28o L a: 0

CLC

LL~LL

LO 0+0

CM >

CV (n0I) 0 ) 0 UIn ~) ) C's CSC

(Ld a:ni±1

LI-113

cv,

w S

C,)CS

U*)

LLV c'C) S

D S) C

55 SM 0S S S

SL CC 5o LU 5L QCC 0 Sj

p 0 N) 0

__ w w

04 1 + z

>.L C SSLA.. SS S C.

S ' S o, I

S-U 5 SO

oil. - Su

S: 0I.I.I~ L

C ) C) LO CwL U)LU) I IV CNJ CQ 0

(133J Znu

B+10

LI.-

CD,

S Sn

S SY

Mw m

-r fl 5~

Cl'V) 05 -

Lm toWon a:

W 'owccLL W

Cc~ \ 8

* _ o I* S _ 0

IV IV C

U34 35ii

1LB-115

r§

Go

te)

Cl) S

mCll

Li..0 <*

0

S 5J

"S IN LI..

>. I CY 0

CC 0 u L

0O

0 cr0

04 z

CV) U)C) C) 'J C~

B-i 1

co

LLJ CV

___ S

0 LL0

mLJS w

U) LLJS

C 0

0a Ul 0(- 8 CC'

CM z

C/) CC C)Su

"+ LU 55

< 0

U') IT V,,, c

(133J 5aii

B- 110

aU %

CDi

wO QQl <

ui LL

0 0

a~ a cJa.a a aa an * a

* a

'M as s a

La LU 0

aj a

cc~

CV)

U)~ a:U,c~cl

Cl))< 0LL!5;0

<=)8

LIJ 8

B-i118

rco

8S Q

S 8

-~ - LO[11 0

~05 5C

wf SCD~

S CD wVUrn S S

o LL

C)!

LLLL

LCi 8W

C)) 0L

0 C 0

0~~~~I 0CD 00 0 0 Io A 0 ) 0 )U 0 U) 0

U) ~ C') C') '%J 5 ~cc

B-119 L

co 000

U~)'S S (V)

S CS

7.-C)

(0CoCl0

0I 5555) <

C)) 0

I-L

Lo cuj

I- uJ 0LLM

w crw

cm

CO

C'))

V)~0 0U 0L 0 0 0 00 U)a) 0 U)0c)0uC

= )Z C'

- B-120

co§

'S LnS m

S S)

*i Sr

* SJ

S SUS SL

S 5)S S)S~

0

L Q5 0Cl) 55

S S SS a:1.1.1~ 5U 055 S

5

0 Sj

*I a: S wCLw

ui ccLLU 0

04 0

UUCm)C~4J Z

Cl))

occra.

70

C

o 0 0 0O 0 0O 0> 0 0

(±3d) 3an±iuiv

B-1~2 1

7:cvCDS

S *j

Q 0LCD cS 04 0

Cl,,

r LLILU

Z a:'S U, 0

S cc

LL SS ww

'5D 0oQ wJ

S cc CS)S * ~z

S *m

CV) S S

CV)S

S Scc U

OmLO cc a. D0

LU LUUJ cC~>

Ccc 0-

n I m en CY I I0

B-i 22

Cf) 00

CM <

00

~~LLJ

CM) 0ZZ

o cc

C/)a U 0

040

CV)I IClw

uiI

B-i 23

rS

.j

w

IN w

U) 0

ILLJ SU

IL

LLJ wLL 0

M § 0

CL)

oLJ rQ

04 \N I\uIP C)v v ei c

OFB-12D

1J) 55

w 5 'c,,

w

LL W

LL

CIC z0 0

(j)

C,, V

0) 0

(±a1 canI±1B-12

Cl)Scv,

wwS wJ

0 S S S

o.JI

m m

S S S SaQ * L

L5J Q 0

SU S 5

LL S U

L W ul 0*u D cc~~j§ \ 5S

LLJ : L0

wwq:0

> 0 .~~ 0 0

ucc, c, C%

B-12o

Cl)-

IL

woJ LUII~l S S S

LL CC) U)LU

LU L.LU

L~IL

CL/

0u 0 0 0 0 0 0l 00Lo~~~~j 8, 0X,0 U , 0 U

CV)d CanI±1

B- f2

7SQ

Cf',

LL0

Cl) 5 0

S S LU

LU0 0 0

> SU

LLLU

I-md 0LO w

+

S ~ ~LLJ

- 0 S 0 0 0 u

C5 5n 0 LO z> Iin mI 0Y c

(13.' 55 SiovL

B-128

w

o Li

-0 LLSU 0

> 04

0. +

IL 0 C

-O 0-jcr

U)0Sm <

o o\\

B"'5"'-1

'N--

C,,

Cl)C)wL N ,

0L ccLInL

LU)U-0a) 'N

N N

N NCN

U) 'N N LLI**I* ~ N~~ ~ N

SNN,!NN wN 'N' a:

N N N

0 C ) 0 ND N N C LL

-~~B N1N30 N

Cl) 5 0

ww

0 § U-

o S

0C U.

\ \ ., LUzS x,~a:

55 ' 5 (10 5 ccCti S S

S U)S ~ S

S *

5 i

CM

'S5

L

S S 'SM

to La Lo a

m m CY cm V

U 33-A)3ani5'

B-131~

... ..". ..

T:§

(jl) - SOD

w (0 70c

S S

S SS S

-- S 5,U-

a-

S 0

LU LLLLL

LL 0

0 c0Lli LL

U)~~~~L < ~ ~ ~ -Y

B-132

C,C)

0L~jj CD C)

cc 0

W S C')

00

+ w

0 LL

w) 0

II-

U*C)

- w

0 5Ot n C n 0 kW)m o

(133J)3aniu0

B-130

Cl,,

m CY

Si 0> S S

M

Sl 6X5 LL

o +

8 wC C, 8 9 S 0 u

B-13

r:S

Cl) - 0

C)

-F-- SLU

I. S

Urn S wS W)0 S l

CD 0

I 0 S 2U) ~

S S

LL LO 0

S8 + SL LIL

0 QB 5SS 5 CC*

S S ' SS S S 5S S S o

s 'CD

0 40C C 0 Ql

U33:1 3iniii

B-13

r§aoo

0

C,

Cl) S 00c

w

- W-- -In'75

< U)

<~ CL

wS C 5'

'5$U

t~u Q0

LIJ CM

0 CU)~L cc.~ C

(±3a1) 20l±±1B-136

ccv

%\ w

Nj 0

wv

0l

LLJ N N

c U) 0

LL 0 Q

Cl)Cz

LO '

m N

N' 'N

'~ 'N

ND NDDC

C> NN U) C U n CLO~ mNN c

U33-1) ~N NNnii

BN N3N

141

(.f) 77

0 LC 0cc 55 c

'S <

'S '5 '

S S S S

wco w

-j QLO 0

U-N cc:

*SS0 S s SLL

- U) S I-co w

* 5 5 5 LU0

cm

S 5 C,

**'

555Ln~' co N c

CL33=1)S 3owi

B-1385

r

Go

§

U)

S S)

C/)

(hi) CV0

(0 '5w 5 0

cc 9

w LwLL L)0, a 0-l S S

0

0 0\% LU cc

SU *

S 8 Sn U

LC IV m Sc - V

S13= 3C SI

' S139

Cl) )

C~)

LLL

ww

Cu

Sj C)D

0

C- w

ol 0C)4

0j

0

S~~~ ~ <t05 5 ~ 5 0L

(i)j Car)n

B-140

5S 0

- CV)

* S

C.) S*5

0e- 0L

LO

- 0 L

C'C,

(D0

0 0O0 0 0-80 LL c r-V) ej CJ - ~

(±~d0 LaLiiB-141

I.-N

C/) 5 0

SS Sr

S *i

S S a

<

U SS I-

00

Su x

S S~ S §LLw

- IL

oo 0

(1.33J) 3OflJJi1lV

B-142

CLe

LENIN

I5 ~ S

NN

SNS S

S VS- S

N\ S S

S S wS S S wU-

I ..S S

O

NIICD 0

0U' L

LO 0IO \N~ 55

"S

C\S

04~

\ %% \N

LO~

in I I m cm cm V- I

(133-) 30flU.V

S3-143

Go0

RQ

0 LL

Cl)O

Sj 0

o0 u

0)

o 0LLL

-~cc-~ ul <

040

C

n I le m m CY -f I I

(±a3d) 3on±ii±v

B-144

r 00o 0

01

C.)S S)

SL Ul

ww

o Si

LLJSj 0

LL C ) L,

w 0coo

0- O 0

5U 0co

<

I.- 'S 0 0n

U3J Mniiii

BS14