406-UM TerpRanger

Light Helicopter Upgrade Program

Alfred Gessow Rotorcraft Center

Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
 University of Maryland

Alfred Gessow Rotorcraft Center

Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742.

406-UM TerpRanger Light Helicopter Upgrade Program

In response to the 2002 Annual AHS International

Student Design Competition – Graduate Category
July 2, 2002

Jason Pereira – Team Leade r Dr. Inderjit Chopra – Faculty Advisor

Felipe Bohorquez Tracy DuVall

Mustapha Chehab Jacob Park

Ronald Couch Beerinder Singh

ii
 406-UM TerpRanger

This design proposal is dedicated to the memory of Professor Alfred Gessow.

iii
 406-UM TerpRanger
Acknowledgments

The TerpRanger design team wishes to acknowledge the following people and thank them for their advice and
assistance:

Dr. Vengalattore T. Nagaraj – Visiting Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park
Marat Tishchenko – Visiting Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
and former Chief Designer, Mil Design Bureau
Dr. J. Gordon Leishman – Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Matthew Tarascio, Anubhav Datta, Kiran Singh, Paul Samuel, Jayanarayanan Sitaraman, Jinwei Shen, Beatrice
Roget, Marc Gervais, Aubrey Goodman – Graduate Students, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, University of
Maryland, College Park
Andreas P. F. Bernhard – Dynamicist, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Taeoh Lee – Engineer, Bell Helicopter Textron
Chris Van Buiten – Manager, New Product Definition, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Mark Rager – Director of Maintenance, Capitol Rising / Glenwood Aviation LLC
Tom Gorman – Chief Inspector, Capitol Rising / Glenwood Aviation LLC
David Peterson – Marketing Manager, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Marion Zinn – Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Eric Tossavanien – Resident Sales Manager, MD Helicopters, Inc.
Victor DiSanto – Naval Air Systems
Steven Smith, Inflatable Restraint Systems Product Manager, Simula Safety Systems Inc.
Douglas Daigle – Tridair Helicopters
Kyle Gass and Jack Black- Tribute
Richard Aboulafia – Analyst , Teal Group Corporation

iv
 406-UM TerpRanger
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . iv
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . x
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . xii
Proposal Requirements Matrix . . . . . . . xiv
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . 1
Tables of Physical Data . . . . . . . . 5
Performance Summary . . . . . . . . 5

1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . 6
2 - Helicopter Selection . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 - Selection Methodology . . . . . . . 8
2.2 - Concept of Upgradability . . . . . . . 8
2.3 - Selection Matrix . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1- Weighting Factors . . . . . . 9
2.4 - Vehicle Selection . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 - Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.1- Primary Criteria . . . . . . . 9
2.5.2 - Secondary Categories . . . . . . 10
2.5.3 - Tertiary Categories . . . . . . 11
2.6 - Qualitative Performance Summary . . . . . . 12
2.7 - Completed Selection Index . . . . . . . 14
2.8 - Candidate Vehicle Selection . . . . . . 14
2.9 - Candidate Vehicle Selection . . . . . . 14
2.9.1 - Number of Aircraft (Revisited) . . . . . 16
2.10 - Final Vehicle Selection . . . . . . 16
3 - Description of the TerpRanger Upgrade Program . . . . . 16
4 - Upgrade Configuration Trade Study . . . . . . 21
4.1 - Methodology . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.1 - Analysis . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.2 - Determination of Upgrade Candidates . . . . 21
4.2 - Implementation . . . . . . . . 22
4.3 - Limitations . . . . . . . . 22

v
 406-UM TerpRanger
4.4 - Validation of Analysis Code . . . . . . 22
4.5 - Independent Design Parameters . . . . . . 23
4.5.1- Preliminary Estimation of the Equivalent Flat Plate Area . . 24
4.5.2 - Preliminary Estimation of Blade Loading . . . . 24
4.5.3 - Preliminary Estimation of Tip Speed . . . . 24
4.6 - Engine Performance . . . . . . . 24
4.7 - Weight Analysis . . . . . . . . 24
4.8 - Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . 25
4.9 - Trade Study Results . . . . . . . 24
4.9.1-Finalist Candidate Upgrades . . . . . 26
4.9.2 - Final Selection of the Upgrade Configuration . . . 26
4.10 - Summary of Final Configuration . . . . . . 27
5 - Main Rotor and Hub Design . . . . . . . 27
5.1 - Baseline Rotor . . . . . . . . 28
5.2 - Aerodynamic Design of the Blades . . . . . . 28
5.2.1 - Airfoil Sections . . . . . . . 29
5.2.2 - Twist and Taper . . . . . . . 29
5.2.3 - Blade tips . . . . . . . 30
5.3 - Blade Structural Design . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1 - Blade Structural Details . . . . . . 31
5.3.2 - Lightning Protection and Electromagnetic Shielding . . 31
5.4 - Hub Design . . . . . . . . 32
5.4.1 - Hub Details . . . . . . . 32
5.5 - Autorotation Characteristics . . . . . . 33
5.6 - Rotor Dynamics . . . . . . . . 33
5.6.1 - Dynamic Analysis . . . . . . 33
5.6.2 - Aeroelastic Stability Analysis . . . . . 35
5.6.3 - Ground Resonance . . . . . . 36
6 - Anti-Torque System and Empennage Design . . . . . 37
6.1 - Anti-Torque Configuration Selection . . . . 37
6.1.1 - Weight Comparison of Anti-Torque Configurations . . 38
6.1.2 - Power Comparison . . . . . . 38
6.2 - Rotor/Hub Assembly . . . . . . . 38
6.3 - Design Parameters . . . . . . . 39

vi
 406-UM TerpRanger
6.3.1 - Tail Rotor Diameter . . . . . . 39
6.3.2 - Tail Rotor Chord. . . . . . . 39
6.4 - Empennage Design . . . . . . . 39
6.5 - Power Requirement . . . . . . . 40
7 - Powerplant and Propulsion System Design. . . . . . 41
7.1 - Engine Selection . . . . . . . . 41
7.2 - Engine Performance . . . . . . . 41
7.3 - Engine Losses . . . . . . . . 42
7.4 - Structural Integration . . . . . . . 42
7.5 - Transmission Design . . . . . . . 43
7.5.1 - Design Strategy . . . . . . . 43
7.5.2 - Transmission Configuration . . . . . 44
7.5.3 -Transmission Optimization Process . . . . 45
7.5.4 - Weight Estimation . . . . . . 45
7.5.5 - Parameter Optimization . . . . . . 46
7.5.6 - Oil System . . . . . . . 47
7.5.7 - Auxiliary Gearbox . . . . . . 49
7.5.8 - Tail Rotor Gear Box . . . . . . 49
8 - Airframe Design and Cabin Layout . . . . . . 52
8.1 - Structural Strengthening . . . . . . . 52
8.2 - Airbag System . . . . . . . . 52
9 - Vibration and Noise Suppression . . . . . . . 54
9.1 - Sources of Vibration . . . . . . . 54
9.2 - Vibration Suppression Strategies . . . . . . 55
9.3 - Previous Vibration Suppression Methods . . . . . 55
9.4 - Main Rotor Vibration Suppression . . . . . . 55
9.4.1 - LIVE Isolator . . . . . . . 56
9.4.2 - Antiresonance Force Isolators . . . . . 56
9.4.3 - Active Vibration Reduction System (AVRS) . . . 56
9.4.4 - AVRS Implementation . . . . . . 57
9.5 - Active Tracking Tabs . . . . . . . 58
9.5.1 - SMA Actuated Tracking Tab . . . . . 58
9.5.3 - Locking Mechanism . . . . . . 59
9.5.4 - Control Strategy . . . . . . . 59

vii
 406-UM TerpRanger
9.5.5 - Tracking Tab Characteristics . . . . . 59
9.6 - Noise Reduction . . . . . . . . 60
9.7 - Pricing . . . . . . . . . 61
9.8 - TerpRanger 406 Standard Vibration Suppression Package . . . 61
9.9 - Alternate Vibration Suppression Strategy . . . . . 61
10 - Sub-systems . . . . . . . . . 62
10.1 - The Fuel System . . . . . . . . 62
10.2 - The Engine Oil System . . . . . . . 63
10.3 - Hydraulic System. . . . . . . . 63
10.4 - Electrical System . . . . . . . . 64
10.5 - Flight Control System . . . . . . . 64
10.6 - Cockpit and Avionic s Upgrade Options . . . . . 64
10.6.1 - Option 1: FADEC Control and Display Only . . . 65
10.6.2 - Option 2: Modern digital avionics and flight
instrument displays including an advanced GPS system . . 65
10.6.3 - Option 3: Modernized Avionics including Meggitt MAGIC
MFDs and Passive Collision Avoidance Systems . . . 65
10.6.4 - Option 4: Modernized Avionics including Meggitt MAGIC
MFDs and Active Collision Avoidance Systems . . . 65
10.6.5 - Summary . . . . . . . 66
10.7 - Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) . . . . 68
11 - Stability and Control Analysis . . . . . . . 68
11.1 - Stability and Control Derivatives . . . . . . 69
11.1.1 - Longitudinal Modes . . . . . . 69
11.1.2 - Lateral Modes . . . . . . . 69
11.2-Handling Qualities . . . . . . . . 71
12 - Weights and Balance . . . . . . . . 71
12.1 - Weight Estimation . . . . . . . 71
12.2 - Center of Gravity Estimation . . . . . . 73
13 - Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . 74
13.1 - Drag Estimation . . . . . . . . 75
13.1.1 - Parasite Drag . . . . . . . 75
13.1.2 - Drag-Reduction Measures . . . . . 76
13.1.3 - Vertical Drag . . . . . . . 78

viii
 406-UM TerpRanger
13.2 - Hover Performance . . . . . . . 78
13.3 - Forward Flight Performance . . . . . . 79
14 - Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . 83
14.1 - Lean Manufacturing . . . . . . . 84
14.2 - Manufacturing Details . . . . . . . 85
14.2.1 - Main Rotor . . . . . . . 85
14.2.2 - Main Rotor Hub . . . . . . 85
14.2.3 - Tail Rotor . . . . . . . 86
14.2.4 -Transmission . . . . . . . 86
15 - Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . 86
15.1 - Cost Reduction Features . . . . . . . 86
15.2 - Acquisition Cost . . . . . . . . 87
15.3 - Operating Costs . . . . . . . . 87
15.3.1 - Fuel Cost Driver DOC Calculation . . . . 88
15.3.2 - Maintenance Cost Driver DOC Calculation . . . 88
15.3.3 - Tishchenko Method . . . . . . 89
15.4 - Ownership DOC . . . . . . . . 89
15.5 - Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . 90
15.6 - Analysis Limitations . . . . . . . 91
16 - Summary of Upgrade Options and Multimission Capability . . . 91
16.1 - Interchangeable Upgrade Options . . . . . . 92
16.1.1 - Avionics Upgrades . . . . . . 92
16.1.2 - Vibration Suppression . . . . . . 92
16.1.3 - Aircraft Options Cost Summary . . . . . 92
16.2 - Multimission Capability . . . . . . . 93
16.2.1 - Passenger/VIP Transport . . . . . 93
16.2.2 - Search and Rescue (SAR) . . . . . 93
16.2.3 - Military Operations . . . . . . 93
17 - Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 94
Appendix: MIL-STD-1374 Weight Statement . . . . . . 95
References . . . . . . . . . . 99

ix
 406-UM TerpRanger
List of Figures

4.1 - Flow Chart of Selection Process . . . . . . . 22

4.2 - Design Algorithm Flow Chart . . . . . . . 23
4.3 - Selection of Finalist Upgrade Configurations . . . . . 26
4.4 - Finalist Upgrade Configuration Costs . . . . . . 26
5.1 - Comparison of Actual and Computed Power Curves for the Baseline
Helicopter (Sea level, ISA) . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 - Power Curve for the TerpRanger . . . . . . . 29
5.3 - Rotor Blade Planform . . . . . . . . 30
5.4 - Blade Cross-section . . . . . . . . 31
5.5 - Blade Stiffness and Mass Distribution . . . . . . 35
5.6 - Rotor Fan Plot . . . . . . . . . 36
5.7 - Pitch-Flap Flutter/Divergence Stability Boundaries . . . . . 36
5.8 - Flap/Lag/Pitch Stability . . . . . . . . 36
5.9 - Ground Resonance Analysis . . . . . . . 37
5.10 - Air Resonance Analysis . . . . . . . . 37
6.1 - Tail Rotor Power vs. Forward Speed . . . . . . 40
7.1 - Engine Power Available vs. Altitude . . . . . . 42
7.2 - Transmission Configuration . . . . . . . 44
7.3 - Hertz Stress Level vs Year of Design . . . . . . 47
7.4 - Auxiliary Gearbox Configuration . . . . . . . 49
8.1 - Cockpit Airbag System for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior . . . . 53
9.1 - AVRS Components . . . . . . . . 57
9.2 - Schematic of Active Tracking Tab . . . . . . . 59
9.3 - Active Strut Concept [Gemb99] . . . . . . . 60
10.1 - Avionics Upgrade Option 1: FADEC control/display . . . . 66
10.2 - Avionics Upgrade Option 2 . . . . . . . 66
10.3 - Avionics Upgrade Option 3 . . . . . . . 67
10.4 - Avionics Upgrade Option 4 . . . . . . . 67
10.5 - Antenna locations for Option 2 (Top, Left), Option 3 (Top, Right), and
Option 4 (Bottom) . . . . . . . . 67
11.1 - TerpRanger Longitudinal Poles . . . . . . . 71
11.2 - TerpRanger Lateral Poles . . . . . . . . 71

x
 406-UM TerpRanger
12.1 - TerpRanger Longitudinal CG Travel . . . . . . 74
13.1 - Maximum Rate of Climb vs. Altitude . . . . . . 79
13.2 - Weight vs. Hover Ceiling . . . . . . . 79
13.3 - Fuselage drag variation with angle of attack . . . . . 79
13.4 - Specific Range Variation With Forward Speed . . . . . 80
13.5 - Power Required, Sea Level, ISA. Design Gross Weight . . . . 80
13.6 - Power Required Variation With Forward Speed . . . . . 81
13.7 - Fuel Flow Variation With Forward Speed . . . . . . 81
13.8 - Specific Fuel Consumption Variation With Forward Speed. . . . 82
13.9 - Power Reqd. for 140 kts and Max. Continuous Power Available . . . 82
Variation With Altitude . . . . . . . . 82
13.10 - Cruise Speed and Max. Endurance Speed Variation With Altitude. . . 82
13.11 - Specific Range Variation With Altitude . . . . . . 82
13.12 - Minimum Fuel Flow Variation With Altitude . . . . . 83
13.13 - Payload-Range Diagram . . . . . . . 83
13.14 - Payload-Endurance Diagram . . . . . . . 83
13.15 - Maximum Rate of Climb Variation With Altitude and Service Ceiling . . 83

xi
 406-UM TerpRanger
List of Tables

2.1 - Initial Selection Pool . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 - (a) Weighting Factors . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 - (b) 3 Point Ranking System . . . . . . . 9
2.3 - Selection Criteria Rubric . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 (a) - Criteria Data Summary: Primary Categories . . . . . 13
2.4 (b) - Criteria Data Summary: Secondary Categories . . . . . 13
2.4 (c) - Criteria Data Summary: Tertiary Categories . . . . . 14
2.5 - Selection Index . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1 - Calculations for 1 Independent Design Parameter Combination . . . 25
4.2 - Finalist Upgrade Configuration Pool . . . . . . 27
5.1 - Comparison of New Main Rotor with Baseline Design .. . . . 28
5.2 - Material Properties. . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 - Autorotation Characteristics Comparison . . . . . . 33
5.4 - Main Rotor Design Parameters . . . . . . . 35
6.1 - Final Design Configurations . . . . . . . 40
7.1 - Comparison of Engine Characteristics [Ahsd01] . . . . . 41
7.2 - Transmission ratings in hp [Harr86] . . . . . . 43
7.3 -TerpRanger Weight Estimation Factors .. . . . . . 46
7.4 - TerpRanger Estimated Transmission Weight Breakdown . . . . 46
7.5 - TerpRanger Transmission, 420 shp TO Power, 390 shp Max. Continuous
Power . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.6 - Auxiliary Gearbox Design Features. . . . . . . 50
7.7 - Tail Rotor Design Features . . . . . . . . 50
9.1 - TerpRanger 406 Main Rotor Vibration Suppression Options Summary . . 55
9.2 - Pricing Summary . . . . . . . . . 61
10.1 - Technical Summary of Avionics Upgrades . . . . . 66
11.1 - Stability derivatives . . . . . . . . 70
12.1 - JetRanger Component Weight Breakdown. . . . . . 72
12.2 - TerpRanger Component Weight Breakdown . . . . . 73
12.3 - JetRanger Longitudinal C.G. Location . . . . . . 74
12.4 - TerpRanger C.G. Locations . . . . . . . 74

xii
 406-UM TerpRanger
13.1 - Performance Summary . . . . . . . . 75
13.2 - Drag Build-Up . . . . . . . . . 76
13.3 - Hovering Ceiling for Different Atmospheric Conditions . . . . 78
15.1 - Baseline Helicopter Acquisition Cost Breakdown . . . . . 88
15.2 - DOC/fh Calculations and Comparison . . . . . . 89
15.3 - Operating Cost Breakdown . . . . . . . 90
15.4 - Cost and Performance Comparison . . . . . . 91
16.1 - Upgrade Options Cost Summary . . . . . . . 93

xiii
 406-UM TerpRanger
Proposal Requirements Matrix

Candidate Helicopter: Bell 206A/B JetRanger:

Aging light helicopter ü 1960’s design, 3200 lbs GTOW
Commercial or military ü Commercial with military derivatives
4-6 place (including crew) ü 5-place
Turbine ü Turbine
Typically capable of 110-130 kts ü 115 kts cruise, 122 kts VNE
Minimum 450 in service ü 6000 in service

Design Objectives / Requirements:

Performance
Cruise Speed 140 kts ü 145 kts
Absolute Range 400 naut. mi. ü 433 n.mi.
Payload Increase ü 1550 lbs ž 1800 lbs
Seating Capacity Increase is a bonus Ñ 5-place ž 5 place
Regulatory Compliance FAR Parts 23 & 27, and ü
other appropriate standards
Safety Improve ü
Navigational Aids Improve ü
Reliability Improve ü
Versatility (Multi-mission capability) Retain ü
Affordability / Cost
Manufacturing Cost Minimize man-hours for fabrication ü
and re-manufacture
Acquisition Cost Fraction of cost of acquiring a newly ü
manufactured commercial helicopter
Operating Cost Reduce ü

xiv
 406-UM TerpRanger
Subsystems to be Upgraded:
Main Rotor ü p. 27
Tail Rotor ü p. 37
Body / Fuselage ü p. 52
Landing Gear ü p. 75
Powerplant Structure ü p. 52
Propulsion / Powerplant ü p. 41
Drive System / Transmission ü p. 43
Flight Controls ü p. 64
Instruments ü p. 64
Hydraulic System ü p. 63
Electrical System ü p. 64
Avionics ü p. 64
Furnishings & Equipment ü p. 52
Final Assembly ü p. 83

Proposal Data Package:

Executive Summary ü p. 1
Table of Physical Data ü p. 5
MIL-STD-1374 Weight Statement ü p. 95
Recurring Cost Breakdown ü p. 89
Performance Charts
HOGE altitude vs. gross weight ü p. 79
Payload vs. range ü p. 83
Altitude vs. maximum continuous speed ü p. 82
Drawings
General arrangement fold-out ü p. 19
Inboard profile fold-out ü p. 20
Drive system schematic ü p. 51
Description of Design Process ü pp. 6 - 94

xv
 406-UM TerpRanger
Executive Summary

Introduction
The 406-UM TerpRanger is an upgrade program for the Bell Model 206 JetRanger, designed in response to the
2002 AHS International Request For Proposals (RFP) for a Light Helicopter Upgrade Program. The RFP
recognized the existence of an abundant resource of aging light helicopters, retired or soon to be retired, that
presents an opportunity for upgrade and re-manufacture for the purpose of increased performance, safety, and
reliability, while at a fraction of the cost of acquisition of a newly manufactured commercial helicopter. The
purpose of this student design competition, co-sponsored by Bell Helicopter Textron, was to identify a candidate
helicopter and develop a commercially viable upgrade program for it. The design has been developed for an
existing helicopter; consequently, it is envisaged that this upgrade program is to be implemented within the next
five years. The TerpRanger upgrade therefore incorporates cutting-edge technology solutions that are expected
to mature within this time period.

Mission Requirements
The target performance goals specified by the RFP are a cruise speed of 140 knots, an absolute dry-tank range of
400 nautical miles and an increase in payload capability. In addition, the upgraded helicopter must incorporate
improvements in safety and reliability, retain its wide-ranging multi-role missions capability, and have a low
acquisition and operating cost. As most light helicopters are typically capable of 110-130 knots, the 140 knot
cruise speed is the most stringent of the requirements. The TerpRanger design has, therefore, been optimized
for high-speed flight while maintaining low cost of operation and extensive multi-mission capability.

Selection of Candidate Helicopter

To select a helicopter for the upgrade program, a pool of potentially suitable candidates was examined. Each
helicopter was ranked on the basis of an index of upgradability, which is a measure of the upgrade potential of a
particular helicopter. The index is based on factors such as the age of a particular helicopter model, the
materials used in its manufacture, the design of its main rotor, and the number of aircraft of that model in
service. From this analysis, the JetRanger emerged as the helicopter with the most potential for a successful
upgrade program.

Design Methodology
The TerpRanger upgrade design was conducted in conjunction with the Spring 2002 Helicopter Design course at
the University of Maryland. The course is aimed at introducing students to the different aspects of a real-world
helicopter design and manufacturing process, and providing them with a thorough understanding of the issues

1
 406-UM TerpRanger
involved. To this end, no commercial helicopter design or analysis tools were used. The University of
Maryland Advanced Rotor Code (UMARC) was modified to carry out the detailed rotor design, including
aeroelastic stability analysis and estimation of hub loads. The helicopter graphics were developed using I-
DEAS CAD software.

Design Approach
With a high cruising speed being the principal performance goal for the design, the TerpRanger design focuses
on minimizing the power required in cruise while simultaneously increasing the power margins of the
propulsion system. The increases in speed and range must be accompanied by reductions in vibration levels;
hence, special consideration has been given to this issue. Because the primary purpose of this upgrade program
is to provide a high-performance helicopter at a price lower than that of a newly manufactured aircraft, low
acquisition and operating costs are a fundamental consideration in the design process.

The TerpRanger: Improved Performance

The TerpRanger can cruise at 144 knots (SL/ISA), carrying a 1125 lb payload for a distance of 424 nautical
miles. This represents with a 24% increase in cruise speed, a 20% increase in payload capability and a 15%
improvement in range over the baseline JetRanger, for only a 2% increase in direct operating costs. Such a
performance enhancement will allow, for example, non-stop travel from Washington, D.C., to Boston in less
than 3 hours.

The key component of the upgrade program is a new four-bladed, composite, hingeless main rotor system with
modern airfoil sections and an advanced-geometry blade tip. The new rotor postpones retreating-blade stall and
advancing-blade drag-divergence to higher advance ratios by tailoring the airfoil distribution along the span,
which in turn reduces the vibration levels and power requirements at the desired cruise speed. Fuselage drag is
reduced by 15% through: tilting the main rotor shaft forward by 6° to reduce the fuselage angle of attack in
cruise, shortening the main rotor shaft, and providing fairings for the high-drag components of the airframe – the
main rotor hub and the skid landing gear.

The TerpRanger incorporates a state-of-the-art engine, the scaleable specifications for which are given in the
RFP. The engine is based on the DoD/NASA/Industry Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine
Technology (IHPTET) initia tive and has a higher power-to-weight ratio and lower specific fuel consumption
than other existing engines. The TerpRanger also features a redesigned drivetrain , in which modern design
methods are used to increase the stress levels on the gearbox components, and hence reduce weight. New
materials and manufacturing methods are used to improve their strength and reliability.

2
 406-UM TerpRanger

The TerpRanger: Improved Passenger Comfort

The TerpRanger upgrade guarantees a smooth, high-speed ride for its occupants. The four-bladed main rotor
produces lower hub loads and associated vibration levels at high speeds. Complementing this is a choice of
three different vibration-reduction devices: passive Liquid Inertia Vibration Eliminators or Anti-resonance
Force Isolators that attenuate the primary 4/rev vibrations by 60-70%, or an Active Vibration Reduction System
(AVRS) that adaptively reduces vibrations of all frequencies by over 50%. With the incorporation of AVRS, it
may be possible to achieve a “jet smooth ride” in the TerpRanger. Cabin noise levels are also reduced by a
piezoelectric actuated, active strut system bonded to the surface of the transmission support pylons.

The TerpRanger: Improved Public Acceptance

High noise levels are a major concern for broadening public acceptance of helicopters. The TerpRanger design
addresses this issue by lowering the tip speed of its rotors and using an advanced-geometry blade tip on its main
rotor, resulting in lower noise levels.

The TerpRanger: Improved Reliability

The TerpRanger’s dynamic components have been designed to lengthen service lives and minimize
maintenance requirements. Both the main and tail rotors have components made of composite materials that
only need to be replaced on-condition. The main rotor incorporates active tracking tabs that allow the pilot to
track the blades while in flight, thereby doing away with the need to spend valuable time tracking the blades
manually by conventional methods on the ground. The new engine is of modern design and requires far less
servicing than the Rolls-Royce / Allison 250-series turboshaft that it replaces. A fully integrated HUMS and
diagnostics system for both the rotors and drivetrain will be available as an optional system. Improved
reliability translates into less maintenance downtime and lower operating expenses.

The TerpRanger: Improved Safety

Safety is an important feature of the design of the TerpRanger. A new layout for the pilot’s instrument panel
with Multi-Function Displays, a Global Positioning System and other modern navigational aids help reduce pilot
workload and improve situational awareness. The improved reliability of the dynamic components of the
helicopter reduces the possibility of their failure during flight. In the unlikely event of an accident, the
occupants are protected by the excellent autorotational characteristics of the helicopter, a crashworthy fuel tank ,
a new cockpit airbag system and energy-absorbing stroking seats for the pilot and front-seat passenger.
Lightning protection for the composite main rotor is provided by the titanium leading-edge erosion strip that
runs down the entire length of the blade, providing a conductive path to the hub and the airframe.

3
 406-UM TerpRanger

The TerpRanger: Improved Affordability

Operators of Bell helicopters greatly appreciate the simplicity of design that is their hallmark, and the
TerpRanger design embodies this philosophy. Design simplicity translates into ease and low cost of
manufacture, and consequently minimizes the purchase price of the aircraft. At $1.16 million, the TerpRanger
upgrade offers high performance, reliability, and safety at a price that compares favorably with that of other
helicopters in its class: the MD 500E, the Schweizer 333, and the Eurocopter EC-120 Colibri. Furthermore,
because of the lower maintenance requirements and improved fuel efficiency of its new engine, the TerpRanger
also has low operating costs ($410/FH), which is comparable to those of its competitors.

The TerpRanger: Improved Versatility

The Bell JetRanger is a multi-role helicopter, adaptable to a wide variety of missions. The TerpRanger design
improves this versatility still further: its higher cruise speed and increased range and payload make it suitable for
missions that are commonly performed by larger, more expensive aircraft, such as the Bell 430, and its low cost
of ownership make it attractive to potential helicopter operators.

The JetRanger has been one of the world’s most popular light helicopters for the past 25 years. The TerpRanger
Upgrade Program will ensure that it retains this exalted status for many more years to come.

4
 Optimized Blade Tips
Improve Efficiency

Composite, Bearingless
Tail Rotor

Four-Bladed, Composite,
Hingeless Main Rotor

Relocated Exhaust
Reduces Drag

Upgraded Engine and Drivetrain

Provide Higher Cruise Speed and Range Proven, Risk-Free
Hub Design

Advanced Avionics Active Tracking Tab

Enhance Safety

Landing Skid Fairings

Reduce Drag
Front Seat Airbags
Improve Crew Safety

TerpRanger Highlights
 Performance Summary and Physical Data

Main Rotor Specifications

Sea-level Performance JetRanger TerpRanger
JetRanger TerpRanger Diameter (ft) 33.3 32.43
ISA ISA + 20 ISA ISA + 20 Number of blades 2 4

Cruise speed (kts) 116 N/A 144 146 Chord (ft)

Root 1.1 0.67
VNE (kts) 122 N/A 158 161
Tip 1.1 0.42
Speed for best range (kts) 113 117 148 152
Twist (°) -10 -13
Speed for best endurance (kts) 48 N/A 62 64
Tip speed (ft/s) 687.59 672.4
Range (full fuel & payload), maximum (n. mi.) 368 368 424 450
Rotational speed (rpm) 394 396
Endurance (full payload), maximum (hrs) 4.6 N/A 4.05 4.21
Shaft tilt (° ) 5 6
HOGE ceiling (ft) 5,300 3,000 10,000 8,250
Tip sweep (° ) 0 20
HIGE ceiling (ft) 13,000 10,200 13,900 11,850
Tip anhedral 0 5
Service ceiling (ft) 13,500 12,800 19,860 18,020
Root cut-out (%) 20 20
VROC, maximum (ft/min) N/A N/A 740 705
Airfoil sections NACA 0012 mod. OA-212, VR-12, VR-15
Climb Rate, maximum (ft/min) 1,280 N/A 1,715 1,590

Tail Rotor Specifications

Vehicle Dimensions JetRanger TerpRanger

JetRanger TerpRanger Diameter (ft) 5.42 5.4

Fuselage length (ft) 31.2 31.2 Number of blades 2 2

Length overall, rotors turning (ft) 38.8 38.3 Chord (ft)

Height (hub) (ft) 9.5 8.6 Root 0.5 0.46
Skid height (ft) 1 1 Tip 0.5 0.46
Fuselage width (ft) 4.33 4.33 Twist (° ) 0 0
Horizontal stabilizer span (ft) 6.4 6.4 Tip speed (ft/s) 723.6 672.4
Width of skids (ft) 6.4 6.4 Rotational speed (rpm) 2550 2378
Airfoil sections NACA 0012 NACA 0012

Weights
JetRanger TerpRanger Power Ratings
Design gross weight (lb) 3200 3524 JetRanger TerpRanger

Empty weight (lb) 1647 1705 Engine TO rating (shp) 420 500
*
Useful load (lb) (Payload + Fuel) 1382 1585 Engine MCP rating (shp) 370 400

Maximum usable fuel (lb / US gal) 619 / 91 686 / 101 Transmission TO rating (shp) 317 420
Payload with full fuel (lb) 763 899 Transmission MCP rating (shp) 270 390

* Excluding the weight of the pilot

5
 406-UM TerpRanger
Section 1 - Introduction
Recent years have witnessed a growing trend to refurbish and upgrade existing helicopter designs to new
standards of performance, as opposed to developing completely new designs. The inherently high
developmental cost of a new aircraft design has risen still higher because of lower tolerances for failure and
more stringent certification requirements. With open international markets, competition exists from a greater
number of manufacturers who offer helicopters in the same categories. In such a competitive arena, the upgrade
of an existing, tried-and-tested design for a small additional cost appears to be an appealing strategy. An
upgrade offers the customers the opportunity to modernize their helicopters at a fraction of the cost of acquiring
a brand-new aircraft.

Additionally, there is the consideration that new designs take anywhere from ten to fifteen years before they are
ready to be placed on the market. The upgrading of the vast pool of existing helicopters can therefore also be
seen as an economically viable option for immediately meeting the needs of the customer, until new designs
become available.

Helicopter upgrade programs are common in the armed forces. In the United States, the Marine Corps’ H-1
Yankee/Zulu upgrade program for the UH-1 “Huey” utility helicopter, the AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter, the
Army’s CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter, and UH-60M/X BlackHawk modernization programs are just a
few examples. The civilian sector has not seen such extensive re-manufacturing programs, perhaps because
civil operators do not have the funds to pursue expensive ventures, and because their requirements do not
change as dramatically and as rapidly as those of the military. Civil upgrades are usually limited to one or more
of the following types:
- Improvements in engine power and efficiency, by installing a newer engine.
- Improvements in avionics and communication / navigation equipment.
- Improvements in main rotor design, thereby providing more thrust for less power.
- Improvements in reliability of the dynamic components, thereby reducing maintenance
requirements and operating expenses.
Military upgrades augment these with re-designed cockpit layouts, increased-capacity transmissions, energy-
absorbing crashworthy crew seats, strengthened airframes, vibration-suppression devices and mission-specific
upgrades, resulting in substantially improved mission performance.
The Request For Proposals issued by AHS International and Bell Helicopter Textron calls for an upgrade of an
existing light helicopter, with improvements in speed, range, payload, safety and reliability, while maintaining
low recurring and non-recurring expenses. Of the performance enhancements, the 140-knot cruise speed

6
 406-UM TerpRanger
requirement is the most stringent, and necessitates an upgrade that is more extensive than that usually
undertaken for a civil helicopter.

Designing an upgrade for a helicopter presents several unique challenges to the designers, which are normally
not encountered in the design of a completely new aircraft. This is because the designer has to work within the
constraints presented by the design of the existing helicopter and still be able to meet the customer’s
requirements. The modifications cannot be too extensive, because the “upgrade” then becomes equivalent to the
design of a new helicopter, with the attendant increases in development, testing and certification costs.
Therefore, the upgrade does not include such drastic modifications as changing the primary structure of the
fuselage. For example, this could be an extension of the cabin with a fuselage plug to create more seating
capacity. The designer also has to resist the temptation to not simply mimic the design of the other, more
advanced members of the helicopter’s family that are currently in production. It would serve no purpose to
design the upgrade to be exactly like one of them.

The target customer-base to which the upgrade is being marketed must also be considered in designing the
upgrade. Bell Helicopters has a long tradition of producing helicopters that are reliable, efficient, and have low
operating costs. The JetRanger is Bell’s entry-level helicopter, providing good performance and outstanding
multi-mission capability at a cost lower than that of all other light turbine-engine aircraft on the market. It is for
these reasons that the JetRanger has been produced in such vast quantities and is popular with operators all over
the world. The 406-UM TerpRanger, the University of Maryland’s design for the Bell Model 206 JetRanger,
remains consistent with Bell’s philosophy of fulfilling the customers’ needs while maintaining simplicity of
design and cost-effectiveness.

Section 2 - Helicopter Selection

This section details the vehicle selection for the proposed upgrade program. Upgrade candidates were evaluated
based upon a range of criteria developed to quantitatively determine a helicopter’s potential for upgrading.
Furthermore, each helicopter was assessed based on how much improvement was necessary for it to achieve the
required performance specifications outlined in the RFP.

7
 406-UM TerpRanger
2.1 - Selection Methodology
A large number of civilian helicopters were
considered for an upgrade. Based upon the
Manufacturer Model
information provided in the RFP, a list of the
Bell 206B JetRanger 2
possible upgrade candidates was assembled. Table
Bell 206B JetRanger 3
2.1 lists the initial selection pool of candidates.
Only vehicles manufactured domestically or in McDonnell Douglas 500 C

Western Europe were considered because of the McDonnell Douglas 500 D

availability of large quantities of information on McDonnell Douglas 500 E

these vehicles. Furthermore, only first-order Eurocopter AS 350 B Astar

calculations were performed in this portion of the Eurocopter AS 350 BA
selection process. The initial selection pool is
Eurocopter AS 350 B1
composed of only 4 to 6 passenger, turbine
Eurocopter AS 350 B2
helicopters. To narrow down the list among the 14
Eurocopter AS 350 D
candidates, a quantitative selection table was
Eurocopter AS 355 F-2 Twinstar
developed. A selection matrix based on
Eurocopter AS 355 F/F-1 Twinstar
information readily available in references such as
Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft [Tayl00] and the Eurocopter SA 315 Lama

Helivalue$ price guide [Heli01] was devised. A Eurocopter BO 105 CB/CBS

series of 11 criteria are defined to measure the

Table 2.1 - Initial Selection Pool
upgradability of the aircraft.

2.2 - Concept of Upgradability

In the selection process, it is first necessary to discuss, from a technical point of view, which helicopter is in
most need of an upgrade. We define “Upgradability” as a quantitative measure of a helicopter’s potential to
meet the RFP performance specifications, and need for modernization, for example, an older helicopter would
have more upgradability potential than a newer, more modern helicopter.

2.3 - Selection Matrix

A quantitative selection matrix was developed to down-select the candidates from 14 to 2. Refer to Table 2.5
for the completed selection table. Economic and production feasibility issues are addressed indirectly and are
not emphasized in this selection process. After two candidates have been selected, a more detailed analysis was
carried out to make the final selection.

8
 406-UM TerpRanger
2.3.1 - Weighting Factors
Weighting factors for each selection criteria were established to determine the relative impact of the criteria on
the upgradability index of the vehicle. Each criterion was placed in one of three categories: pr imary, secondary,
and tertiary. Primary criteria were assigned the highest weighting because they have the most impact on
defining the upgradability of the vehicle. Secondary criteria have a fair influence and tertiary have a limited or
indirect impact on the vehicle’s upgradability. Table 2.2(a) summarizes the weighting factors for each category.
For each criterion, a vehicle was assigned a Table 2.2 - (a) Weighting Factors
number from one to three based on how well it
Category Description Weighting Factor
fitted the criterion parameters. The scale for the Primary Major Impact 3
ranking system is similar to the scale for the Secondary Moderate Impact 2
Tertiary Minor Impact 1
weighting factors. Table 2.2 (b) presents these
factors.
Table 2.2 - (b) 3 Point Ranking System

2.4 - Vehicle Selection Ranking Description

A selection matrix was assembled by assigning 3 Most Desirable Quality
2 Moderately Desirable Quality
a rank to each criterion for each vehicle. Then,
1 Least Desirable Quality
the rankings were multiplied by the weighting
factors respective to each criterion, and a composite score was calculated for each vehicle from the sum of the
weighted rankings. The top two composite scores indicate the best candidates for upgrade. The selection matrix
(refer to Table 2.5) shows the results of this assessment. Each vehicle was assessed relative to the “best” and
“worst” vehicle for each criterion and was given a rating of good, fair or poor as a measure of this assessment.

2.5 - Selection Criteria

Sections 2.5.1 to 2.5.3 summarize the selection criteria and briefly state the rationalization of each criterion. A
rubric containing the rating system for each criterion is also included. In the following analysis, the terms
“payload” and “useful load” are used interchangeably.

2.5.1 - Primary Criteria

Number of Aircraft: This criterion was included to provide insight into the potential market for an upgrade. If
a large number of aircraft exists, then the potential customer base for an upgrade is large, and the profitability of
the upgrade program will generally be higher. This category judges the upgradability of the vehicle by placing
more emphasis on vehicles with large numbers of existing aircraft.

9
 406-UM TerpRanger
Power, Speed, Weight: This criterion is defined as the maximum continuous power rating of the transmission
divided by the product of the cruise speed and take -off weight. A good helicopter will have a small value for
this criterion. For the purpose of this project, a vehicle with a low number is desirable. The transmission is a
major component and the expense of changing the system may not be justified for an upgrade because of the
effort involved. For this upgrade program, it was desirable to implement changes in the main rotor because this
defines the overall capabilities of the vehicle. Thus, the most upgradeable helicopter has a low number in this
category.

Maintenance Cost per Payload: This criterion provides insight into the magnitude of resources allocated per
pound of payload. In general, the financial burden of a high maintenance cost may be offset if the vehicle in
question is capable of carrying more payload. Similarly, a small decrease in payload capacity may be justified if
the maintenance costs are sufficiently reduced. For the purpose of selection, a vehicle with a high maintenance
cost normalized by payload is judged to be the candidate in most need of an upgrade.

2.5.2 - Secondary Categories

Number of Blades: Increasing the number of blades of an existing helicopter helps to reduce vibration and
improves performance provided that there is an increase in rotor solidity. This factor was included to assess the
possible improvement options of a helicopter’s rotor. A helicopter with fewer blades is most desirable because
of its potential for improvement with additional blades.

Blade Material: This category provides additional insight into the upgradability of the main rotor. Metal
bladed rotors provide a greater upgrade potential than composite rotors. Advances in material science allow for
composite blades to have superior fatigue characteristics and lighter weight than their metal counterparts.

Weight Efficiency: This is defined as the difference between the take-off and empty weight normalized by the
take-off weight. While it is desirable to increase the payload capacity of a helicopter in this upgrade program,
care should be taken to keep increases of the empty weight to a minimum. This is an attribute that will be
improved in an existing vehicle, and therefore a weight inefficient model is regarded as an attractive candidate
for upgrade.

Fuel Consumption Quotient: This criterion is defined as the fuel consumption per hour divided by the product
of cruise speed and payload. This parameter indicates how much fuel is required to move one unit of payload
over one unit of range. Because fuel consumption is a major component of the operating cost, a vehicle with

10
 406-UM TerpRanger
low fuel consumption is desired. The RFP stipulates a high range requirement; therefore a helicopter with a
high value for this parameter needs to be improved and is a desirable candidate for upgrade.

Power Quotient: The quotient of the transmission rating and the installed power provides insight into the type
of mission for which a vehicle is currently optimized. Helicopters with a quotient near 1.0 are best suited for
missions involving higher operational altitudes at higher forward flight speeds. In contrast, a helicopter with a
low quotient is best suited for missions involving extended periods of hover. In most cases, the weight of the
engine is proportional to the installed power, therefore, a helicopter designed for hover intensive missions would
require the weight to be kept to a minimum. The RFP stipulates a relatively high cruise condition and therefore,
the helicopters with the most potential for an upgrade are those optimized for hover and subsequently receive
the highest rankings.

Price & Payload Quotient: This criterion is an economic quality that compares the acquisition price
normalized to useful load for the upgrade candidates. A low quotient indicates that the customer is paying less
per pound of payload. Because the purchase cost and payload are related to the weight of the vehicle, in the
context of an upgrade program these parameters are effectively fixed and are not necessarily under the direct
control of the designer. Therefore, it is uncertain as to whether or not this category will be directly affected by
an upgrade program and subsequently difficult to reduce as desired in a direct manner. To keep the quotient to a
minimum, it is best to choose an already economical vehicle so that any increases as a result of this upgrade will
be offset by the fact that the quotient is already low.

2.5.3 - Tertiary Categories

Cruise Speed: Although cruise speed is already incorporated into several of the criteria discussed above, it is
necessary to compare each vehicle by its cruise speed independently to estimate the level of improvement
required to match the RFP performance requirements. The most challenging potential upgrade will be one that
requires the largest speed enhancement; therefore, a higher ranking was assigned to the slowest vehicles. This
indicates that slow helicopters have more upgradability than the faster ones.

Fleet Age: This criterion rates a helicopter based on its average service age. The service age is defined as the
average age of all the vehicles of a particular model from the first to the last year it was produced. Helicopters
with service ages between 10 and 20 years are the target group for upgrade, and therefore receive the highest
rating. Helicopters younger than 10 years are not yet old enough to require an upgrade, but will require one
eventually so they receive the middle rating. A vehicle older than 20 years is beginning to become too old, and
therefore, the effectiveness of an upgrade is limited. Excessive wear on the airframe associated with age, will

11
 406-UM TerpRanger
limit how long the vehicle’s service life may be prolonged, and cannot be reversed by an upgrade. Helicopters in
this age class do not have enough life left to make an upgrade economically feasible and, therefore, receive the
lowest rating. The rubric in Table 2.3 displays a complete breakdown of the selection criteria.

2.6 - Qualitative Performance summary

Tables 2.4 (a) through (c) summarize the data obtained for the set of selection criteria.

Table 2.3 - Selection Criteria Rubric

Primary Criteria
# of Aircraft Fuel Consumption Quotient
Over 2000 3 Below 6.0E-5 gal/(kt*lb) 3
Over 1000 2 Between 6.0E-5 & 1.0E-4 gal/(kt*lb) 2
Below 1000 1 Above 1.0E-4 gal/(kt*lb) 1
Power, Speed, Weight Power Quotient
Below 8.0E-4 hp/(kt*lb) 3 Below 0.7 3
Below 1.0E-3 hp/(kt*lb) 2 Between 0.7 and 0.82 2
1.0E-3 hp/(kt*lb) or above 1 Above 0.81 1
Maintenance Cost/Payload Price & Payload Quotient
Above 10 cents per lb 3 Below 300 $/lb 3
Between 8 and 10 cents per lb 2 Between 300 and 500 $/lb 2
Below 8 cents per lb 1 Above 500 $/lb 1
Secondary Criteria Tertiary Criteria
# of Blades Cruise Speed
2 bladed rotor 3 Below 120 kts 3
3 bladed rotor 2 Between 126 and 120 kts 2
4 or more rotor blades 1 Above 126 kts 1
Blade Material Average Vehicle Age
Metal rotor blades 3 Between 10 and 20 years 3
Composite rotor blades 1 Below 10 years 2
Weight Efficiency Above 20 years 1
Below 46% 3
Between 46% and 50% 2
Above 50% 1

12
 406-UM TerpRanger
Table 2.4 – (a) Criteria Data Summary: Primary Categories

Number Power,
of Speed, Maint.
Model
Aircraft Weight Cost/Payload
(#) (hp/(kt*lb)) ($/lb)
Bell 206B-2 2210 0.00073 0.093
Bell 206B-3 2318 0.00073 0.091
MD 500 C 660 N/A 0.070
MD 500 D 1195 0.00090 0.083
MD 500 E 547 0.00090 0.085
BO 105 CB/CBS 576 0.00112 0.097
SA 315 Lama 472 0.00123 0.159
AS 350 B AStar 1535 0.00102 0.086
AS 350 BA 557 0.00093 N/A
AS 350 B1 328 0.00102 0.069
AS 350 B2 937 0.00098 0.067
AS 350 D 551 0.00114 0.102
AS 355 F-2 305 0.00105 0.086
AS 355 F/F-1 365 0.00108 0.091

Table 2.4 (b) - Criteria Data Summary: Secondary Categories

Number Blade Purchase

Weight Fuel Power
of Material Cost per
Model Efficiency Consumption Quotient
Blades (Metal or Payload
(ratio) (gal/(kt*lb)) (ratio)
(#) Composite) ($/lb)
Bell 206B-2 2 Metal 0.501 0.0000569 0.793 115.48
Bell 206B-3 2 Metal 0.468 0.0000550 0.755 510.68
MD 500 C 4+ Metal 0.567 0.0000595 0.695 110.73
MD 500 D 4+ Metal 0.529 0.0000586 0.893 204.92
MD 500 E 4+ Metal 0.506 0.0000608 0.893 553.00
BO 105 CBS 4+ Composite 0.480 0.0000720 0.821 667.80
SA 315 Lama 3 Metal 0.476 0.0001040 0.656 355.47
AS 350 B AStar 3 Composite 0.430 0.0000616 0.828 395.24
AS 350 BA 3 Composite 0.449 0.0000552 0.828 454.33
AS 350 B1 3 Composite 0.480 0.0000537 0.863 326.74
AS 350 B2 3 Composite 0.484 0.0000525 0.806 465.61
AS 350 D 3 Composite 0.434 0.0000607 0.863 213.06
AS 355 F-2 3 Composite 0.467 0.0000678 0.817 619.27
AS 355 F/F-1 3 Composite 0.452 0.0000687 0.817 365.96

13
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 2.4 (c) – Criteria Data Summary: Tertiary Categories

Cruise Speed Fleet Age

Model
(knots) (yr)
Bell 206B-2 116 30
Bell 206B-3 115 13
MD 500 C 124 30
MD 500 D 130 23
MD 500 E 130 10
BO 105 CB/CBS 112 16
SA 315 Lama 103 22
AS 350 B AStar 121 18
AS 350 BA 123 7
AS 350 B1 119 14
AS 350 B2 122 7
AS 350 D 108 21
AS 355 F-2 110 10
AS 355 F/F-1 113 18

2.7 - Completed selection index

Table 2.5 depicts the complete selection matrix.

2.8 - Candidate Vehicle Selection

Based on the results of the selection index, it was determined that the Bell 206B JetRanger and the MD 500D
are the best candidates for upgrade and have the most upgrade potential. Because of the inherent similarities
between the JetRanger II and III, it was decided that for this upgrade program they would be considered to be
the same vehicle, and that any upgrade for the JetRanger II could also be applied to the JetRanger III.

2.9 Candidate Vehicle Selection

As previously stated, the selection index is an acceptable method for evaluating different vehicles based upon
their specifications, but it does not consider other factors such as economic and production considerations. The
final selection between the MD 500D and the JetRanger was decided based on these latter considerations.

14
 406-UM TerpRanger
Table 2.5 - Selection Index

Bell 206B-3 JetRanger III

Bell 206 B JetRanger II

AS 355 F/F-1 Twinstar

AS 355 F-2 Twinstar
Weighting Factor

BO 105 CB/CBS
CRITERIA

AS 350 B AStar
SA 315 Lama

AS 350 BA

AS 350 B1

AS 350 B2
MD 500 C

MD 500 D

MD 500 E

AS 350 D
Purchase
2 6 2 6 6 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 2 4
Cost/Payload

Maintenance
3 6 6 3 6 6 6 9 6 0 3 3 6 6 6
Cost/Payload

Fleet Age 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 3

Speed 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

Trans.
Pow./Inst 2 4 4 6 4 2 2 6 2 2 2 4 2 4 4
Pow.

# of Blades 2 6 6 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Composition
2 6 6 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
of Blades

# of Aircraft 3 9 9 3 6 3 3 3 9 3 3 6 3 3 3

Fuel
Consumption 2 6 6 4 6 4 4 2 4 6 6 6 4 4 4
Quotient
Weight
Efficiency 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 6 6 4 4 6 4 6
Factor
Transmission
/(Speed* 3 9 9 6 6 6 3 3 3 6 3 6 3 3 3
Weight)
Purchase
2 6 2 6 6 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 2 4
Cost/Payload

Composite Score 60 58 41 46 37 34 45 45 37 36 43 40 38 42

15
 406-UM TerpRanger
2.9.1 - Number of Aircraft (Revisited)
Despite the fact that this category is of primary importance, the selection index above understates the
importance of this category because it is not directly related to the technical aspects of a helicopter. Its
importance is beyond the scope of this first order analysis. Furthermore, this category is a measure of the
potential customer base for an upgrade program, and therefore, it is essential for a manufacturer to pay more
attention to this before investing in an upgrade venture. Clearly, the Bell JetRanger has an advantage over
others in its class because of the relatively large number of vehicles produced. Therefore, the JetRanger is more
attractive than the MD 500D because of the fact that there are potentially more vehicles to upgrade.

2.10 - Final Vehicle Selection

After careful consideration, it was determined that the Bell 206B-3 is the most attractive candidate for an
upgrade program. The selection index clearly establishes the vehicle’s need for upgrade, and its near ubiquitous
availability make it a sound choice for an upgrade venture. Modernization of the Bell 206B-3 to meet the
performance requirements specified in the RFP will make it highly competitive with other, newer vehicles such
as the Eurocopter EC-120.

Section 3 - Description of The TerpRanger Upgrade Program

The TerpRanger upgrade provides the operator with a 24% increase in cruise speed, a 20% increase in payload
capability and an 15% improvement in range, with only a 2% increase in direct operating costs. This re-
manufacturing program is more extensive than upgrades that are currently offered for civil helicopters, in terms
of the performance enhancements and the modifications to the baseline helicopter. A summary of the upgraded
features of the TerpRanger 406 program is given below. Page numbers of the relevant sections of the report are
given in parentheses for easy reference to more detailed descriptions.

Main Rotor (page 27)

The two-bladed, metal, teetering rotor is replaced with a four-bladed, composite, hingeless main rotor that
incorporates varying airfoil sections along the radius, -13 degrees of linear twist, advanced-geometry blade tips
with sweep, taper and anhedral, and active trailing-edge tracking tabs.

Tail Rotor (page 37)

The two-bladed metal tail rotor is replaced with a composite, bearingless rotor of a similar configuration. The
vertical fin offloads the tail rotor in forward flight. Stability and handling qualities analysis indicated that no
further modifications were necessary for the helicopter empennage.

16
 406-UM TerpRanger
Transmission and Gearboxes (page 43)
The drive train, including main and tail rotor gearboxes are replaced with components that are similar in
configuration, but which are designed to transmit higher torques and require less maintenance. This is achieved
by utilizing new materials and modern gear design methods and by using better lubricants for the gearboxes.

Health and Usage Monitoring System (page 68)

The TerpRanger upgrade includes the option of installing a Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) for
the main rotor and the drivetrain, which greatly enhances their reliability and maintainability, and reduces the
operating costs of the helicopter.

Vibration-Reduction Devices (page 54)

The upgrade program offers the customer the opportunity to choose between three options for reducing fuselage
vibration levels: (i) Liquid Inertia Vibration Eliminator (LIVE) isolators incorporated into the main rotor
gearbox mounts, (ii) Anti-resonance Force Isolators (AFI) incorporated into the gearbox mounts, and (iii) an
Active Vibration Reduction System (AVRS) which actively adapts to different vibration environments, and
hence is not restricted to the attenuation of only one vibratory frequency.

Instrument Panel and Avionics (page 64)

The TerpRanger upgrade offers the customer a choice of four avionics / instrument package suites. Each suite
enhances safety and improves situational awareness.

Hydraulic System (page 63)

To prevent pilot fatigue, the hydraulic servo boost actuators for the cyclic and collective controls are upgraded
for the TerpRanger helicopter.

Fuel System (page 62)

To meet the 400-nm range requirement specified in the RFP, the TerpRanger requires a fuel capacity of
approximately 101 U.S. gallons. The JetRanger has a fuel tank located below and behind the passenger seat
bench with a usable fuel capacity of 91 gallons. In the TerpRanger, this is augmented by an auxiliary 10-gallon
fuel tank that is fitted into the forward portion of the baggage compartment. A similar 20-gallon auxiliary fuel
tank has already received FAA certification for incorporation into the Bell Model 407 helicopter.

17
 406-UM TerpRanger
Airframe and Cabin Layout (page 52)
So as to safely withstand the higher loads due to the increase in gross weight of the helicopter, minor
modifications are made to the airframe structure to increase their stiffness and strength. To reduce the drag of
the fuselage, fairings are provided for the skid landing gear, the main rotor hub and for the opening in the
cowling through which the main rotor shaft emerges. Airbags are provided for both of the front seats.

18
 All dimensions in feet
19
Foldout 3.1 – Three-View Drawing
 Firewalls Output to Main LIVE Vibration
Main Rotor Rotor Isolation System

Gearbox and
LIVE Vibration Input from
Structural Layout Isolation System Powerplant
Diagram Integrated PZT Patches

Main Rotor Main Rotor Gearbox

Gearbox to Housing
Mounting Deck
Connection
Stringers
Engine Mounts

Foldout 3.2 – Interior and Structural Features

Auxiliary Fuel Tank

Transmission to Airframe
Mounting Points

Primary Bulkheads 1 and 2

-- Landing Skid Hard Points

Landing Skids
Rear Hard
Point

Front Hard Point Landing Skid

Cross Tube Inboard Profile Drawing 20
Fairings
 406-UM TerpRanger
Section 4 - Upgrade Configuration Trade Study
The methodology that is used to evaluate the various configurations of the selected helicopter is outlined in this
section.

4.1 - Methodology
The goal of the trade study is to quantitatively compare a wide range of upgrade configuration types so that an
optimum upgrade can be selected. The upgrade configuration must not only meet the performance
requirements stipulated in the RFP but it also must provide a cost effective solution.

4.1.1 - Analysis
A series of candidate upgrade configurations are formulated in this trade study. The analysis is based on an
original design code developed for rotorcraft sizing, and is customized for an upgrade program that conforms to
the performance specifications listed in the RFP.

The fixed parameters of this study were range, payload, and cruise speed. Once specified, all of the helicopter
configurations were calculated to meet or exceed these requirements. Additionally, independent design
parameters included in this study were blade loading, main rotor tip speed, and parasite drag area. Several
combinations of these parameters were included in the analysis to provide insight into the influence of factors
such as stall margin and blade noise, for the potential helicopter upgrades.

The primary output of the trade study was the take-off weight of the upgraded helicopter configuration. The
pricing equations specified in the RFP are dependent upon the weight of vehicle components, therefore, the
trade study was organized to first calculate the weights of each system independently and then provide a
preliminary estimate of the total take-off weight of the vehicle.

Varying the independent design parameters generated a series of candidate configurations. After a complete set
of configurations was determined, an optimum configuration was chosen based on factors such as acquisition
cost, implementation complexity, and total take-off weight.

4.1.2 - Determination of Upgrade Candidates

The selection pool of potential upgrades was composed of conceptual helicopter designs from each data set. For
each set of independent parameters, sixteen candidate helicopters were generated. Table 4.1 below shows the
candidate upgrade configurations for one set of independent design parameters. Only two to three

21
 406-UM TerpRanger
configurations advance to the selection pool as finalists. Through an exhaustive parameter design study, a final
upgrade configuration was selected. A
simplified flow chart of the selection process
appears in Figure 4.1. Select Independent
Parameters
Eight different combinations
of Blade Loading, Tip Speed
4.2 - Implementation and Parasite Drag Area
The algorithm implemented in this trade study
was developed in-house, and was customized Algorithm Generates 16
Theoretical Helicopters
to meet the performance requirements Each helicopter meets
performance requirements
expressed in the RFP. The method is similar to
the one used by the Mil Design Bureau.
2-3 Top Candidates
[Tish02]. The methodology of this algorithm is Iterate Independent Candidates with only minor
Parameter changes in main rotor diameter
summarized in the flow chart in Figure 4.2. The advance to the next stage
Combinations
design code is flexible and simultaneously
generates multiple rotor configurations. Rotor
Selection Pool
configurations with 2 to 5 blades with varying Comprised of the top 2-3
candidates from each set of
aspect ratios were evaluated. (Refer to Table independent parameters
4.1 for details.)

Final Configuration
4.3 - Limitations Most cost-effective design
solution is chosen as the final
Because this study is based on first order upgrade configuration

analysis, the required take-off and cruise power

are slightly under-predicted. Despite this
limitation, the design analysis calculated an
Figure 4.1 - Flow Chart of Selection Process
acceptable estimate of the required power for
each candidate configuration.

4.4 - Validation of Analysis Code

The analysis is validated by predicting the parameters of the original, unmodified version of the 206 JetRanger
III and comparing them to the actual specifications [Bell02]. Once the algorithm is tuned to calculate the take-
off weight of the unmodified vehicle, the independent design parameters may be estimated.

22
 406-UM TerpRanger

Performance Requirements Independent Parameters

Fixed Inputs
• Required Payload • Blade Loading
From unmodified
206 Specifications • Cruise Speed • Tip Speed
• Range • Drag Area

Estimate Take-Off Mass

Based on Unmodified
Helicopter Parameters

Main Rotor Parameters

• Main Rotor Sizing
• Lift to Drag Ratio
• Cruise and Take-Off
Power

Iterate Until
Convergence Tail Rotor Parameters
• Tail Rotor Sizing
• Power Requirements

Engine Parameters
• SFC for Take-Off and
Cruise
• Fuel Requirements

Mass Calculations Cost Breakdown

• Component System • Component Costs
Masses • Helicopter Cost
• Empty Mass • Direct Operating
• Take-Off Mass Cost

Figure 4.2 - Design Algorithm Flow Chart

4.5 - Independent Design Parameters

A set of candidate configurations were generated for each combination of independent design parameters. The
selection pool of upgrade configuration candidates were comprised of the two or three finalists from all of the
candidate sets. The upgrade configuration was then chosen from the selection pool. The three independent
design parameters considered in this analysis are: blade loading, parasite drag area, and tip speed. Each
parameter consists of two possible values that are explained below.

23
 406-UM TerpRanger
4.5.1 - Preliminary Estimation of the Equivalent Flat Plate Area
The equivalent flat plate drag area was estimated from the power curve of the unmodified 206 JetRanger.
Details of this procedure are included in Section 5. The estimated drag area is 6.5 ft2 for the unmodified 206B-3.
Based on historical data, it is reasonable to assume a reduction of the equivalent drag area by 15% to 5.5 ft2 for
the TerpRanger upgrade [Wils90]. In addition, the influence of a more conservative value of 6.0 ft2 is also
considered in this study. A more detailed analysis of the drag area estimation is given in Section 13 of this
proposal.

4.5.2 - Preliminary Estimation of Blade Loading

The blade loading coefficient, CT/σ, was selected with respect to the baseline value of 0.08. To accommodate an
increase in payload required for the upgrade, a higher blade loading is chosen. A value of 0.08 is desirable,
however, the blade stall margin may be too small. Furthermore, the high blade loading of 0.08 may not allow
for potential growth in the gross weight. For the purpose of comparison, a more conservative blade-loading
coefficient of 0.075 is also considered.

4.5.3 - Preliminary Estimation of Tip Speed

Two tip speeds were considered in this trade study: 686 ft/sec and 673 ft/sec. The original tip speed of the
unmodified 206B is 686 ft/sec, and this value is again considered for the upgraded versions. To minimize
external noise levels, a lower tip speed of 673 ft/sec was also evaluated.

4.6 - Engine Performance

The engine performance was estimated using the powerplant data given in the RFP. These characteristics are
scaleable and corrected for losses resulting from factors such as altitude, temperature, and installation. A
complete performance analysis of the engine is shown in Section 7 of the proposal.

4.7 - Weight Analysis

The procedure for determining the empty and take-off weights of the helicopter is as follows. The upgrade
candidates are divided into various subsystems and components, i.e. the main rotor, main gearbox, engine etc.
The trade study algorithm calculates component weights by assigning mass coefficients to each system [Tish02].
The take-off weight of the helicopter is defined as the sum of the empty weight and the weights of the
passengers, crew, cargo, and fuel. A detailed analysis of the component system weights and the determination
of their associated mass coefficients are presented in Section 12. For the conceptual helicopters generated from
each set of independent design parameters, the take-off weight is estimated.

24
 406-UM TerpRanger
4.8 - Cost Analysis
The acquisition price of the vehicle was calculated after the weights of the component systems were determined.
Prices for each system are determined according to the cost formulas listed in the RFP. The base manufacturing
price is the sum of the component system prices. The direct operating cost (DOC) of each helicopter
configuration is also estimated in the trade study. The DOC is based on the manufacturing cost, the salary of the
ground crew and pilot, the service life of the vehicle and the cost of fuel. A detailed calculation of the DOC for
the vehicle is given in Section 15.

4.9 - Trade Study Results

As mentioned previously, all combinations of the independent design parameters were analyzed, and sets of
conceptual helicopters are generated for each combination. Table 4.1 displays the candidate upgrade
configurations generated from one set of parameters. Each column of Table 4.1 represents a different helicopter
configuration that is capable of meeting the performance requirements stipulated in the RFP.

Table 4.1 - Calculations for 1 Independent Design Parameter Combination

Number of blades 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Aspect Ratio 23.42 19.42 15.42 11.42 23.42 19.42 15.42 11.42
Empty Weight, lb 1852 1877 2147 2047 1727 1746 1807 1921
Empty W. Corrected, lb 1866 1891 2165 2062 1740 1759 1821 1935
Payload, lb 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521
TO Weight, lb 3600 3633 3938 3844 3479 3509 3590 3739
Weight Efficiency 0.48 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.48

Number of blades 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Aspect Ratio 23.42 19.42 15.42 11.42 23.42 19.42 15.42 11.42
Empty Mass, lb 1657 1683 1744 1876 1616 1650 1719 1858
Empty W. Corrected, lb 1669 1696 1757 1890 1628 1663 1732 1872
Payload, lb 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521 1521
TO Weight, lb 3418 3459 3544 3722 3388 3441 3540 3734
Weight Efficiency 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.50

25
 406-UM TerpRanger
4.9.1-Finalist Candidate Upgrades
A candidate configuration was chosen to advance
to the selection pool only if its rotor diameter was
within 1.7 ft of the original helicopter design.
Because this is an upgrade program, a limit must
be placed on how much baseline variation is
allowed. Since the sizing of the main rotor defines
the capabilities of the helicopter, major changes in
its diameter cascade throughout the entire vehicle,

resulting in a completely new aircraft rather than

Figure 4.3 - Selection of Finalist Upgrade
an upgraded version. As a result, only candidates
Configurations
with minor changes in rotor diameter were
allowed to advance to the selection pool as finalists. Figure 4.3 displays a set of rotors calculated from one set
of independent parameters.

4.9.2 - Final Selection of the Upgrade

Configuration
The final arbiter for the selection process was the
purchase price of the configuration. Ultimately,
the least expensive configuration that meets the
performance specifications was selected. For each
independent parameter set, the cost of the
helicopter was also determined. Figure 4.4
illustrates the acquisition prices for the set of
independent parameters used to generate the
helicopters given previously in Figure 4.3.

The acquisition price and independent parameters

Figure 4.4 - Finalist Upgrade Configuration Costs
of each finalist upgrade are listed in Table 4.2.
Nb = Number of Blades, R = Main Rotor Radius, c =
Configuration number 15 was selected as the final, chord
optimized upgrade configuration.

26
 406-UM TerpRanger
Table 4.2 - Finalist Upgrade Configuration Pool

Configuration Ct/σ Tip Speed Drag Area Price Total

2
# (ratio) (ft/sec) (ft ) (million $)
1 0.08 673 5.5 1.23
2 0.08 673 5.5 1.14
3 0.08 673 5.5 1.13
5 0.08 673 6.0 1.27
6 0.08 673 6.0 1.17
7 0.08 673 6.0 1.16
8 0.075 686 5.5 1.25
9 0.075 686 5.5 1.16
10 0.075 686 5.5 1.15
11 0.075 686 6.0 1.29
12 0.075 686 6.0 1.19
13 0.075 686 6.0 1.18
14 0.075 673 5.5 1.25
15 0.075 673 5.5 1.15
16 0.075 673 5.5 1.14
17 0.075 673 6.0 1.29
18 0.075 673 6.0 1.19
19 0.075 673 6.0 1.17
20 0.08 673 5.5 1.23
21 0.08 673 5.5 1.15
22 0.08 673 6.0 1.27
23 0.08 673 6.0 1.18

4.10 - Summary of Final Configuration

Configuration 16 offers an affordable upgrade option that may be realistically developed. The blade loading
coefficient of 0.075 is conservative, but assures that the rotor has an adequate stall margin that will be useful in
meeting the 140 knot cruise requirement. Main rotor noise is minimized by choosing a reduced tip speed of 673
ft/sec which makes the upgrade more attractive to civilian operators that fly in developed areas. Although a
reduction of the equivalent flat plate drag area to 5.5 ft2 is optimistic, it is a reasonable goal for the upgrade
program to achieve. Configurations 2 and 3 were also considered but ultimately rejected because of the higher
blade loading, and subsequently, the lower stall margin. Details regarding the calculation of the drag area for the
TerpRanger upgrade are given in Section 13. Finally, this 4-bladed main rotor configuration is one of the least
expensive conceptual configurations considered in this study. (Refer to Table 4.2.)

Section 5 - Main Rotor Blade and Hub Design

The main rotor system is a key component in realizing the objectives stipulated in the RFP. As previously
discussed, a preliminary sizing of the main rotor was carried out to determine the optimum number of blades,

27
 406-UM TerpRanger
rotor diameter, blade aspect ratio and solidity to achieve the required cruise speed, while also maintaining a low
cost of the aircraft. The aerodynamic design of the rotor blades and the resulting rotor performance are discussed
in detail in this section.

5.1 - Baseline Rotor

Power curves for the baseline helicopter (JetRanger) were matched with published data in the JetRanger product
data book [Bell99]. This was done to validate the analysis tools that were developed in-house and also to match
the equivalent flat plate drag area of the JetRanger.

The analysis tools are based on the assumption of constant inflow through the rotor disk. A rigid blade trim
analysis was carried out at each advance ratio, and the shaft power required was determined from the rotor
torque. A table lookup procedure was used for the airfoil properties. The analysis is capable of handling
different airfoils along the blade span, arbitrary taper and arbitrary twist. Properties of the baseline rotor system
are shown in Table 5.1, along with the properties of the new rotor. In Figure 5.1, the computed and actual power
curves are compared for gross weights of 2000 lb and 3200 lb. Based on this analysis, the fuselage flat plate area
for the baseline design was determined to be 6.5 ft2 .

Table 5.1 - Comparison of New Main Rotor with Baseline Design

Parameter Baseline Design TerpRanger

Max. gross wt. (lb) 3200 3524
No. of blades 2 4
Diameter (ft) 33.33 32.43
Tip speed (ft/s) 210 205
Solidity 0.0414 0.0525
2
Fuselage flat plate area (ft ) 6.5 5.5
Blade Loading, CT/σ 0.078 0.075
o o
Twist -10 (linear) -13 (linear)

5.2 - Aerodynamic Design of the Blades

The baseline JetRanger blades have a symmetric airfoil section with a modified leading edge, and a rectangular
planform with -10 degrees of linear twist [Pegg69]. Since the Mach number and Reynolds number vary widely
over the blade span, a single airfoil section along the blade generally does not provide optimum aerodynamic
efficiency. With the availability of composite materials for blade construction, it is convenient to use different
airfoil sections along the blade span to increase the efficiency of the rotor system and keep costs to a minimum.
Twist and taper are also used to improve the performance of the rotor. Figure 5.2 displays the power curve for
the TerpRanger, with the new four-bladed rotor.

28
 406-UM TerpRanger

5.2.1 - Airfoil Sections

500
The major factors influencing airfoil selection
were: lift-to-drag ratio, maximum lift Computed
400
Actual
coefficient, drag divergence Mach number,

Total Power (hp)

zero lift, and pitching moment. For
300
optimizing performance, three airfoil sections
were used along the blade span. Due to its Gross Weight 3200 lb
200
high maximum lift coefficient, the
2000 lb
Boeing/Vertol VR-12 airfoil was used as the 100

main lifting airfoil over 60-90% of the blade

radius. However, the VR-12 airfoil produces 0
0 50 100 150
Flight Speed (knots)
high pitching moments. To offset these
pitching moments, the ONERA OA-212 Figure 5.1 - Comparison of Actual and Computed
Power Curves for the Baseline Helicopter (SL/ISA)
airfoil was used inboard of 60% radius,
700
because it has a reflexed camber to produce
Sea Level, ISA
nose down pitching moments. Finally, the 600

Boeing/Vertol VR-15 airfoil, which has a low 500

Power Required (hp)

thickness-to-chord ratio and hence a higher 369 hp

400
drag divergence Mach number, was chosen
for the tip region. 300

200
5.2.2 - Twist and Taper
100 Required Cruise Speed
Tapering the blade improves performance by
unloading the tips to achieve a more uniform 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Flight Speed (Knots)
inflow distribution over the blade. The
outermost 8.5% of the blade planform is Figure 5.2 - Power Curve for the TerpRanger, GTOW
tapered. Blade twist can be used to improve = 3524 lbs
hover performance, delay retreating blade
stall and reduce vibrations in forward flight. However, the maximum amount of blade twist is limited by criteria
for safe autorotation. The blades were designed to have a linear twist of -13 degrees, which is the amount of
twist on the Bell-407 rotor blades. Although a larger twist provides better hover performance, it would degrade
the autorotational performance of the rotor.

29
 406-UM TerpRanger

5.2.3 - Blade tips

The blade tips of the advancing blades encounter the highest dynamic pressure and Mach numbers. This is why
special care needs to be taken in the design of an advanced tip shape. Three key parameters (sweep, taper, and
anhedral) can be introduced to obtain improvements in rotor performance.

Sweep is used to reduce the Mach number normal to the leading edge of the blades, delaying to higher advance
ratios the onset of the adverse effect of compressibility. In the TerpRanger, the maximum advance ratio and tip
Mach number are 0.35 and 0.82 respectively. The drag divergence Mach number of the airfoil used at the tip
(VR-15) is around 0.82. As shown in Figure 5.3, the blade tip is swept-back 20o starting at the outer 8.5% of the
blade, which corresponds to the end of the transition region between the VR-12 and the VR-15 airfoils.

20% 60% 90%

OA212 VR12 VR15

Transition Regions
3% 3%

Figure 5.3 – Rotor Blade Planform

The introduction of anhedral and taper in the blade tips can significantly increase the Figure-of-merit of the
rotor. Experimental studies ([Deso88]) on swept-tapered blade tips with anhedral, show that the power required
to drive the rotor is reduced by up to 7% in hover and up to 10% in forward flight, when compared to the power
required for rectangular blade tips. However, this large enhancement is obtained at blade loading coefficients of
0.07, and at an advance ratio of 0.4. For the thrust coefficients and maximum advance ratio of the TerpRanger, a
reduction in power of 3% in hover and 4% in forward flight was achieved. A taper ratio of 1.6:1 over the outer
8.5% of the blade section, and an anhedral of 5o in the outer 4.25% of the blade were selected. Experiments also
show that the use of a similar tip configuration reduces the noise produced by the rotor [Deso88].

5.3 - Blade Structural Design

The blades must be designed to withstand not only the centrifugal force, but also the flapping, lead-lag and
torsion moments. Furthermore, the blades must also have adequate mass so as to give satisfactory autorotational
inertia.

30
 406-UM TerpRanger

5.3.1 - Blade Structural Details

The blade consists of a D-shaped spar and an outer skin made up of two layers of glass/epoxy (+45o /-45o )
composite. The spar is made up of a torsion wrap consisting of six (+45o /-45o ) layers of graphite/epoxy
enclosing fourteen uniaxial layers of glass/epoxy composite. Nomex honeycomb has been used for the core
since it provides a good bond with the skin, and also because it has low moisture absorption. Tungsten ballast
weights are placed at discrete locations along the blade span to move the blade center of mass to the quarter
chord position. A de-icing blanket is bonded over the skin to heat the leading edge, and a titanium erosion strip
protects the leading edge from particle damage. A cutaway of the blade cross-section is shown in Figure 5.4.

Leading Graphite/Fiberglass
Electrical Heating Skin
Element Edge Weight Spar
Erosion Cap Insulation

Nomex
0.1c Honeycomb

0.15c

0.3c

Figure 5.4 – Blade Cross-section

Table 5.2 lists the material properties of the different materials used.

Table 5.2 - Material Properties

Density Young’s Shear Modulus Nominal ply

Material 3
(lb/in ) Modulus (ksi) (ksi) thickness (in)
3 3
Glass/Epoxy 0.072 6.3 x 10 0.66 x 10 0.0069
o 3 3
+-45 Graphite Epoxy 0.055 8.03 x 10 6.31 x 10 0.009
3 3
Nomex Honeycomb 0.00116 0.0105 x 10 0.0042 x 10 -
3 3
Tungsten 0.669 40 x 10 19.2 x 10 -

5.3.2 - Lightning Protection and Electromagnetic Shielding

Helicopter rotor blades are usually designed to withstand a 200 kA lightning strike and still permit flight of
limited capability so that the aircraft can safely return to base [Alex86]. To prevent heat damage of critical
composite components, it is preferred that the path of current flow be along the exterior of the blade. Also, the
actuator assembly for the active tracking tab (see section 9.5) is vulnerable to any large flow of current. Parts of

31
 406-UM TerpRanger
the blade which contain large internal masses of metal are covered by exterior doublers made of conductive
material. These doublers conduct the current to the titanium abrasion strip, which drains it along the blade to the
root end attachment. To protect the actuator from stray electromagnetic fields, its housing is wrapped in
nickel/iron alloy foil, which is effective for low frequency magnetic shielding.

5.4 - Hub Design

The main rotor hub must transfer blade loads from the rotating frame to the fixed frame, transfer the drive
system torque to the rotor, and transmit collective and cyclic pitch changes from the fixed frame to the rotor
blades. These functions must be performed while maintaining a low weight, low drag in forward flight,
mechanical simplicity and low parts count, long fatigue life, freedom from dynamic problems, and sufficient
control power. For an upgrade program, a key factor is the cost involved in production and certification. To
minimize this cost, a hingeless design, which is a downsized version of the Bell-412 hub, was chosen to
minimize development risk.

The hub consists of two composite flexbeam yokes, four steel spindles with grip lugs to hold the blades, and
elastomeric dampers and bearings. A pitch horn has one end connected to the steel spindle and the other end
attached to a pitch link. The design reduces maintenance by providing longer life components, and elastomeric
bearings to eliminate the need for mechanical hinges and heavy viscous dampers.

5.4.1 - Hub Details

As shown in Foldout 5.1, the hub primarily consists of three components: flexbeam yokes, steel spindles and
elastomeric bearings and dampers.
a) Flexbeam yoke: The flexbeam transfers centrifugal force from the blades to the hub support structure,
and also allows blade flapping motion. Two yokes, made from unidirectional S-glass/epoxy composite
and attached perpendicular to one another, serve as the flexbeams. The flexbeam cross-section is
tailored to provide the required stiffness along the span.
b) Steel spindles: Four steel spindles are used to achieve blade pitch motion. A pitch horn is attached to
one end of the spindle while the other end anchors the blade through two retention bolts arranged
chordwise.
c) Elastomeric bearings and dampers: An elastomeric pivot bearing is used to attach the spindle to the
outboard end of the yoke, so that the spindle can pitch independent of the yoke. This pivot bearing also
transfers centrifugal force from the spindle to the yoke. The inboard end of the spindle has a spherical
bearing and an elastomeric lead-lag damper. Rotation about the pivot bearing and damper deflection at

32
 406-UM TerpRanger
the inboard end of the spindle facilitates the lead-lag motion of the blade. Blade pitch change is
achieved through torsional deflection of the pivot bearing and rotation of the damper bearing.

5.5 - Autorotation Characteristics

Autorotational performance of a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the rotor disk loading and
the stored kinetic energy. Since it is difficult to analyze autorotation performance of a helicopter, an autorotation
index is generally used to compare the autorotation performance with that of existing helicopters that have
acceptable autorotative characteristics. Table 5.3 lists the autorotation index (which is defined as the kinetic
energy of the rotor divided by the product of the gross weight and disk loading) of the TerpRanger along with
that of several other helicopters of similar weight. A larger value of this index indicates better autorotational
characteristics. As can be seen from this table, the TerpRanger has good autorotation characteristics compared
with the other helicopters.
Table 5.3 - Autorotation Characteristics Comparison

Polar Moment of
GTOW, Rotor Speed, Disk Loading, Autorotation Index,
Helicopter Inertia, IΩ (slug-
(lb) 2 Ω (rad/sec) 2
(lb/ft )
3
(ft /lb)
ft )
TerpRanger 3524 439.95 41.5 4.24 25.52
JetRanger 3200 510.00 41.4 3.67 37.22
MD-500E 3000 288.61 49.95 5.48 21.90
MD-900 6000 529.45 41.05 6.67 11.15

5.6 - Rotor Dynamics

The main rotor is a soft in-plane, hingeless design, and hence its dynamic characteristics have been carefully
examined to ensure proper placement of frequencies, and to maintain a sufficient safety margin from
aeromechanical instabilities. Table 5.4 lists the important properties of the new main rotor.

5.6.1 - Dynamic Analysis

The University of Maryland Advanced Rotorcraft Code (UMARC) was used to obtain a rotor fan plot. The
blade was modeled using 14 finite elements, 10 for the blade, and 4 for the flexbeam. Blade section inertia and
stiffness properties were determined for the three airfoil cross-sections as shown in Figure 5.5. The spike in the
blade mass distribution shows the location of the SMA actuator for the active tracking tab. The blade has been
designed so that the rotating blade frequencies are well separated from the rotor harmonics, as shown in the fan
diagram (Figure 5.6)

33
 Hub Detail Hub Fairing
Removed for Clarity
Shape Memory Alloy Wires
Elastomeric Spherical Bearing

Lock

Spindle
Lead-Lag Damper
Tab Deflected Up

Active Tracking Tab

Elastomeric
Main Rotor Blade Pivot Bearing
Blade

Pitch Horn Pitch Link

Tab Deflected Down

Foldout 5.1 – Main Rotor Blade and Hub

Blade Planform and Airfoils 34

 406-UM TerpRanger
Table 5.4 – Main Rotor Design Parameters

Radius 16.22 ft
No. of blades 4
Chord 0.669 ft
Tip speed 672.40 ft/s
Nominal operating rpm 396
Solidity 0.0525
Lock number 5.3
o
Twist -13 (Linear)
2
Blade Flapping moment of inertia 109.98 slug-ft
First lag frequency 0.67 /rev
First flap frequency 1.064 /rev
First torsion frequency 4.32 /rev

-4
x 10
10 0.02
EIy/(m0Ω 2R 4 )

EIz/(m0 Ω2 R 4)

8 0.015

6 0.01

4 0.005

2 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Radial Position (% Radius) Radial Position (% Radius)
-3
x 10
1.5 0.3
Mass/Length (slugs/ft)
GJ/(m 0 Ω2R 4 )

1 0.2

0.5 0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Radial Position (% Radius) Radial Position (% Radius)

Figure 5.5 – Blade Stiffness and Mass Distribution

5.6.2 - Aeroelastic Stability Analysis

To ensure that the rotor does not encounter any aeromechanical instability in its flight regime, an aeroelastic
stability analysis was carried out. A pitch-flap flutter analysis in hover shows that the critical CG offset is aft of
the quarter chord position at nearly 32% of the chord from the leading edge (Figure 5.7). Tungsten tip weights
were used to bring the blade CG close to the quarter chord position to maintain an adequate safety margin. A
comprehensive analysis shows that the rotor modes are stable for all flight speeds over the entire flight envelope
(Figure 5.8).

35
 406-UM TerpRanger

6
8P 7P 6P 5P
3F 4P
5
1T

0
4

Frequency ω /Ω
2L 3P

3
2F
2P
2

1F
1 1P
1L
0
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3
Rotor Speed Ω /Ω
0

Figure 5.6 – Rotor Fan Plot

5.6.3 - Ground Resonance

The original JetRanger has a two-bladed, teetering main rotor, which is stiff in-plane, and hence free from any
ground resonance instability. Since the new main rotor is soft in-plane, it may be susceptible to ground
resonance, and hence adequate provisions must be made to ensure that the rotor and support modes are
adequately damped at all rotor speeds.

A ground resonance analysis showed that the rotor in-plane mode (regressive) was stable, as shown in Figure
5.9. In this analysis, the body pitch and roll frequencies have been assumed to be the same as for the Bell model
654 rotor installed on the Bell-206L [Cres78]. The lead-lag damper has a damping value of 910.6 lb-ft-s.
6 40

35
5

Designed Torsional Frequency 30 Flap

Damping (% Critical)

Figure 5.6 - Pitch-Flap Flutter/Divergence

4
Stable Region 25
ν /Ω (/rev)

Flutter (Unstable)
Stability Boundaries
3 20
θ

15
2

Divergence (Unstable) 10
1 Pitch
5
Lag
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
CG offset aft of quarter chord position Advance Ratio µ

Figure 5.7 - Pitch-Flap Figure 5.8 - Flap/Lag/Pitch Stability

Flutter/Divergence Stability Boundaries

36
 406-UM TerpRanger

200 6

Body
5 Pitch
150

Damping (% Critical)
Body
Frequency (CPM)

4
Pitch

100 3
Body
Roll
2
Body Rotor Inplane mode
50 Roll
1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Rotor Rotational Speed (RPM) Rotor Rotational Speed (RPM)
Figure 5.9 – Ground Resonance Analysis

A soft-inplane rotor is also susceptible to air resonance, 4

which is an instability similar to ground resonance, but 3.5

Lag Damping (% Critical)

3
occurs in flight, because of the interaction of the rotor
2.5
lag and flap modes with the fuselage pitch and roll
2
modes. To ensure that the rotor is safe from air
1.5
resonance, a comprehensive stability analys is was
1
carried out assuming the fuselage to be undergoing rigid
0.5
body motions. As shown in Figure 5.10, the rotor lag 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
mode (regressing) remains stable at all advance ratios. Advance Ratio µ

Figure 5.10 - Air Resonance Analysis

Section 6 - Anti-Torque System and Empennage Design

The primary purpose of the anti-torque system is to provide yaw control for the helicopter. The system must not
only be capable of counteracting the reaction of the main rotor, but also provide the pilot with directional
control. This section discusses the relevant design issues regarding the anti-torque system.

6.1 - Anti-Torque Configuration Selection

A complete redesign of the anti-torque system is not practical in an upgrade program due to high
remanufacturing costs. A trade study based on weight and power efficiency was conducted to choose the most
efficient configuration capable of meeting the RFP specifications. Configurations such as a conventional tail
rotor, fan-in fin, and a NOTAR system were considered in this trade study.

37
 406-UM TerpRanger
6.1.1 - Weight Comparison of Anti-Torque Configurations
A fan-in fin configuration requires more structural weight than a conventional tail rotor. A more robust support
structure is required to compensate for the high gyroscopic moments transferred across the pitch change
bearings, through the hub and shaft into the load carrying members. Therefore, the weight of the fan-in-fin
configuration typically, is about 14% higher than the weight of a conventional tail rotor [Moui70].

Similarly, the NOTAR configuration also requires reinforcement of the load carrying members [Robi70].
Despite the fact that the overall weight of the NOTAR configuration is approximately equal to that of a
conventional tail rotor, the cost and remanufacturing effort involved with integrating such a system into an
existing helicopter exceeds the scope of an upgrade program.

6.1.2 - Power Comparison

The method of Robinson [Robi70] was used to estimate and compare the induced, and profile power
requirements of a conventional tail rotor, NOTAR, and fan-in-fin configurations. According to the analysis, in
hover, the fan-in fin consumes 6% more of the main rotor power than a conventional tail rotor, whereas the
NOTAR configuration consumes 11% more power.

The NOTAR and fan-in-fin configurations are heavier and require more power in hover than a conventional tail
rotor configuration due to the higher induced power requirement. Therefore, the tail rotor configuration is
unchanged in the TerpRanger upgrade.

6.2 - Rotor/Hub Assembly

The TerpRanger Upgrade will include a composite, bearingless tail rotor (CBR) system. This configuration has
been flight tested on the Bell206 JetRanger with satisfactory results [Harv79]. The CBR tail rotor is
advantageous because it is a corrosion free, “on-condition” rotor system. The parts count is reduced by 25%,
weight by 30%, and manufacturing costs by 20% [Fena76].

A fiberglass twist-strap flexure is included to accommodate collective pitch control, and a shear reaction device
counteracts the pitch link loads [Harv79]. The design is cost effective, and is already certified for the Bell 206
JetRanger.

38
 406-UM TerpRanger

6.3 - Design Parameters

A first-order analysis was developed and implemented for sizing the tail rotor. The JetRanger’s tail rotor
baseline design parameters were used to validate the ana lysis. The design flight condition is hover, since as
forward speed increases, the vertical fin offloads the tail rotor.

6.3.1 - Tail Rotor Diameter

The tail rotor diameter is sized to provide both anti-torque thrust, and yaw control. The analysis is adopted from
Prouty’s sizing techniques [Prou95]. According to this method, the diameter of the tail rotor is a function of the
main rotor diameter and disk loading. The tail rotor diameter is determined by the following equation:
DM
DT =
7.15 − 0.27 DL M
where DM is the main rotor diameter, and DLM is the disk loading of the main rotor.
For the TerpRanger upgrade, the tail rotor diameter is 5.4 ft.

6.3.2 - Tail Rotor Chord

Once the sizing of the tail rotor diameter was completed, the chord was determined. A blade chord of 0.46 ft is
required to achieve a maximum turn rate of 0.75 rad/sec, and a maximum yaw acceleration of 0.4 rad/sec2
[Lynn69]. The following equation is used to determine the tail rotor blade chord:

 .. .

6  I zz ψ 8bΩI p ψ 
c=  TQ + +  ft
cl max ρb( BR ) 3 Ω 2  lt 3( BR ) 
 
.. .
where, TQ is the required tail rotor thrust, ψ is the maximum yaw acceleration, ψ is the maximum turn rate, B
is the tip loss factor, R is the tail rotor radius, and Ω is the rotor rotational speed [Lynn69].

6.4 - Empennage Design

The empennage consists of a vertical fin, horizontal stabilizer and associated fuselage support structure. In
conventional helicopter designs, the purpose of the stabilizers is to enhance stability about a particular axis and
offload the tail rotor in forward flight.

In this preliminary design study, the vertical fin is sized to offload the fan, whereas the horizontal stabilizer is
sized to provide sufficient stability about the pitch axis. The parameters of the existing stabilizers on the Bell
206 are included in the performance analysis to determine if they satisfy the current design upgrade

39
 406-UM TerpRanger
requirements. It was found that the current vertical fin is sufficient to offload the tail rotor in forward flight, to
about 50% in cruise. Similarly, the current horizontal stabilizer dimensions provide sufficient stability about the
pitch axis in forward flight. Therefore, it is not necessary to redesign the stabilizers for the upgrade; hence, no
extra cost or weight is incurred for empennage re-design.

6.5 - Power Requirement

The tail rotor power requirement as a function of forward speed is shown in Figure 6.1. The results show that
the power required by the tail rotor decreases sharply from hover to cruise. The tail rotor thrust required to
balance the main rotor torque is significantly reduced in forward flight due to an increase of the vertical
stabilizer’s side force.
Figure 6.1 Tail Rotor Power vs Forward Speed
35

30

25
tail rotor power (hp)

20

15

10

5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
forward speed (knots)

Figure 6.1 – Tail Rotor Power vs. Forward Speed

Table 6.1 - Final Design Configurations

Tail Rotor Baseline TerpRanger Tail

Parameter Tail Rotor Rotor
Diameter 5.42 ft 5.4 ft
Chord 0.5 ft 0.46 ft
Solidity 0.12 0.1073
Number of blades 2 2
Rotor speed 2550 rpm 2378 rpm
Tip speed 723.6 ft/s 672.4 ft/s
Airfoil NACA 0012 NACA 0012
Material Metal Fiberglass

40
 406-UM TerpRanger

Section 7 - Powerplant and Propulsion System Design

The powerplant and transmission are important elements in realizing optimum vehicle performance. By
carefully selecting and designing these components, an aging helicopter such as the JetRanger can be upgraded
to become a more versatile rotorcraft. This section presents the details of the engine and transmission design.

7.1 - Engine Selection

During the design process, a parallel engine development was undertaken. The size and weight, as well as the
specific fuel consumption (SFC) of this future engine, were obtained using the formulae provided in the RFP. A
comparison between existing engines and the hypothetical RFP engine is presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 - Comparison of Engine Characteristics [Ahsd01]

Takeoff Dry Envelope Envelope

SFC Power/Weight
Manufacturer Model rating weight length Diameter
(lb/hp.hr) ratio
(shp) (lb) (in) (in)
250-
Rolls-Royce 420 0.650 161 38.8 23.2 2.61
C20J

RFP 525 0.538 147 24.98 15.57 3.57

Arrius
Turbomeca 504 0.543 227 37.2 27.4 2.22
2F
LTS 101-
Honeywell 615 0.58 253 31.0 22.4 2.43
100A -3

The powerplant specified in the RFP is consistent with the efforts made by the Integrated High Performance
Turbine Technology program (IHPTET). This joint program between government and industry has the objective
of developing a new generation of engines that are capable of more than doubling the current engine power-to-
weight ratio, and reducing the specific fuel consumption by 40% [Hirs01].

7.2 - Engine Performance

Table 7.1, shows that the weight and size offered by the RFP powerplant is superior to that of existing systems.
Compared to the less powerful Rolls-Royce 250-C20J engine installed in the 206B-III, the RFP engine offers an
8.7% weight savings and an SFC 83% that of the Rolls-Royce 250-C20J. The SFC of the RFP engine is similar
to that of the Turbomeca Arrius 2F. However, the RFP engine is lighter by 80 lb and has an engine envelope
volume that is 78% that of the Turbomeca Arrius 2F.

41
 406-UM TerpRanger
To determine the maximum power
required by the engine, a detailed
analysis was developed for the
vertical and forward flight
performance (Section 13). The
results establish that for a cruise
speed of 145 knots at 1000 ft ISA the
engine must generate at least 390 hp.
The engine power available is
directly proportional to the density
ratio, so at sea level, the engine can
deliver a maximum continuous
power of 400 hp. In the RFP,
maximum continuous power is
Figure 7.1 - Engine Power Available vs. Altitude
defined as 80% of the takeoff power,
therefore an engine with 500 shp of takeoff power installed at sea level is required. The effect of altitude and
temperature on the power available for the RFP engine is shown in Figure 7.1.

Following the standards in engine design, the specified powerplant was assumed to have an integrated
intermediate gearbox with a reduction ratio of 1:3.48, providing an output rotational speed of 6035 rpm. In this
way, the engine and the helicopter main gearbox can be directly coupled via the free-wheeling unit and the main
drive shaft (refer to Section 7.5.7).

7.3 - Engine Losses

The TerpRanger requires an installed takeoff power of 500 shp. This power is obtained after the installation
losses are subtracted from the maximum uninstalled power given by the engine manufacturer’s tests. Losses
associated with engine installation can be divided into 3 main categories: inlet losses, exhaust losses and losses
due to bleed air extraction. The losses produced in the auxiliary gearbox are also included. Based on the data
presented in [Prou95], installation losses of 5% were assumed.

7.4 - Structural Integration

The engine is located behind the main gearbox on the roof of the intermediate section of the fuselage between
two firewalls, and is supported by two A-frames and a torque line that include “clam shell” dampers to reduce
the noise transmitted through the struts. The new engine is lighter and smaller than the one originally installed in

42
 406-UM TerpRanger
the 206B-III, however since the power transferred is larger, the loads on the supports are increased. The
reduction in length of the new engine increases the available inner space in the cowling. Since the new engine is
assumed to have a single exhaust port in its aft section, the exhaust pipe is reconfigured. Changing the location
of the exhausts to the port side of the cowling, reduces the parasitic drag of the fuselage, enhancing the forward
flight performance of the helicopter (refer to Foldout 7.1).

7.5 - Transmission Design

The power required to attain the cruise speed of the upgraded helicopter (390 shp) exceeds the original Bell 206
JetRanger transmission and gearbox ratings by approximately 120 shp. As a result, a new transmission capable
of handling the larger continuous and transient loads is necessary.

7.5.1 - Design Strategy

The original Bell 206 JetRanger airframe has undergone a large growth in takeoff weight over the years. Table
7.2 shows the sequence of rating increases for the main transmissions and tail rotor gearbox in the model 206
helicopter family. The general configuration of the transmission did not change in the different models, and no
major modifications were performed in increasing the takeoff power rating from 317 to 650 shp.

Table 7.2 - Transmission ratings in hp [Harr86]

Tail Rotor
TO Power Max Continuous Continuous Tail Rotor Transient
OH-58A 317 298 63 94
206L 420 370 80 100
206L-1 435 370 80 130
406(Kiowa) 650 464 110 220

Two different design options were considered in the present transmission design process. The first alternative
consists of using a previously upgraded main gearbox that has a rating that meets the TerpRanger’s power
requirements. In this case, only changes and adaptations in the mounting configuration were required. This is a
simple and inexpensive solution that avoids involvement into the expensive certification process that would be
required for a new transmission. The only drawback of this strategy is that even the upgraded transmission
models use relatively old technology (late 1960’s to early 1970’s) and are likely to be heavier than modern
transmissions with similar power ratings.

The second alternative is the improvement and redesign of an existing transmission, keeping the same
configuration but improving its overall characteristics with new materials and higher Hertz stress levels. The

43
 406-UM TerpRanger
introduction of new technology not only saves weight, it also provides an extension in life of the components,
which in turn results in reduced operating costs.

This design strategy best suits the project characteristics, and is explained in detail in the following sections.

7.5.2 - Transmissio n Configuration

The transmission configuration used in the Model 206
series and its derivatives has a simple and robust design that
has proven to be very reliable. For this reason, this general
transmission arrangement will be kept in the newly
designed transmission of the TerpRanger.

The design maximum torque and speed for the first

generation OH-58A main rotor transmission is 3291 in-lb
(372 N-m) input torque and 6060 rpm input speed. This
corresponds to 298 shp (236 kW) for takeoff and 270 shp Figure 7.2 – Transmission Configuration
(201 kW) for continuous ratings. The transmission is a
two-stage reduction gearbox (Figure 7.2). The first stage is a spiral bevel gear set. Triplex ball bearing and one
roller bearing support the bevel gear shaft in an overhung configuration. A planetary mesh provides the second
reduction stage. The same shaft holds the bevel gear and the sun gear. The sun gear drives three planets. The
planet gears mesh with a fixed ring gear attached to the transmission housing. The planet gears are supported by
double-row spherical roller bearings attached to the planet carrier. Power is taken out through the planet carrier
splined to the output mast shaft. The output shaft is supported on top by a split-inner-race ball bearing and on
the bottom by a roller bearin g; the overall reduction ratio of the main power train is 15.23:1. The bevel gear
also drives an accessory gear that runs an oil pump, which supplies lubrication through jets and channels located
in the transmission housing. This drive system has undergone considerable growth in rating since its original
development in 1962. The most significant improvements that have contributed to the main transmission
increase in power rating are:
• A change from three to four pinion planetary gear assembly,
• Improved gear mounting,
• Increased gear life achieved through material and processing improvements and change to larger
bearings,
• Shot-peened gear teeth, and
• Increased face width of input bevel gears.

44
 406-UM TerpRanger
The transmissions listed in Table 7.2 keep a similar internal arrangement, however the housings are modified
from model to model depending on the mounting configuration.

It was assumed that the input rotational speed of the TerpRanger transmission is 6035 rpm (refer to Section 7.2),
and the transmission reduction ratio was kept at 15.23:1 to obtain the required rotor rotational speed of 396 rpm
and tip speed of 205 m/s.

7.5.3 -Transmission Optimization Process

Based on the 390 shp maximum continuous power required at cruise, the drive system installed in the Bell
LongRanger 206L was selected as the baseline system to carry out the analysis. Its power rating is 370 shp
maximum continuous and 420 shp at takeoff, similar to those of the TerpRanger. The characteristics of the
206L transmission are obtained after developin g a model based on the Bell JetRanger drive system whose main
design parameters are known [Bell99].

7.5.4 - Weight Estimation

One of the most relevant parameters required in the analysis is the weight of the LongRanger 206L transmission
since it will serve as reference point for an optimized design. The weight of a transmission depends on its
configuration, gear design, design power, and the technology used. A detailed model of the two stages of the
transmission was developed using Dudley’s method [Dudl84], [Dudl54], [Dudl92]. Gear size, bending and
compressive stresses were calculated. The model was tuned to match closely the overall dimensions, and
stresses of the OH-58A helicopter obtained from Ref [Lewi92] as well as the weight and dimensions of the
JetRanger III. Weight estimation is performed using the stress values calculated with the detailed model of the
drive system. A nondimensional Hertz stress index factor Sa, function of Hertz stress (Sc), Pressure angle (θ),
and helix angle (Φ ) is used to compare the effect of Hertz stress on weight [Dyes91]. The Hertz stress index
factor Sa is given by
1
 Sc  0. 494
 
 Sc   sin 2θ   1000 
Sa =  ⋅  +
 158793   cos Φ   14Φ − 9.5Φ + 315 
2 2
 
 
The equation for estimating each gearbox section weight is given by:

0 .8
 Q ⋅ P ⋅U ⋅ A ⋅ B 
W = 150 ⋅  
 Sa ⋅ N 

45
 406-UM TerpRanger
Where Q is a nondimensional weight factor defined for every gear configuration (spur, bevel, planetary), P is
the design horsepower of the gear assembly, N gear rotational speed, Sa is a hertz stress index, and A, B and U
are factors used to include structural characteristics and special features of the transmission in the weight
estimation. Weights of the shafts, bearings and lubrication system are also included using a series of empirical
relationships found in [Schm76].

Table 7.3 -TerpRanger Weight Table 7.4 - TerpRanger Estimated

Estimation Factors Transmission Weight Breakdown

Bevel Planetary
Parameter Component Weight (lb)
Stage Stage
P 420 420 Bevel Stage 33.3
Q 2.8167 1.2361 Planetary Stage 71.7
A 0.7 1 Shafts &Bearings 24.4
B 1.1 1.05 Additional Case Weight 14.2
U 1 1 Structural Supports 10.2
N 6035 1810 Integrated Lubrication System 22.9
Sa 0.995 0.762 Accessory Drive 7.5
Weight (lb) 33.3 71.7 Total 184

These factors were fine tuned (Table 7.3) to match the calculated weight with the actual weight of the JetRanger
transmission. Since the JetRanger and the LongRanger have similar technologies and configurations, the extra
weight of the LongRanger’s transmission will depend primarily on the difference in the ability to transfer power
or transmission rating. Following this procedure, the estimated weight of the LongRanger’s main gearbox is
207 lb. This baseline weight is the upper limit for the new transmission design due to the fact that the
LongRanger transmission makes use of older technology.

7.5.5 - Parameter Optimization

The technological level in a transmission can be quantified by the magnitude of the compressive stresses
encountered. Increasing the Hertz compressive stress primarily affects the gear weights, which in turn
effectively reduces both the face width and diameter if the gear proportions are kept constant. However, after a
certain point, an increase in the Hertz stress induces scoring of the gears and excessive bending of the gear’s
teeth.

Scoring occurs when for a given rotational speed, the gear diameter is decreased in size so that the line velocity
increases. This prevents the creation of the oil film that usually protects the mating surfaces, so direct contact of
the two gear teeth occurs. The metal-to-metal contact can produce temperatures high enough to weld the two
surfaces. As rotation of the gears continues, the welded surface breaks apart, damaging the teeth. One way to
increase the scoring resistance of the gears is to use a VASCO x2m steel instead of a 9313 steel [Dyes91].

46
 406-UM TerpRanger
If the torque transferred is kept constant, increasing the Hertz stresses reduces the face width of the gears, and so
the cross-sectional area of the tooth also decreases This, in turn, increases the amount of tooth bending at the
root. At a certain point, tooth bending becomes the main limiting factor, making contact stress a secondary
issue.

With these two limiting factors in mind, and following the trend of Hertz compressive stress versus year of
design (Figure 7.3), a new transmission designed in the early 21st century can have an increase of around 11% in
the Hertz stress levels with respect to a baseline system that uses mid 1970’s technology. This increase will take
care of the technological advances achieved in materials, lubricants and manufacturing processes over the last
25 years.

The weight of the transmission will largely

depend on the K factor used for design. The K
factor is an index of the intensity of tooth load
from the standpoint of surface durability. The
higher this value is, the larger Hertz
compressive stresses the teeth can support
[Dudl84]. The weight calculations of the
JetRanger were matched using typical K factors
for 1960’s technology (refer to Tables 7.4 and
7.5). An increase in K values (20% for the
bevel gears and 40% for the planetary
assembly)’ followed by a better choice of the Figure 7.3 - Hertz Stress Level vs. Year of Design
pressure and helix angles, gives the
recommended increase in the Hertz stress index factor. The optimization process gave a transmission weight of
184 lbs, 11% lighter than the calculated baseline value. A summary of the drive system features of the
TerpRanger drive systems is given in Table 7.5. It is important to point out that the transmission redesigned for
the TerpRanger can be considered an improved LongRanger transmission, hence certification costs can be
minimized. This considerably reduces the overall cost of the upgrade.

7.5.6 - Oil System

The sizing of the oil cooler is a function of the amount of heat that needs to be dissipated. Based on the
transmission configuration, an efficiency of 97% is estimated. The heat generated is

47
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 7.5 - TerpRanger Transmission, 420 shp TO Power, 390 shp Max. Continuous Power

Drive system Parameter Input Bevel Stage Planetary Stage Sun-Planet

K Factor, Index of Tooth Loading 1190 720
Torque Paths 1 4
Number of Teeth 50/15 Sun 21 planets 27 ring 75
Reduction Ratio 3.333 1.2857
Diametral Pitch 5.19 6
Pressure Angle (deg) 25 25
Helix Angle (deg) 28 0
Face Width (in) 1.15 2.06
Pinion Speed (rpm) 6035 Sun 1810
Gear Diameter(in) 9.62 3.6
Pinion Diameter (in) 2.9 2.8
Compressive Stress (ksi) 179 201
Bending Stress (ksi) 27.2 52
Total Weight of Transmission 184

calculated from the 100% input power design condition. This corresponds to 8 hp (340 BTU/min) that is
dissipated in heat. The cooler is sized to keep an average sump temperature of 200°F. The required oil flow is
determined by using the assumption that only 90% of the heat generated is transferred to the oil (10 % is lost in
convection through the housing) and assuming a temperature rise of 40° F in the oil. The mass flow rate is
given by
• q
m=
c p ⋅ (Tin − Tout )
where q is the power dissipated, cp is the oil specific heat (0.455 BTU/lb° F), and Tin and Tout are the oil inlet and
outlet temperatures respectively. From the previous equation the oil flow rate required is 2.2 gpm (8.36 L/min).
Usually the sump contains around 0.4 times the flow in gallons per minute [Amc74], this would normally be
adjusted during the no load lubrication survey which is the first test to be run on a new transmission. The total
oil volume in the transmission lubrication system is set to be 1.5 gallons (5.7 L). Both the filter and the cooler
are mounted on the transmission.

The optimized TerpRanger Transmission features standard electric chip detectors, two of which are located near
the oil sump, and a third one is located near the mast bearing. When a sufficient number of particles accumulate
to complete the electrical circuit of the chip detector, a warning light will turn on the caution panel. An
additional magnetic particulate trap (MPT) is installed to detect and consume small metallic particles with a high

48
 406-UM TerpRanger
voltage spark. The transmission oil pump is a constant volume submersed type, that forces oil out of the sump
to a filter and on to an oil cooler on the aft side.

In past decades, the same lubricants have been used for helicopter engines and transmissions. These lubricants
provide satisfactory lubrication for turbines, but only marginal lubrication for transmissions. Corrosion and
premature surface wear in gears and bearings are the consequences of this practice. Using a more viscous oil
can significantly increase transmission life. The higher transmission ratings of the TerpRanger are consistent
with the developments in lubricants that the Naval Air Propulsion Center is researching [Lewi92]. These
lubricants are expected to have improved load-carrying capacity (about twice that of MIL-L-23699) and
improved corrosion inhibiting properties.

7.5.7 - Auxiliary Gearbox

The engine output shaft rotates at 21,000 rpm, which is reduced to 6035 rpm
by the use of an auxiliary gearbox integrated within the engine. The 1:3.48
reduction ratio is achieved in two stages using helical gears. As shown in
Figure 7.4, the main axis of the turbine is coaxial with the pinion of the first
stage, and the gear of the first stage is coaxial with the pinion of the second
stage. All the gears are aligned vertically with respect to the engine output
shaft, allowing the main rotor transmission input, the powerplant output, and
the tail rotor drive shaft to be aligned. Table 7.6 shows the main
characteristics of the intermediate gearbox.

7.5.8 - Tail Rotor Gear Box

Figure 7.4 - Auxiliary
The tail rotor drive shaft is driven by the engine output shaft and has a
Gearbox Configuration
rotational speed of 2175 rpm, hence a reduction ratio of 2.77:1 in the tail rotor
gearbox is required. The tail rotor gearbox has a maximum continuous rating of 80 shp and contains a spiral
bevel gear assembly that changes the direction of drive by 90°. It has its own self-contained lubrication system
and has a magnetic chip detector. Table 7.7 shows the design parameters of the tail rotor gearbox. There is a
weight reduction of 23% when current technology is used to size the gearbox. An oil level sight gauge is
included in the gearbox housing that uses a self-contained lubrication system.

49
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 7.6 – Auxiliary Gearbox Design Features

Auxiliary Gearbox Second

First Stage
Parameter Stage
Number of Teeth 69/25 34/27
Reduction Ratio 2.76 1.26
Diametral Pitch 8 8
Pressure Angle (deg) 25 25
Helix Angle (deg) 30 30
Face Width (in) 0.65 1.96
Pinion Speed (rpm) 21,000 7608
Gear Diameter (in) 8.97 3.93
Pinion Diameter (in) 3.25 3.125
Compressive Stress (ksi) 124 134
Bending Stress (ksi) 22.2 18.9
Weight (lb) 17 29

Table 7.7 – Tail Rotor Gearbox Design Features

1970’s 2002
Tail Gearbox Parameter
Technology Technology
K Factor, Index of Tooth
850 1190
Loading
Number of Teeth 50/18 50/18
Reduction Ratio 2.77 2.77
Diametral Pitch 7.96 8.9
Pressure Angle (deg) 20 25
Helix Angle (deg) 25 28
Face Width (in) 0.75 0.67
Pinion Speed (rpm) 6035 6035
Gear Diameter(in) 8.53 6.37
Pinion Diameter (in) 3.38 5.23
Compressive Stress (ksi) 151 179
Bending Stress (ksi) 16.7 22.8
Weight (lb) 16.5 12.6

50
 System Output - Rotor Mast
396 rpm

Planetary System:
Ring Gear: 75 teeth
Sun Gear: 21 teeth
4 Planets: 27 teeth
Input rpm: 1810
Output rpm: 396
Reduction Ratio: 4.57:1

Main Gearbox Configuration Transmission Housing

Bevel Gear: 50 teeth Auxiliary Gearbox

System Input
Bevel Pinion:
Powerplant Exhaust
15 teeth, 6035 rpm
Accessory Drive: Reduction Ratio: 3.33:1
35 teeth
Reduction Ratio: 1.42:1 Main Gearbox

Main Gearbox Components

Foldout 7.1 - Transmission Details

Transmission and Powerplant Installation
51
 406-UM TerpRanger
Section 8 - Airframe Design and Cabin Layout
This section describes the changes that are made to the airframe and cabin of the helicopter as part of the
TerpRanger upgrade program. There are two principal changes made, apart from those associated with the
installation of the new engine, transmission and rotors, the auxiliary fuel tank in the luggage compartment and
the new instruments and console displays for the avionics suites. These are the strengthening of the primary
load-bearing structures of the airframe, to compensate for the increase in the helicopter’s maximum GTOW, and
the installation of an airbag system in the forward seats. The option of replacing the metal doors, body panels,
vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer of the JetRanger with parts made out of composite materials was
considered. The option was not included in the upgrade for the following reasons:
• These parts already have near-infinite service lives;
• Manufacturing and installing replacements for them would increase the cost of the upgrade;
• The TerpRanger is able to fulfill – and exceed – the requirements of the RFP without requiring
the reduction in weight that these replacements would provide.

8.1 - Structural Strengthening

Replacing the primary load-bearing structures of the airframe, such as the principal bulkheads, would
substantially/significantly increase the re-manufacturing cost of the TerpRanger program. The airframe of the
JetRanger was designed assuming a 3000-pound structural design weight. The same airframe has been used for
the JetRangers II and III, and for the U.S. Army’s OH-58A/C Kiowa helicopters, which have gross weights on
the order of 3300 pounds [Harr79]. Static tests performed by Bell Helicopter Textron have indicated that with
minor strengthening, it could also be used for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior [Jaco80]. The Kiowa Warrior has a
design gross weight of 4300 lbs, 34% greater than that of the JetRanger. On the other hand, the TerpRanger has
a maximum GTOW of 3524 lb, which is only 10% greater. Therefore, it was decided that, apart from overhaul
requirements depending on the conditions of the individual aircraft, only minor structural strengthening would
be required for the TerpRanger upgrade. The airframe members needing strengthening are the primary cabin
bulkheads, the transmission deck and the engine deck. These structures are constructed of aluminum alloy
frames, webs and forgings. The additional strength and stiffening required is achieved by riveting aluminum
doublers onto these members in the most critical regions.

8.2 - Airbag System

A U.S. Army study conducted between 1979 and 1985 [Shan89] found that 15% of all fatalities in helicopter
accidents are caused by preventable head strikes and neck injuries. Non-lethal head trauma can be equally
dangerous for crashes into water, causing unconscious or disoriented occupants to drown. Therefore, in order to
enhance the safety of its occupants, the TerpRanger is equipped with an airbag system for the forward two seats.

52
 406-UM TerpRanger
Similar to automobile airbags, this protects the pilot from head and upper torso injuries in the even of a crash.
The system has both forward and side airbags because helicopters typically roll over after a crash.

The system is based on the Cockpit Air Bag System (CABS) that has been developed by Simula Safety Systems
for retrofit into the U.S. Army’s OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters [Simu02]. The system consists of an
Electronic Crash Sensor Unit (ECSU) which activates the airbags and eight airbag modules: two forward airbags
mounted on the instrument console glareshield, two airbags mounted on the sides of the vertical control tunnel,
and 2 lateral airbags, one on each of the front doors. The ECSU is riveted to a small aluminum tray in the
forward passenger’s seat well. It is a solid-state, microprocessor controlled, fully programmable sensor with
multiple accelerometers for each axis. It can discriminate a true crash from other non-emergency events, such
as a hard landing, by comparing acceleration data with an internal database of pre-set parameters. It can also
record 60 seconds of acceleration data for post-crash analysis. The ECSU uses a standard RS-232 serial port for
programming, diagnostics and data recovery, and has a Microsoft Windows 95/98 ™ operator interface.

Unlike automobile airbags, which deflate

almost immediately, the TerpRanger’s airbags
stay inflated for 3 seconds to provide
protection throughout an extended crash
sequence. After deployment, the airbags can
be folder and stowed out of the way. The
cockpit airbags do not interfere with the
controls, either when stowed or during and
following a deployment. The airbags do not
injure the occupants during deployment, and
present no obstacle to aircraft egress on land
Figure 8.1 - Cockpit Air Bag System for the OH-58D Kiowa
or in water. The Simula CABS system was Warrior
tested for accidental deployment in AH-64 Apache flight simulators and in actual in-flight tests for the Kiowa
Warrior, even though the chance of such an event is predicted to be once in 20+ million flight hours. In none of
the tests did the pilots lose control, even under the most demanding conditions such as nap-of-the-earth flying
and transition from forward flight to hover.

The Simula OH-58D CABS system, which consists of 4 airbag modules and an ECSU, weighs 27 lb, has a
predicted maintenance requirement of 0.0004 MMH/FH, and costs approximately $30,000 (installed). The
reason for the high cost is that this system has been developed in compliance with military standards of

53
 406-UM TerpRanger
operational reliability and performance. A system developed for a civilian application, as for the TerpRanger,
would cost an order of magnitude less. According to Simula, the technology is easily transferred to civil
aircraft, with the main obstacle being the costs of test and certification of such a system. The cost of an airbag
system would initially be high, but will decrease as acceptance and demand for such a system increases. This
can be seen in the case of automobile airbag systems – manufacturers were initially hesitant to incorporate
airbags in the 1980’s because of the cost, but now they all do so, and save about 4000 lives every year. An
airbag system designed specifically for helicopters is projected to reduce fatalities in accidents involving light
helicopters like the TerpRanger by 30% [Shan94].

Section 9 - Vibration and Noise Suppression

A key concern for any helicopter is the issue of vibration reduction. High vibratory loads shorten the fatigue life
of critical components and as a consequence, induce higher maintenance costs, and result in a poor ride quality.
The proposed TerpRanger upgrade program for the Bell 206 increases cruise speed from 115 to 145 knots. This
large increase in forward flight speed requires that the issue of vibration suppression be addressed, as existing
vibration reduction methods on the model 206B-3 may not be adequate for such high speeds. The proposed
upgrade program presents an innovative and multifaceted vibration suppression package that provides the
customer with flexible options. The package is highly customizable, and offers a combination of active and
passive systems that provide a cost effective solution for a wide range of operating conditions.

9.1 - Sources of Vibration

The primary source of vibration for any helicopter is the main rotor, which is exposed to an unsteady
aerodynamic environment, especially in a high-speed flight condition. During forward flight, nonuniform
airflow through the rotor causes periodically varying air loads on the rotor blades, that in turn lead to periodic
excitation forces and moments on the rotor hub. These loads are transmitted through the hub to the fuselage
and hence, to the crew and passenger seats [Brau80], [Roge01]. The dominant helicopter excitation frequency is
the N Ω harmonic, where N is the number of rotor blades and Ω is the rotational speed of the rotor. For an
identically tracked rotor, only harmonics at integer multiples of this frequency are transmitted through the hub.
The main rotor of the upgraded 206B-3 increases the number of blades from two to four. Therefore, the
dominant frequencies of vibration are 4/rev and multiples thereof.

The main rotor transmission is also responsible for vibration generation, although these are of high frequencies,
which result in large internal noise levels that can be uncomfortable to the passengers and crew. Attenuation of
these vibrations will improve the ride quality of the vehicle. The frequencies responsible for these noise levels
are the fundamental meshing frequencies of the spiral bevel, and planetary gears. According to the analysis

54
 406-UM TerpRanger
method by Lewicki, [Lewi87], the fundamental frequency for the spiral bevel of the gear TerpRanger 406 is 492
Hz. The planetary gear fundamental frequency is 1500 Hz. Typically, the fundamental frequencies and the first
few harmonics are responsible for most of the transmission induced noise.

9.2 - Vibration Suppression Strategie s

Vibration suppression is usually achieved through passive methods that dynamically isolate the rotor and
transmission system from the fuselage of the vehicle. Combinations of structural optimization, vibration
absorbers, elastomeric dampers, and nodal beams have all been employed to attenuate the vibrations generated
by the main rotor. Although passive methods are useful in isolating the forcing frequency, they are associated
with large weight penalties, and have reduced effectiveness when the vehicle is operated away from the tuned
flight condition [Roge01]. The proposed vibration suppression strategies offer a combination of active and
passive methods for comprehensive vibration reduction. The level of vibration suppression is dependent on the
customer’s budgetary constraints. The following table summarizes the different options, their capabilities,
weight penalty and cost.

Table 9.1 - TerpRanger 406 Main Rotor Vibration Suppression Options Summary

Capabilities Weight (lb) Cost ($)

Option 1
LIVE Pylon Isolation System Up to 64% isolation of 4/rev frequency 33 13.9 K
Option 2
Antiresonnance Force
Up to 70% isolation of 4/rev frequency 59 23.4 K
Generators
Option 3
Active Vibration Reduction Active system , More than 50% reduction
68 64.3 K
System (AVRS) of multiple frequencies

9.3 - Previous Vibration Suppression Methods

Existing models of the 206 JetRanger achieve vibration suppression through passive means. Vibration
suppression is typically achieved by introducing elastomeric isolators between the transmission and fuselage.
This method of vibration reduction may not be adequate for the TerpRanger 406 upgrade, due to the broad
expansion in flight performance.

9.4 - Main Rotor Vibration Suppression

The following three sections describe possible systems designed to suppress the forcing frequency of the main
rotor. The first option is intended to be the most basic and cost effective solution. The second and third options
provide higher performance, but are more expensive to implement because they are technologically more
advanced.

55
 406-UM TerpRanger

9.4.1 - LIVE Isolator

The Liquid Inertia Vibration Eliminator (LIVE) force isolator system has enjoyed wide acceptance as an
effective passive suppression system. Dynamically, the isolator is equivalent to the nodal beam used on the
206L [Hawl80]. The LIVE isolator is composed of outer and inner cylinders joined by a coaxial rubber bushing
that also functions as a spring. The inner cylinder is attached to the transmission, while the outer cylinder is
connected to the fuselage. Cavities connected by a tuning port within the cylinders serve as reservoirs for
hydraulic fluid. The hydraulic fluid is heavy, like mercury, and acts as the tuning mass of the isolator. By
varying the diameter of the tuning port, the device may be calibrated to isolate the desired frequency. The
advantages of the LIVE isolator include: a reduced mechanical complexity, bearingless, linear response at high
g’s, and a low weight compared to other passive systems. With the advent of new fluids by firms such as the
Lord Corporation, LIVE isolators continue to improve in terms of performance and weight. These state-of-the-
art isolators weigh approximately 19 lbs each, and when used in conjunction with a pylon system similar to that
used on the Bell 427, a minimum of 64% of the vertical 4/rev vibratory forces are isolated. [Smit99] This
system also provides vertical pitch and roll vibration attenuation. The success with this system on the Model
427, requires that it should be considered for use on TerpRanger 406. The transmission mounting for the
upgraded, model 206B-3 is standard and, therefore, easily adapted to incorporate the LIVE isolator system.

9.4.2 - Antiresonance Force Isolators

In this option, a hydraulic antiresonance force isolator replaces the LIVE system mentioned above. This type of
force isolator operates on the same principle as a LIVE isolator in that it contains a passive hydraulic force
generator. For a certain excitation frequency (the antiresonance frequency) the dynamic component of the
spring force and the dynamic force produced in the passive force generator, are opposite and equal at the node
between the isolator and fuselage. The relative motion between the fuselage and rotor transmission generates
the hydraulic force. As a consequence, the net vibratory force (N/rev) acting on the fuselage is minimized,
thereby minimizing the vibratory response of the airframe. The difference between this design and the LIVE
actuator is the performance. While LIVE actuators are capable of isolating 64% of the vibratory vertical forces,
the isolation efficiency of the antiresonance force isolators is 70% because of the low self-damping of the design
[Brau80]. The system is mechanically simple, has a well-defined separation of the load paths and a universal
applicability that makes this design readily and easily integrated into the Model 206B upgrade.

9.4.3 - Active Vibration Reduction System (AVRS)

This option utilizes an active system currently being developed for the Sikorsky S-92 and the Boeing V-22. The
system will be used in conjunction with the transmission mounted, elastomeric dampers already installed on the

56
 406-UM TerpRanger
original Model 206B-3. Active control systems are of interest because they offer more operational flexibility,
and are able to perform over a wide range of operational conditions, unlike passive systems that are tuned to
only one condition. The Active Vibration Reduction System (AVRS) utilizes a series of distributed actuators
and sensors that are mounted at various locations throughout the fuselage to counteract the vibratory loads
transmitted from the main rotor. A key characteristic of the AVRS system is that it adaptively suppresses
vibrations at all frequencies. An AVRS actuator is comprised of two single point MOOGTM actuators, each
consisting of a pair of imbalanced, counter-rotating eccentric masses. For the S-92, the dynamic force output
provided by the actuators is 500 lb. The force is determined by measuring the reaction forces of the passive
vibration reduction methods. For the TerpRanger 406 upgrade, the actuators are scaled down proportional to the
product of gross weight and the square of the cruise speed, to provide a 61 lb dynamic force output. Vibration
reduction is achieved by controlling the phasing between actuator pairs. By determining the optimum location
for these actuators, significant reductions in vibration can be obtained. Currently, the system designed for the S-
92 has seen a reduction of over 50% in the levels of vibration, and the optimum actuator location has yet to be
determined. The weight penalty for the AVRS system is 20% less than a passive system installed to perform the
same function. Figure 9.1 displays the components of the AVRS system [Bern02].

Figure 9.1 - AVRS Components

9.4.4 - AVRS Implementation

Although the principle of operation is relatively straight forward, there is much work that must be performed to
practically implement the system. Determining the optimum actuator locations requires detailed analysis and
modeling of the vehicle structure. Initially, the natural modes must be determined by NASTRAN or a similar
finite element analysis. Once completed, the model must be validated by ground shake tests and the structural
transfer matrix must be identified. The ground shake tests narrow the field to a few candidate actuator locations.
Finally, once several possible actuator locations are determined, flight tests must be scheduled to validate the
modeling and confirm the optimum actuator locations. These tasks are involved, and require significant
resources in order to accomplish them. For a new vehicle, such as the S-92, the development costs for the

57
 406-UM TerpRanger
AVRS are high, in part, because of limited information on vehicle performance. The development costs for an
AVRS system to be utilized on the TerpRanger upgrade should be considerably lower because of the long
service life of the vehicle. Over the years, much work has been accomplished in modeling the fuselage structure
and to predict its forced response [Ship72]. Also, many ground shake and flight tests have been performed on
the vehicle over its service life. The existence of this information should help reduce the development costs of
an AVRS system [Bern02]. Based on the NASTRAN model of the AH-1G helicopter, we require two actuators
and four sensors placed on the floor of the cabin near the pilot and passenger seats. Incorporation of AVRS will
help to achieve a “jet smooth ride” in the TerpRanger.

9.5 - Active Tracking Tabs

Helicopters often encounter vibratory loads that arise from rotor dissimilarities. These dissimilarities cause a
tremendous increase in the 1/rev vibration level and hence larger vibratory loads are encountered. These forces
have a negative effect on the fatigue life of the dynamic components, and cause undue discomfort on passengers
and crew. To alleviate these dissimilarities, blades are periodically tracked by manipulating trailing edge tabs,
adjusting pitch-link lengths, or by adding masses near the blade root. These operations are performed manually
in an iterative procedure, and are an integral part of ground maintenance. This process is both costly and time
consuming, resulting in increased operating costs and downtime. An active, in-flight tracking system would
allow a rotor system to be tracked in a matter of minutes instead of hours or days, resulting in a long term
benefit of reduced operating costs, relaxed blade manufacturing tolerances, and increased fatigue life of
structural components and instruments [Epps00], [Sing02]. The system thus, adds precision and speed to the
tracking process.

9.5.1 - SMA Actuated Tracking Tab

Shape memory alloy (SMA) actuated flap devices have shown impressive results in several different
applications [Redi99], [Garn99], [Epps00]. Shape memory wire actuated tracking tabs in helicopters are an
innovative solution for in-flight tracking.

Shape memory alloys have the ability to recover large strains when activated by heat. This process is reversible
and strains as large as 8% can be recovered in this fashion. The actuator consists of two sets of pre-strained
Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) shape memory wires attached respectively to the top and bottom surface of the tracking
tab. When the upper wires are resistively heated, they contract and rotate the tab upward, and simultaneously
develop strain in the lower wires. Likewise, when the lower wires are heated, the tab is deflected downward and
a strain is developed in the upper wires. Figure 9.2 depicts a schematic of the tracking tab.

58
 406-UM TerpRanger

SMA Wires Linkage Tracking Tab

Hinge and
SMA Wire Fixtures
Friction Lock

Figure 9.2 - Schematic of Active Tracking Tab

One of the advantages of the plain flap design is its compactness, which allows the tab to be integrated within
the trailing edge of the airfoil. The actuator is small enough to fit inside the blade spar. Recently, this actuator
design has shown promising results [Epps00], [Singh02]. Care must be taken, however to ensure that the wires
are thermally insulated so that the SMA does not activate as a result of ambient conditions. A detailed
illustration of the tracking tab appears in the Foldout 5.1. Once the desired position of the tabs is achieved, the
tab needs to be locked in place to switch off activation.

9.5.3 - Locking Mechanism

A passive, friction-based, locking mechanism was shown to hold successfully, the tracking tab in place under
different load conditions [Sing02]. The lock is set to always exert a kown frictional hinge moment (adjusted
manually) up to the maximum aerodynamic moment on the tab. The mechanism is simple and requires no
additional power to operate. Recent tests have demonstrated the effectiveness of this lock [Sing02].

9.5.4 - Control Strategy

A simple proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller controls the deflections of the tracking tab. When
selected, it has been shown that the gains for the controller are less sensitive to flight conditions [Sinh02]. The
entire system draws power from the same DC supply as the de-icing system, and is transferred to the tab through
the main electrical slip ring.

9.5.5 - Tracking Tab Characteristics

The 7.8-inch spanwise tracking tab is centered at 75%R, and extends 25% over the blade chord. An empirically
modified, blade element momentum theory model of the rotor was used to calculate the hinge moment required
by the tab. The hinge moment is a function of blade and tab geometry, location along the blade span, and
deflection. As illustrated in Figure 9.2, the hinge offset is 0.33 inches. For a maximum flap deflection of 5

59
 406-UM TerpRanger
degrees, the aerodynamic hinge moment on the tab was determined to be 7.1 in-lb. To overcome the passive
locking mechanism, the actuator moment is set to generate two times the maximum aerodynamic moment on the
tab. Consequently, the actuator force provided by the SMA wires to deflect the tab 5 degrees was found to be
42.3 lb. This will be achieved by two NiTi wires of 0.01 inch diameter, on the respective top and bottom
surfaces, with a prestrain of 2.5%

9.6 - Noise Reduction

While vibration suppression is critical for the operation of the vehicle, in ternal and external noise reduction must
also be addressed. The main sources of noise levels are the main rotor, the tail rotor, and the main rotor gearbox
and engine. Main and tail rotor noise on the TerpRanger has been reduced as a result of a lower tip speed
[Lows92]. The transmission noise is also reduced. Tonal noise components of the meshing of the teeth in the
gearbox are typically 10 to 20 dB above the broadband noise spectrum. [Gemb99] This level of internal noise
degrades the quality of the ride, and excessive external noise may prevent the vehicle from being operated in
urban areas because of noise pollution regulations. Isolation of the frequencies responsible for noise is clearly
necessary to suppress them. One innovative method that has been successfully tested on the EC135 and the
BK117 to suppress internal noise involves active struts that dynamically isolate the transmission from the
fuselage. This active system consists of Lead Zirconium Titanate (PZT) layers bonded directly onto the strut.
Each strut has 9 PZT segments bonded to the surface that are divided both axially and circumferentially.
Independent actuation of the PZT layers has been shown to reduce noise levels by as much as 13 dB for a
weight penalty of only 22 lbs. Figure 9.4 shows a schematic of the active struts and their location on the
transmission support structure.

Gearbox Strut

PZT Layer Segments

Figure 9.3 - Active Strut Concept [Gemb99]

The advantages of this system are: simplicity of design, applicability to existing struts, low weight penalty, and
low maintenance. This system is relatively simple to implement onto existing helicopters because the PZT
patches are bonded directly to an existing strut.

60
 406-UM TerpRanger
9.7 - Pricing
Prices were determined for each vibration suppression system from the cost formulas listed in the RFP. After
the weight of each system was determined, the price was determined by assigning the system to an appropriate
RFP pricing formula. Although we realize the costs of these systems are not dependent on weight alone, this
analysis is useful for providing a first order estimate of the costs. The table below lists the components and the
associated pricing equation.
Table 9.2 - Pricing Summary
RFP Price
System Weight (lb) Cost ($)
Analogy
Option 1
LIVE Pylon Isolation System 33 Drive System 13800
Option 2
Hydraulic Force Generators 59 Drive Dystem 23400
Option 3
AVRS & Elastomeric Dampers 68 Airframe Struct. 64350
Standard
Active Tracking Tabs 9 Main Rotor 12700
Smart struts 22 Drive System 960

9.8 - TerpRanger 406 Standard Vibration Suppression Package

The standard vibration suppression package for the TerpRanger 406 is as follows: The LIVE isolators are
implemented to reduce main rotor vibrations, while active tracking tabs are incorporated into each blade. The
active strut concept is implemented to reduce gearbox vibration. All combinations of vibration suppression and
avionics upgrade options along with their influence on the acquisition price of the vehicle are presented in
Section 16.1.2.

9.9 - Alternate Vibration Suppression Strategy

Other vibration control methods were studied, but deemed infeasible for implementation on a helicopter
upgrade. These methods represent hi-tech solutions and are still in early stages of development. These systems
could be integrated into existing helicopters once the technology matures.

Trailing Edge Flaps (TEF). The TEF concept offers an attractive solution to vibration suppression and has been
shown to work on a scaled rotor model. [Kora00]. By placing independently controlled flaps at various stations
along the blade length, main rotor excitation frequencies may be attenuated at the source, thereby eliminating
the need for heavy, passive vibration absorbers. Implementing TEF concepts for vibration reduction may be
feasible because only small flap deflections of approximately 2 degrees, are required. A TEF system is capable
of attenuating up to 85% of all vibratory hub loads [Shen02], [Roge01]. Typically, a wide range of smart

61
 406-UM TerpRanger
materials including PZT sheets, piezostacks, and magnetic shape memory alloys may actuate these flaps. Most
of these materials provide limited success, especially in a full-scale system, due in part to their low energy
densities. Usually, a displacement amplification mechanism to provide the necessary flap deflections is
required. Amplification devices are often mechanically complex and come with an undesirable weight penalty.
One material that may be capable of superceding these shortcomings is magnetic shape memory alloy (MSMA).
The most common of MSMA materials is NiMnGa. These new materials would be ideal for TEF actuator
concepts because of their large stoke and high frequency range [Ulla00], [OHan98], [Couc02]. However, the
MSM actuators are still relatively new and require significant resources to incorporate them onto existing rotors.
Characterization of MSMAs has yet to be completed, commercial MSMA actuators are not widely available,
and suitable control methods for TEFs still requires more development. The technology required to make TEFs
for vibration control a reality has not fully matured and, therefore, the concept is not feasible for an upgrade
program at this time. If a similar upgrade program were scheduled for implementation in the next five to ten
years, then the concept of TEFs would provide an innovative solution to vibration control.

Section 10 - Subsystems
Descriptions of the fuel, oil, hydraulics, electrical, avionics and other systems are presented in the following
section.

10.1 - The Fuel System [Bell99], [Bell95]

The fuel system arrangement of the TerpRanger has been retained from the JetRanger design. Also, to minimize
the upgrade cost, it was instructive to as much as possible, use the same fuel storage system as the JetRanger. In
addition, after obtaining the performance analysis, it was found that to reach the new range, the fuel tank must
have a capacity of 101 gallons (380 liters) to carry out that mission (400 nautical miles).

The JetRanger fuel system consists of a single, bladder-type, fuel cell located in the aft passenger seat bench
with a fuel capacity of 91 gallons (344 liters). The fuel capacity is 10 gallons (37.6 liters) lower than the
required quantity. To compensate for this fuel shortfall, an auxiliary fuel tank is added to increase the fuel tank
volume. This type of auxiliary fuel tank has already been implemented on, and certified for the Bell 407. The
auxiliary fuel tank can be placed in the baggage compartment. It consists of two kits, the provisions, and the
tank. When the kit is installed, the total fuel capacity of the TerpRanger increases to the required 101 gallons
(380 liters). There is then no requirement for additional fuel management by the pilot. Filling of the tank is
through regular fuel fill port, and likewise the fuel automatically flows to the aircraft fuel system. The fuel
quantity indicating system is then modified to correctly show the new fuel quantity.

62
 406-UM TerpRanger
The auxiliary fuel tank used in the Bell 407 has a capacity of 20 gallons (75.28 liters), However, in this mission,
only 10 more gallons are needed. Therefore, to save space in the baggage compartment, the auxiliary fuel tank
used in the TerpRanger is smaller, and has a capacity of only 10 gallons.

The fuel and booster pumps are the same as those on the baseline JetRanger. The fuel pump is engine-driven and
a fuel filter is mounted on the engine. There are two electric submerged boost pumps in the fuel cell, connected
in parallel to the engine fuel supply line. The pumps can be removed for repair or replacement from the bottom
of the fuselage. If the boost pumps are malfunctioning, a fuel pump caution light will alert the pilot. The fuel
system also contains two fuel- level transmitters connected to an indicator on the instrument panel as well as an
airframe-mounted fuel filter with a replaceable element.

On the right side of the helicopter, just aft the passenger door there is a single filter cap and a grounding plug.
Just below the filter cap, an electric fuel-sump drain valve is placed. The valve is operated by a push-button. A
shut-off valve controlled from the instrument panel controls the fuel. Finally, the system has a transducer to
activate the fuel pressure gauge.

The honeycomb box structure which forms the passenger seat bench provides the fuel cell with a rugged,
damage resistant cavity. The smooth fiberglass inner surface further reduces risk of cell rupture, thus sharply
reducing the fire hazard. The cell is reinforced to withstand a 50-foot drop test.

10.2 - The Engine Oil System [Bell99], [Bell95]

The Engine oil system remains largely unchanged from the baseline JetRanger. It is a circulating dry sump type
with an external reservoir and oil cooler. Pressure and scavenge pumps are mounted within the engine and are
driven by the accessory gearbox. All engine oil system lines and connections are internal with the exception of
the pressure and scavenge lines to the front and rear bearings. A blower driven by the tail rotor drive shaft
provides cooling air to the oil cooler. An oil temperature bulb installed in the supply tank is connected to an
indicator on the instrument panel. A magnetic chip detector activates a light on the caution panel when metal
particles are detected in the system.

10.3 - Hydraulic System [Bell99], [Bell95]

Bell 206B-3 is equipped with a single hydraulic system that powers three single stage servo actuators assisting
the main rotor cyclic, collective and yaw flight control. Normal hydraulic pressure at 100- percent Nr is 600±25
psi. Basic configuration of the hydraulic system will not change in the TerpRanger. However, the TerpRanger
will replace the system with the system found on the Bell 206 L to compensate for the increase of the gross

63
 406-UM TerpRanger
weight and new rotor system. The normal hydraulic pressure of this system is 1000±25 psi and the fluid
reservoir has a capacity of 40 in 3 .

10.4 - Electrical System [Bell99], [Bell95]

The Bell 206B-3 is equipped with 28-Volt, DC system containing a battery, a starter-generator, a voltage
regulator, relays, circuit breakers, and a reverse current relay. Power is obtained from a nickel-cadmium (or
sealed lead acid), vented, 24-volt, 17-ampere/hour battery, and a combination main starter/generator rated at 30
volts, 150 Ampere (derated to 105 Amperes). Power is distributed through a single bus system. The various
switches and circuit breakers are mounted on the overhead panel. External power may be applied through a
receptacle located on the forward section of the fuselage. The reverse current relay prevents the generator from
being connected to the line until reaching operating voltage. The DC common bus powers flight and main
generator. In the event of a main generator failure, the battery will power the bus. The current system is
adequate for all avionics options offered (with the highest requirement at ~690 Watts) and is retained for the
TerpRanger upgrade [Bell02].

10.5 - Flight Control System

The TerpRanger will retain all of the lower flight control system of the baseline Model 206B including all the
components from the control stick and pedals up to the non-rotating swashplate. The components of the upper
control system, including the rotating swashplate, pitch links, and pitch horns, are modified for the 4-bladed
main rotor.

10.6 - Cockpit and Avionics Upgrade Options

A choice of multiple avionics packages are provided for the TerpRanger upgrade to meet a wide variety of
customer requirements. Emphasis is placed on equipment modernization and operational safety.

The options are grouped as follows and arranged in the order of increasing capabilities, cost, and weight:
1. Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) control and displays in addition to existing avionics
and instruments (Baseline Upgrade).
2. Modern digital avionics and improved flight instrument displays including an advanced GPS system
with a single MFD (Multifunction Display) panel for future growth.
3. Option 2 plus Meggitt MAGIC MFDs with EGPWS passive CFIT and SkyWatch mid-air collision
avoidance systems.
4. Option 2 plus Meggitt MAGIC MFDs All-weather capable active OASys collision avoidance system.

64
 406-UM TerpRanger
10.6.1 - Option 1: FADEC Control and Display Only
In Option 1, the TerpRanger is equipped with a FADEC Engine display in addition to the existing avionics
systems. This display requires a minimum of 2 warning lights, 3 cautionary lights, 2 test switches, and FADEC
mode switch. This option is included in the baseline TerpRanger upgrade. Figure 10.1 illustrates the FADEC
instrument panel display.

10.6.2 - Option 2: Modern digital avionics and flight instrument displays including an advanced GPS
system
Option 2 is designed with a goal of providing avionics and cockpit displays for safe navigation. This option
utilizes the Bendix/King Silver Crown Plus™ panel mounted digital avionics—KMH 24H Audio Control, KX
155A Comm/NAV, KT 76C Panel Mounted Transponder, and KR 87 Digital ADF [Bend02]. Additionally the
system is complemented with a KMD 150 Color MFD/GPS that provides a moving navigational map. Other
user defined functions can be added to the MFD through a serial port. FADEC displays are incorporated on the
cockpit panel.

The cockpit panel is replaced with the panel currently in production at Bell Canada for the JetRanger. Figure
10.2 displays the panel configuration of Option 2. Included is a new set of caution (shown in yellow) and
warning (shown in red) displays.

10.6.3 - Option 3: Modernized Avionics including Meggitt MAGIC MFDs and Passive Collision
Avoidance Systems
Option 3 offers increased operational safety by including a combination of passive collision avoidance systems
namely, the BF Goodrich SkyWatch [Bfga02] and Honeywell EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning
System) [Egpw02]. The SkyWatch provides protection from mid-air collisions especially near congested
metropolitan areas. During normal operations, EGPWS protects the aircraft and crew from CFIT (Control
Flight Into Terrain) and collisions with vertical objects. Basic avionics and cockpit panel displays remain
unchanged from Option 2. However, engine instruments are replaced with clear and bright Meggit MAGIC
multifunction displays which are also used as navagation and warning displays [Megg02]. A Data Acquisition
Unit is included to digitize analog engine information.

10.6.4 - Option 4: Modernized Avionics including Meggitt MAGIC MFDs and Active Collision
Avoidance Systems
Option 4 offers maximum collision protection of all the avionics packages. Passive collision avoidance systems
are useful only if other aircraft are equipped with functioning transponders. An active system is required that can

65
 406-UM TerpRanger
detect objects and terrains in all weather conditions. The 35 GHz radar technology based Amphitech OASys
Radar System [Amph02] offers these capabilities and is included into this option. As in Option 3, the
information and warnings gathered by the radar is displayed to the flight crew on Meggit MAGIC MFDs. For
GPS solution, Bendix/King KLN 94 Color IFR GPS Receiver is also integrated to the system.

10.6.5 - Summary
Each of the four avionics packages is designed both to improve flight safety and to satisfy varying customer
expectations while remaining affordable. Table 10.1 displays the cost, weight, drag penalty, and power
requirements for each option. Antenna locations for each option are displayed in Figure 10.7.
Table 10.1 – Technical Summary of Avionics Upgrades

Wegiht Drag Area Power Cost

2
(lb)* (ft ) (watt) ($)
Option 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Option 2 33.1 0.16 287 23606
Option 3 35.8 0.16 433 77365
Option 4 83.3 0.39 690 198364

* Uninstalled

Figure 10.1 - Avionics Upgrade Option 1: Figure 10.2 - Avionics Upgrade Option 2
FADEC control/display

66
 406-UM TerpRanger

Figure 10.3 - Avionics Upgrade Figure 10.4 – Avionics Upgrade

Option 3 Option 4

Figure 10.5 - Antenna locations for Option 2 (Top, Left), Option 3 (Top, Right), and Option 4 (Bottom)

67
 406-UM TerpRanger
10.7 - Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS)
Reliability and maintainability of the rotor, engine and transmission are greatly enhanced by the installed HUMS
(Health and Usage Monitoring System). With advances in HUMS technology, the installation time and cost-
benefit ratios have improved, leading to a 50% reduction in the payback period required to recover the cost of
the system [Weit00]. The system consists of a fully integrated, cockpit mounted data acquisition unit and pilot
display, which acquires data from accelerometers and tachometers installed on critical engine and transmission
components. On-board data processing and analysis is carried out by the processor, which is integrated into the
display and data acquisition unit. Data processing is organized into different analyses carried out sequentially
during specific time intervals. Each analysis involves the selection of signals from sensors that are critical
depending on the flight regime. Results of the analyses are stored on non-volatile memory and subsequently
transferred to ground support equipment for generating operations, maintenance and engineering reports. The
HUMS system provides health and usage status of the engine and drivetrain, vibration monitoring and load
exceedance monitoring. Additionally, aircraft vibration data is stored at predefined flight regimes to monitor the
performance of the active tracking tab.

The HUMS system provides significant savings in operating cost due to reduced scheduled and unscheduled
engine, rotor and gearbox removals. Reduced number of spares used for unscheduled maintenance and increased
time between overhaul further reduces the direct operating cost (DOC). Also, costly test flights to check rotor
track and balance can be avoided. Because of the additional safety improvements provided by the HUMS
system insurance costs are also reduced.

Section 11 - Stability and Control Analysis

While the development of a comprehensive dynamic model of the TerpRanger is beyond the scope of this
proposal, a simplified, linearized model based on the techniques presented by Padfield [Padf96] was developed
to perform the stability and control analysis. This model is represented by an aerodynamic matrix, the elements
of which are functions of the stability derivatives of the helicopter. Some of the stability derivatives were
calculated directly from the aircraft design characteristics, such as rotor diameter, flapping frequency, Lock
number and stabilizer size. However, the values of other derivatives can only be obtained from flight test data
and advanced stability analysis computations. Therefore, the values for these derivatives were obtained from
helicopters with similar design characteristics, such as the U.S. Army’s OH-58D (Bell Model 406) [Ham95], the
Westland Lynx and the MBB BO-105 [Padf96]. The stability characteristics of the longitudinal and lateral
modes were then obtained from the eigenvalues of this aerodynamic matrix.

68
 406-UM TerpRanger
11.1 – Stability and Control Derivatives
The stability and control derivatives are displayed in Table 11.1. The force and moment derivatives are
normalized with the design gross weight and the moments of inertia, respectively. In order to simplify the
stability analysis and determine the contribution of each design parameter, the estimated stability derivatives
were grouped into seven categories: longitudinal, lateral, lateral into longitudinal, longitudinal into lateral, main
rotor longitudinal control, main rotor lateral control, and tail rotor control.

The pitch damping, Mq , and the roll damping, Lp , are the most important derivatives in terms of the helicopter’s
handling qualities, because of their close association with short-term and moderate amplitude responses. The
larger the magnitude of Mq and Lp the more stable the helicopter. Changing from a teetering rotor in the Bell206
model to a hingeless rotor in the TerpRanger causes an increase in the stiffness number (ratio of hub stiffness to
aerodynamic moment), which results in an increase in the magnitude of these stability derivatives.

11.1.1 - Longitudinal Modes

Figure 11.1 shows the estimated longitudinal poles of the TerpRanger in hover and at a cruise speed of 140
knots. The Phugoid mode of the TerpRanger suggests that the helicopter is unstable in hover and cruise, which
is normal for most helicopters. The pitch damping and heave modes are stable in all flight regimes.

11.1.2 - Lateral Modes

Figure 11.2 shows the lateral modes of the TerpRanger. It can be seen that Dutch roll oscillation is neutral in
hover and stable in cruise. Dutch roll is highly dependent on the coupling of roll and yaw, where the dihedral
effect (Lv ) and yaw due-to roll rate (Np ) are the main contributors. Both of these derivatives are found to be
large and negative in cruise. A negative value of Np tends to destabilize the Dutch roll oscillation; however, the
strong dihedral derivative stabilizes this mode.

69
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 11.1 - Stability and Control Derivatives

Longitudinal Lateral
Derivative Unit Hover 140 knots Derivative Unit Hover 140 knots
Xu 1/s -0.01 -0.04 Yv 1/s -0.05 -0.2
Xw 1/s 0.01 0 Yp ft/s.rad -0.29 -29.5
Xq ft/s.rad 3.608 14.7 Yr ft/s.rad 0 -229.6
Zu 1/s 0 -0.025 Lv rad/s.ft -0.01 -0.10
Zw 1/s -0.03 -0.9 Lp 1/s -7.5 -7
Zq ft/s.rad 0 32.8 Lr 1/s 0.1 0.4
Mu Rad/s.ft 0.01 0.01 Nv rad/s.ft -0.008 0.015
Mw Rad/s.ft -0.005 0.012 Np 1/s -1.5 -2
Mq 1/s -3.75 -1.5 Nr 1/s -0.25 -1.5
Lateral Into Longitudinal Longitudinal Into Lateral
Derivative unit Hover 140 knots Derivative unit Hover 140 knots
Xv 1/s -0.02 0 Yu 1/s 0.02 0.005
Xp ft/s.rad 0 0 Yw 1/s 0 0
Xr ft/s.rad 0 0 Yq ft/s.rad 0 0.2624
Zv 1/s 0 -0.02 Lu rad/s.ft 0.106707 -0.01524
Zp ft/s.rad 0 -2.296 Lw rad/s.ft 0 0.030488
Zr ft/s.rad 0 0 Lq 1/s 0.5 0.5
Mv Rad/s.ft 0.027 0 Nu rad/s.ft 0 -0.01
Mp 1/s -0.1 -0.2 Nw rad/s.ft 0.003 0.006
Mr 1/s 0 0 Nq 1/s 0 0.25

Control Derivatives
Main Rotor Longitudinal Main Rotor Lateral
Derivative Unit Hover 140 knots Derivative Unit Hover 140 knots
2 2
Xθο ft/s rad 9.8 -16.4 Y θο ft/s rad -1.64 -6.56
Xθ1s ft/s 2 rad -31.1 -31.16 Y θ1s ft/s 2 rad -4.92 -11.48
Xθ1c ft/s 2 rad 3.6 4.6 Y θ?c ft/s 2 rad -32.8 -32.8
2 2
Zθο ft/s rad -295.2 -426.4 Lθο 1/s 9 0
Zθ1c ft/s 2 rad -1.64 0 Lθ1s 1/s 2 0 -10
Zθ1s ft/s 2 rad 0 -196.8 Lθ1c 1/s 2 25 25
2 2
Mθο 1/s 0 15 Nθο 1/s 17 10
Mθ1s 1/s 2 11 14 Nθ1s 1/s 2 -1.5 -0.5
Mθ1c 1/s 2 -3 -3.5 Nθ1c 1/s 2 -10 -10
Tail rotor
Derivative Unit Hover 140 knots
XθT ft/s 2 rad 0 0
Y θΤ ft/s 2 rad 13.12 16.4
ZθT ft/s 2 rad 0 0
LθT 1/s 2 5 7
2
MθΤ 1/s 0 0
NθT 1/s 2 -8 -11

70
 406-UM TerpRanger

0.4 4
Hover Hover
Cruise Cruise
0.3 3

Phugoid Dutch Roll

0.2 2
Imaginary Part of Root

Imaginary Part of Root

0.1 1
Heading

0 0

-0.1 -1 Yaw Damping

Pitch Damping Heave Roll Damping

-0.2 -2

-0.3 -3

-0.4 -4
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Real Part of Root Real Part of Root

Figure.11.1 - TerpRanger Figure.11.2 - TerpRanger Lateral

Longitudinal Poles Poles

11.2-Handling Qualities
The requirements for response to small-amplitude inputs are specified in ADS-33c in terms of bandwidth and
phase delay. The bandwidth is the frequency at which there is at least a 6-dB gain margin and a 45-degree phase
margin from the neutral-stability frequency for the aircraft angular response due to pilot control input. An
aircraft with high bandwidth would nearly mirror the input, and would be described as quick, crisp, or agile. A
low-bandwidth aircraft would be more sluggish, with a smoother response. According to the linear model used
in this analysis, the aircraft bandwidth for pitch and roll responses are the amplitudes of pitch and roll damping
(Mq , and Lp ) respectively. Higher values of pitch and roll damping, thanks to the TerpRanger’s hingeless rotor,
improve the handling qualities when compared to the baseline Model 206.

Section 12 - Weights and Balance

This section describes the methods used to estimate the component system weights and the empty weight of the
TerpRanger, and the location of its Center of Gravity (CG).

12.1 - Weight Estimation

The weights of the various components of the helicopter were calculated using the method developed by
Tishchenko [Tish02]. This method requires weight coefficients to be established for each component, by using
regression analysis techniques to develop a relationship between the component weights and the design
parameters that most influence these weights. For example, the weight of the main rotor blades is a function of
the rotor radius and its solidity; the weight of the gearbox is proportional to the torque that it transmits; and the

71
 406-UM TerpRanger
weight of the rotor hub is proportional to the maximum centrifugal force that it has to withstand. The weight of
the engine was calculated using the formulae specified in the RFP.

Table 12.1 - JetRanger Component Weight Breakdown

Component Categories Calculated Actual Weights Components Included

Weights (lb) (lb)

MR Blades 187.67 189.6 Blade Assembly

MR Hub 104.83 100.7 Hub & Hinge
TR Blades 4.79 4.80 Tail Rotor - Blades
TR Hub 6.06 6.70 Tail Rotor -Hub & Hinge
Transmission Shafts and 172.33 173.30 Gear Box, Lub Sys & Rot Brk;
Gearboxes Rotor Shafts, Transmission Drive
Engine Installation 188.61 181.10 Engine Installation & Starting System
Airframe Engine Preparation 14.10 16.30 Exhaust System, Engine Control & Air Induction
Fuel System 53.35 49.60 Tanks & Plumbing
Fuselage & Cowlings 415.53 413.50 Basic & Secondary Structure;
Engine Section or Nacelle Group;
Aircraft & Loading Handling Groups;
Armament Groups
Empennage 29.74 29.60 Stabilizer & Fin
Landing Gear 64.60 65 Main Gear & Tail Skid
Control Linkages & Swashplate 105.58 103.40 Cockpit & System Controls
Hydraulics 17.83 16.10 Hydraulic & Pneumatic Group
General Purpose Equipment 250.24 247.40 Instruments Group;
Electrical Group;
Anti-Icing Group;
Accommodations for Personnel; Furnishings &
Miscellaneous Equipment;
Air-Conditioning Group;
Ballast
Unusable fuel 12.58 11.1 Unusable Fuel & Undrainable Oil
Oil & Cooling System 28.17 26.70 Lubricating System
Empty Weight Growth 13.25 12.9 Manufacturing Variation
Total Empty Weight 1669.27 1647.80 Total Empty Weight

The MIL-STD-1374 weight statements for the Model 206B-3 JetRanger III (obtained from Bell Helicopter
Textron) and for the OH-58D AHIP Kiowa Warrior [Harr86] were used to validate the weight coefficients used
for the TerpRanger design. In some cases, the weight coefficients of the Tishchenko method were adjusted to
obtain correspondence between the predicted and actual weights. This procedure ensures that the calculated
weights of the TerpRanger accurately reflect the influence of the design and manufacturing practices at Bell
Helicopter on the component weights. Table 12.1 shows the component weight breakdown used, with the actual
and calculated category weights of the baseline JetRanger.

72
 406-UM TerpRanger
The MIL-STD weight breakdown for the TerpRanger was then estimated from the results of the Tishchenko
weight estimation method, using the percentage contributions of the different components to their respective
categories. A summary of the component weights is given below in Table 12.2. The detailed MIL-STD-1374
weight statement for the TerpRanger is attached at the end of this report.

Table 12.2 - TerpRanger Component Weight Breakdown (lb)

Tishchenko Categories TerpRanger JetRanger

Mass of MR Blades 152.77 189.6
Mass of MR Hub 63.91 100.7
TR Blades 8.74 4.80
TR Hub 12.29 6.70
Gearboxes and Driveshafts 239.65 173.30
Engine Installation 151.54 181.10
Engine Preparation 11.33 16.30
Fuel System 62.75 49.60
Fuselage 462.28 413.50
Empennage 26.11 29.60
Under carriage 71.28 65
Control linkages and Swashplate 99.24 103.40
Hydraulic System 12.71 16.10
General Purpose Equipment 250.24 247.40
Unusable fuel 14.80 11.1
Oil & Cooling System 42.26 26.70
Empty Weight Growth 22.84 12.9
Total Empty Weight 1704.74 1647.80

12.2 - Center of Gravity Estimation

The longitudinal location of the aircraft’s CG was determined by using the fuselage station and water line
coordinates of each of the items detailed in the MIL-STD-1374 weight statement. In this analysis, longitudinal
Fuselage Stations are measured aft from the nose of the helicopter, while vertical Water Lines are measured
upwards from the floor of the fuselage. The values of these stations were estimated from published drawings of
the JetRanger. Good agreement was obtained with the C.G. limits given in the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet
[FAA01] for the Model 206 and in the maintenance manual for the Model 206A/B [Bell98], as shown in Table
12.3. Table 12.4 shows the CG locations of the TerpRanger. Note that the main rotor mast is located at
Fuselage Station (+106) in., the total fuselage length is (374.4) in., and the main rotor hub height is (+97.59) in.

73
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 12.3 - JetRanger Longitudinal C.G. Location

Published Calculated
Max. GTOW (3200 lbs) (+106) to (+111.6) in [FAA01] (+110.6) in
Empty Weight (1650 lbs) (+116) to (+117) in [Bell98] (+117.7) in

Table 12.4 - TerpRanger C.G. Locations

Empty Weight (1690 lb) Take-off Gross Weight (3524 lb)

Longitudinal 116.69 in 111.79 in
Vertical 46.25 in 33.08 in

4000
Forward Loading
Aft Loading
Forward of rotor shaft Aft of rotor shaft Main Rotor Shaft Location

Oil

Luggage 4 Pass. 1 (front seat)

3500 Luggage 2

Luggage - Pilot Luggage 3

Pass. 4
Luggage 1
Fuel - Main
Pass. 3
Fuel - Auxiliary

3000 Pass. 2
Aircraft Weight (lb)

Fuel - Main

Pass. 4

2500
Pass. 3

Pass. 2 Fuel - Auxiliary

Luggage 3
Luggage 1
Oil Luggage 4
2000 Luggage 2
Pass. 1 (front seat)
Luggage - Pilot

Pilot

Empty

1500
8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10
Fuselage Station (ft)

Figure 12.1 - TerpRanger Longitudinal CG Travel

Figure 12.1 shows the longitudinal CG travel for forward and aft loading of the helicopter.

Section 13 – Performance Analysis

Table 13.1 presents a summary of the performance of the baseline JetRanger and TerpRanger at sea level and
1000 ft for ISA and ISA+20o C conditions. Power requirements for hover, climb and forward flight are
calculated for different weights and atmospheric conditions. The results are calculated in an iterative process
that leads to the sizing of the engine and transmission, and the determination of the flight envelope of the
vehicle. Details of the drag calculations and results for vertical and forward flight performance are presented in
the following sections.

74
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 13.1 - Performance Summary

JetRanger TerpRanger TerpRanger

(SL, 3200 lb) (SL, 3524 lb) (1000 ft, 3524 lb)
ISA ISA + 20 ISA ISA + 20 ISA ISA + 20
Cruise Speed (kts) 116 N/A 144 146 145 144
Speed for best range (kts) 113 117 148 152 148 154
Speed for best endurance (kts) 48 N/A 62 64 62 64
Range (full fuel & payload),
368 368 424 450 433 452
maximum (n. mi.)
Endurance (full payload),
4.6 N/A 4.05 4.21 4.11 4.27
maximum (hrs)
Climb Rate, maximum (ft/min),
1,280 N/A 1,715 1,590 1,700 1,500
MCP
Vertical Climb Rate, (ft/min), TOP N/A N/A 740 705 720 680
N/A = Not Available

JetRanger TerpRanger
(3200 lb) (3524 lb)
ISA + ISA +
ISA ISA
20 20
Hover Ceiling,
13,000 10,200 13,900 11,850
IGE (ft)
Hover Ceiling,
5,300 3,000 10,000 8,250
OGE (ft)
Service Ceiling (ft) 13,500 12,800 19,860 18,020

13.1-Drag Estimation
Parasite drag limits maximum forward flight speed while vertical drag or download affects vertical flight
performance. The accuracy of the TerpRanger performance calculations is dependent on the precision of the
drag estimates.

13.1.1-Parasite Drag
The power-required curves in forward flight published in Bell’s Product Data Book for the JetRanger-III
[Bell99] are used to estimate the parasite drag for the baseline helicopter. By varying the equivalent flat-plate
area of the airframe in the trim analysis, it is found that the JetRanger has an equivalent flat plate drag area of
6.6 ft2 .

The empirical methods presented by Prouty [Prou95] and Stepniewski [Step84] are used to estimate the
component drag build-up for the JetRanger. The drag coefficients for the different components are then
adjusted so as to match the value of 6.5 ft2 for the entire helicopter. The analysis for the TerpRanger includes
the effects of several measures undertaken to reduce the helicopter’s parasite drag, as described below in further

75
 406-UM TerpRanger
detail. Table 13.2 shows the resulting distribution of parasite drag contributions in terms of equivalent flat-plate
area, for both the TerpRanger and the baseline JetRanger.

Table 13.2 - Drag Build-Up

JetRanger % Of Total TerpRanger % Of Total

2 2
Fuselage (incl. cowlings) 1.541 ft 23.91 1.422 ft 25.71
2 2
Main Rotor 1.164 ft 18.05 1.876 ft 33.91
2 2
Tail Rotor 0.323 ft 5.02 0.282 ft 5.10
2 2
Landing Gear 2.222 ft 34.47 0.880 ft 15.91
2 2
Horizontal Stabilizer 0.126 ft 1.96 0.118 ft 2.14
2 2
Vertical Fin 0.093 ft 1.44 0.087 ft 1.57
* 2 2
Rotor-Fuselage Interference 0.427 ft 6.62 0.427 ft 7.71
** 2 2
Miscellaneous 0.550 ft 8.53 0.440 ft 7.95
2 2
Total 6.446 ft 5.532 ft
*
Interference drag cause by the rotor downwash on the aft fuselage, which can induce areas of local
separation.
**
Drag caused by antennas, door handles, hinges and latches, pitot static tubes, temperature probes,
external jacking points, lights, skin gaps, steps and mismatches.

13.1.2 - Drag-Reduction Measures

The JetRanger has a cruise speed of 115 knots. In order to achieve the required cruising speed of 140 knots, a
substantial reduction in parasite drag is required. Using the analysis methods outlined in Hoerner ([Hoer75]), a
reduction of 1 ft2 in the equivalent flat-plate area (5.5 ft2 total) is achieved, by the following measures:

Aerodynamic fairings for the skid gear: Changing the effective cross-section of the landing gear cross-tubes can
provide a substantial reduction in the drag of the gear. A cylindrical structure has the same drag as an airfoil
section with a thickness 25 times the cylinder’s diameter [Prou95]. Detachable skid fairings are available for the
JetRanger, and these are included in the TerpRanger design. With these fairings, the equivalent drag area of the
landing gear cross tubes is reduced from 1.2 ft2 to 0.1 ft2 .

The fuselage attachment brackets of the landing gear are also covered with detachable airfoil-shaped fairings.
Hoerner predicts a reduction in drag coefficient of between 0.33 and 1.11, which translates to an equivalent flat-
plate drag area reduction between 0.248 ft2 and 0.833 ft2 respectively [Hoer75]. For the TerpRanger design, the
lower value was adopted, so as not to over-predict the reduction in drag.

76
 406-UM TerpRanger
Together, these two measures yield a total drag-area reduction of 1.348 ft2 . This agrees well with the
predictions of [Prou95], which estimate a reduction in total drag coefficient from 1.01 to 0.4 when fairings are
used for this type of landing gear.

Main Rotor Hub Fairing: The 2-bladed hub for the JetRanger is a simple teetering design, and therefore does
not produce substantial drag. However, the hub for a 4-bladed rotor is larger and contains several more
components. Therefore, the hub is provided with a fairing to shield it from the airflow.

Increasing Main Rotor Shaft Tilt: This reduces the fuselage angle of attack in high-speed forward flight, thereby
lowering the fuselage bluff-body drag. The JetRanger has a forward shaft tilt of 5°. This was initially increased
to 7° in early analyses. However, in order to keep the fuselage floor level in cruise for passenger comfort, the
tilt angle has been reduced to its final value of 6°.

Decreasing Main Rotor Shaft Height: The vertical height of the main rotor shaft has been reduced from the 2 ft
to 1.3 ft, thus reducing the drag that it produces. The disadvantage of this is that it increases the interference
effects between the rotor hub and the pylon. The option of changing the shape of the pylon cowling was
considered, to make it more streamlined. However, it was recognized that the hat-like rim of the cowling
around the main rotor shaft area could itself be an effective measure for reducing drag, by acting like a low
aspect-ratio wing and producing “tip” vortices that energize the boundary layer on the aft portion of the pylon
and thus delay separation [Prou95]. An accurate prediction requires the use of sophisticated numerical methods
that were not available for this preliminary design phase. Therefore, the decision was made not to change the
shape of cowlings as part of the upgrade.

Closing off Main Rotor Shaft Opening: A flat circular plate is rigidly attached to the main rotor shaft, flush with
the opening in the cowling through which it passes, so as to close off the gap formed by the opening and reduce
the drag that it causes. The disc rotates along with the rotor shaft. Small holes are provided in the disc itself for
the control pitch links to pass through. The cover is divided in four sections designed to be easily removed for
maintenance. The true reduction in drag due to this measure can only be found from wind-tunnel tests. For this
analysis, the benefit was included by reducing the amount of hub-pylon interference effects by 10%.

Engine exhaust ducts: Changing the location of the engine exhaust duct from the top of the cowling to the side,
and changing the shape of the outlet so that it is flush with the contour of the cowling, reduces the blunt-body
drag produced. This effect is estimated by a reduction in the fuselage drag coefficient.

77
 406-UM TerpRanger
13.1.3 - Vertical Drag
The total thrust required by the main rotor in hover is equal to the gross weight plus the vertical drag or
download on the fuselage that is produced by the rotor wake. Vertical drag is calculated by combining estimated
vertical drag coeffic ients with an empirical downwash velocity distribution. The methods presented in [Prou95]
and [Step84] are used to estimate the vertical download of the TerpRanger, an additional 2.3% of the gross
weight was the result of these calculations.

13.2 - Hover Performance

The hover performance calculations determine the hover ceiling and the maximum rate of climb of the
helicopter for a given gross weight and ambient condition. The calculations consist of comparing the power
required to hover and the available engine installed power. When these two quantities are equal, the hovering
ceiling is reached, otherwise the excess power can be used to climb. An original hover performance code was
developed using a blade element momentum theory model that uses table lookup for the lift and drag
coefficients for the different airfoils along the blade obtained from wind tunnel tests data. The model includes
empirical corrections for tip losses, wake swirl and the effect of ground on induced velocities.

The effect of the advanced blade tip geometry is introduced by reducing the power required by the rotor by 3%.
This is a conservative value considering that wind tunnel tests [Deso88] show reductions of up to 7% at high
thrust coefficients with respect to rectangular blades (refer to Section 5.2.3).

The hovering ceiling OGE at ISA and ISA+20o C for the TerpRanger is larger than the unmodified 206B-3 at the
same atmospheric conditions and respective maximum takeoff weights. The additional power and the
aerodynamically more efficient rotor system allow for hovering ceilings higher than those of the JetRanger and
LongRanger. Table 13.3 compares the hovering ceilings of these three helicopters in and out of ground effect.
Weight vs. hovering ceiling (IGE and OGE) and maximum climb rate vs. altitude plots are shown in Figures
13.1 and 13.2 respectively. The good climb rate and enhanced hovering ceiling broaden the helicopter’s multi-
mission capabilities, making the TerpRanger a highly versatile vehicle.

Table 13.3 - Hovering Ceiling for Different Atmospheric Conditions

JetRanger 206 III LongRanger 206L-4 TerpRanger

3200 lb 4450 lb 3524 lb
ISA OGE 5,300 ft 6,500 ft 10,000 ft
ISA+20 OGE 3,000 ft 4,200 ft 8,250 ft
ISA IGE 13,000 ft 10,000 ft 13,900 ft
ISA+20 IGE 10,200 ft 7,700 ft 11,850 ft

78
 406-UM TerpRanger

GTOW 3524 lb

Figure 13.1 - Maximum Rate of Climb vs. Figure 13.2 - Weight vs. Hover Ceiling
Altitude

13.3 – Forward Flight Performance

Longitudinal trim analysis was carried out to
determine the power required by the helicopter as
a function of forward speed. The analysis
assumed a constant induced velocity over the disk
(Glauert’s Theory) and rigid blade flapping. A
table lookup procedure was used for the airfoil
properties, and the analysis is capable of handling
different airfoils along the blade span, arbitrary
taper and arbitrary twist. To give a more accurate
prediction of the TerpRanger’s performance, the Figure 13.3: Fuselage Drag Variation

code also varies the fuselage parasite drag as a with Angle of Attack [Harr79]

function of angle of attack, as shown in Figure 13.3 [Harr79]. In the figure, the curve shown for the OH-58A
was approximated by the equation
CDF = CDο + K (α−α ο)2
where α ο is the fuselage angle of attack for minimum drag. This equation was used in the trim analysis of the
TerpRanger. The minimum fuselage drag was estimated by the methods described above in Section 13.1.2.

The RFP calls for a minimum cruise speed of 140 knots. The TerpRanger is designed to be able to cruise at
approximately 145 knots at all altitudes between sea level and 1000 ft, in both ISA and ISA+20 conditions.
For the purpose of this design, the cruise speed was defined to be the speed at which the power required is equal

79
 406-UM TerpRanger
0.7

0.6
ISA + 20 600
Specific Range (naut. miles/lb of fuel)

0.5 ISA
500

Cruise

Power reqd (shp)

0.4 Max. Continuous Transmission Limit
points 400

0.3
300
369 shp

0.2
200

0.1 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
TAS (kts) TAS (kts)

Figure 13.4 - Specific Range Variation with Figure 13.5 - Power Required, Sea Level, ISA.

Forward Speed Design Gross Weight

to the maximum continuous power that can be obtained from the engine. Although not exactly equal to the
speed for maximum range, it was found that the cruising and maximum-range speeds were close enough to each
other that almost the same range was achieved with either, as indicated by the specific range trends shown in
Figure 13.4.

For most helicopters, the power required to hover is greater than the power required in cruise. However,
because of the relatively high 140-knot cruise speed for the TerpRanger, the maximum continuous power
required at cruise conditions is greater than the power required for hovering, as shown in Figure 13.5.
Therefore, the transmission – and consequently the engine – was sized by a maximum continuous power
requirement rather than by a transient (take-off) rating requirement. The sizing of the engine and transmission is
explained in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of this report.

The cruise power required is maximum at sea level, ISA conditions. With increase in altitude or in air
temperature, air density is reduced, leading to a reduction in parasite drag and in the power required to fly at a
given speed. However, since the power deliverable by the engine decreases with density, the maximum
continuous power available to the helicopter also decreases. Note that the available power at any density
altitude also depends on how much the engine is de-rated from its maximum uninstalled rating.

80
 406-UM TerpRanger
These effects can be seen in Figures 13.6 through
13.14. The variations shown in these figures are for
600
the design gross weight of 3524 lb. Figures 13.6,
500 13.7 and 13.8 show the variations in power required,
369 shp fuel flow and specific fuel consumption with forward
Power reqd (shp)

400

speed, for both ISA and ISA + 20 conditions. The

300 ISA 346 shp
variation of Specific Range (distance traveled per
ISA + 20
200
unit weight of fuel) with forward speed is shown in
100 Figure 13.4. Figure 13.9 shows the power required to
fly at 140 knots at different altitudes, as well as the
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
TAS (kts) maximum continuous power available at those

Figure 13.6 - Power Required Variation with altitudes. The power available stays constant up to a
Forward Speed certain altitude (860 ft), because of the de -rating of
the engine, but then decreases as the power available
400
from the engine falls below the transmission limit.
Figure 13.10 gives the variations of cruise speed and
350

speed for maximum endurance (loiter speed) with

altitude. The maximum cruising speed first increases
Fuel Flow (lb/hr)

300

with increasing altitude, but then decreases as the

250
power available decreases. Figures 13.11 and 13.12
ISA show the variations in specific range and minimum
200

ISA = 20
fuel flow with altitude. Both quantities improve with

150 decrease in air density. Figures 13.13 and 13.14

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
TAS (kts) show the trade-offs between payload and range, and
payload and endurance. With decreasing air density
Figure 13.7 - Fuel Flow Variation with
(increasing altitude or increasing air temperature), the
Forward Speed
range and endurance achievable with a given payload
increase.

81
 406-UM TerpRanger

1
15000
0.95
ISA
0.9
Specific Fuel Consumption (lb/hr/shp)

ISA + 20
0.85
10000
0.8

Altitude (ft)
0.75

0.7
5000
0.65

0.6 140 kt Power Reqd, ISA + 0

Power Available, ISA + 0
140 kt Power Reqd, ISA + 20
0.55
Power Available, ISA + 20

0.5 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
TAS (kts) Power Available and Required (shp)

Figure 13.8 - Specific Fuel Consumption Figure 13.9 - Power Reqd. for 140 kts
Variation With Forward Speed and Max. Continuous Power Available

15000
15000

10000 10000
Altitude (ft)
Altitude (ft)

5000 5000

Max Cruise Speed, ISA + 0

Endurance Speed, ISA + 0
Max Cruise Speed, ISA + 20 ISA + 0
Endurance Speed, ISA + 20 ISA + 20
0 0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
Speed Variation (kts) Specific Range in Cruise (naut. mi./lb)

Figure 13.10 - Cruise Speed and Max. Figure 13.11 - Specific Range
Endurance Speed Variation with Altitude Variation with Altitude

The methods described in [Step84] were used to estimate the range and endurance performance of the
TerpRanger. From the power required at different speeds, the specific fuel consumption of the engine was
calculated using the formulae given in the RFP. The values of fuel flow and specific range at the cruising speed
were then calculated at different flight weights and used to plot the payload-range and payload-endurance
diagrams (Figures 13.13 and 13.14).

The analysis predicts a range of 424 nautical miles for a full-payload configuration, no fuel reserves, at 1000
SL/ISA conditions. The corresponding maximum endurance (at loiter speed) at the same condition was
calculated to be 4.1 hours.

82
 406-UM TerpRanger

1600
15000
ISA + 0
ISA + 20 1400

1200

Payload + Fuel (lbs)

10000
1000
Altitude (ft)

800

600
5000

400
sea-level, ISA
sea-level, ISA + 20
200
1000 ft, ISA
1000 ft, ISA + 20
0 0
130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Minimum Fuel Flow (lbs/hr) Range (n. mi.)

Figure 13.12 - Minimum Fuel Flow Figure 13.13 - Payload-Range Diagram

Variation with Altitude
4
x 10
1600 2
Service Ceiling: 19856 ft ISA + 0
1.8 ISA + 20
1400
Service Ceiling: 18016 ft
1.6
1200
1.4
Payload + Fuel (lbs)

1000
1.2
Altitude (ft)

800 1

0.8
600

0.6
400
sea-level, ISA 0.4
sea-level, ISA + 20
200
1000 ft, ISA 0.2
1000 ft, ISA + 20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Endurance (hrs) Max. Rate of Climb in Forward Flight (ft/min)

Figure 13.14 - Payload-Endurance Diagram Figure 13.15 - Maximum Rate of Climb

Variation with Altitude and Service
Ceiling

The service ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the helicopter can no longer sustain a climb rate of 100
ft/min. The TerpRanger has a service ceiling of 19,860 ft, ISA, and 18,020 ft, ISA+20 conditions. Figure 13.15
shows the variation of maximum rate of climb in forward flight with altitude and the service ceilings.

Section 14 - Manufacturing
The purpose of the present helicopter upgrade program is to provide a high-performance helicopter at a fraction
of the cost of acquiring a newly manufactured commercial helicopter. The acquisition price depends on three
principal factors: research and development costs, manufacturing, overhead, certification, and value added costs.
Keeping the manufacturing costs low has a direct impact on the purchase price of the aircraft. The TerpRanger

83
 406-UM TerpRanger
upgrade proposes the use of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) tools throughout the implementation of the
upgrade process, from conceptual and detailed design through to full-scale production. This includes the use of
CAD/CAM/CAE software, electronic document tracking and sharing and Total Product Engineering. This
enables the product to be designed for ease of manufacture right from the outset, promotes collaboration
between the design and the manufacturing teams, and facilitates consistency and rapid dissemination of
information.
The re-manufacture of the helicopters will consist of four main processes:
a) Removal of the components to be replaced:
Cowlings, main rotor, tail rotor, engine, transmission / gearboxes and transmission mounts, fuselage body
panels, cockpit instrument panel, crew and passenger seat benches, fuel cell, vertical fin, hydraulic system
b) Repair / Overhaul of the components to be retained
Fuselage bulkheads, roof beams, cabin roof and floor panels, other structural members, tailboom and horizontal
stabilizer, electrical system and wiring
c) Manufacture of the new components
d) Installation of the new components

This section focuses on the third process, which can be conducted in parallel with the first and second.

14.1 - Lean Manufacturing

The TerpRanger re-manufacturing program will employ “lean manufacturing” processes to minimize costs.
Lean manufacturing is a systematic approach to perform the minimum work necessary to production. The major
benefits of this manufacturing philosophy are continual quality improvement, small production runs and the
ability to reconfigure the production line for different products. Lean manufacturing is composed of many
elements, including: (i) elimination of waste, (ii) continuous flow and (iii) quality control. The TerpRanger
upgrade program has a relatively low production run, as envisioned in the RFP. In addition, the production of
the upgraded helicopters will not proceed at a regular pace, for two principal reasons:
a) The availability of helicopter airframes to be upgraded at any given time will depend on the number of
operators who wish to offer their aircraft for upgrade at that time.
b) The airframes acquired for re-manufacture will be received in varying conditions or states of disrepair.
Some operators will have faithfully maintained their aircraft and complied with all the Airworthiness
Directives and Service Bulletins, while others may have not. The aircraft acquired will be of varying
age (in terms of years and of flight hours), so some will need more extensive repair and overhaul than
others.

84
 406-UM TerpRanger
For these reasons, continuous flow is of primary importance to an upgrade production line. Continuous flow
manifests itself as the ability to easily convert the production line from one product to another at the conclusion
of a production run or between production runs so that manufacturing down-time is minimized. Additionally,
facility overhead costs are spread over mode products. Optimizing the manufacturing process for low rate
production will keep the production costs low [Feld00]

14.2 - Manufacturing Details

The following section discusses the manufacturing details of key components of the TerpRanger.

14.2.1 - Main Rotor

Rotor blade fabrication consists of three major cure cycles. The three molds used are machined from aluminum
billets, finished to a mirror surface and lined by nickel to increase their service lives. The spar assembly is laid
up by hand over an expandable mandrel. Pre-impregnated (“pre-preg”) tape is used for the inner, uniaxial layers
while pre-preg woven fabric is used for the outer +45/-45 layers. The spar is then placed in a mold and cured in
an autoclave, with internal pressure being provided by the expanding mandrel. The trailing-edge wedge is made
from chopped glass fiber and epoxy matrix using a V-channel mold machined out of aluminum. The mold is
coated with a release agent, filled with the chopped fibres and the resin, and cured at room temperature. The
upper and lower skins are fabricated as precured details from bias-plied material. The Nomex honeycomb core
is machined into the shape of the blade afterbody. The spar, afterbody core, trailing-edge wedge, leading-edge
weights and skins are assembled in a closed-cavity mold and then cured in a hot-press or an autoclave. After
removal from the mold, the leading edge cap is bonded onto the blade. The cap consists of three parts: the
erosion strip, electrical insulation and the heating element. Due to its complex geometry, the tip of the titanium
erosion cap is fabricated by electrodeposition of the metal. The insulation and heating elements are then bonded
to the inside of the erosion shield.

14.2.2 - Main Rotor Hub

The hub yoke assembly consists of two identical S-glass/epoxy flexbeam yokes stacked perpendicular to each
other and bolted together at the top of the rotor mast. The center section of the yoke contains a chamfered mast
hole, surrounded by a close-tolerance eight-hole pattern for the drive bushings that transfer torque from the mast
to the yokes.

Each yoke is cured in a bond tool that is machined out of aluminum. A conventional polar filament winding
configuration is used to fabricate unidirectional roving belts, which are then laid up in the bond tool with bias
tape plies. The tool is closed and cured in a hot-press. After removal from the tool, the center hole pattern is

85
 406-UM TerpRanger
machined with a conventional jig bore. The elastomeric bearings and dampers and the steel spindles are then
attached onto the two yokes.

14.2.3-Tail Rotor
The blades and flexures are manufactured as a one-piece structural component with unidirectional S-glass
running from blade root to blade tip. The root block is molded onto the flexure/spar component. The blade
cores are made by expanding machined honeycomb. The blade/flexure assembly, which includes procured
fiberglass blade skins, stainless steel abrasion strips, and phenolic tip blocks, is bonded and cured in a closed-die
mold.

14.2.4 -Transmission
The manufacturing process for the main and tail rotor gearboxes will not be affected by the optimized design.
Even though some of the tooth geometrical characteristics are changed, regular manufacturing processes such as
gear hobbing and shaping can still be used. No special machinery or tools need to be developed for
manufacturing the TerpRanger gearboxes.

Section 15 - Cost Analysis

Life Cycle cost minimization is one of the key objectives of the TerpRanger 406 upgrade program. This section
identifies the cost saving features of the upgrade and estimates the operating and acquisition costs of the
improved vehicle. All costs are presented in 2001 dollars. To generate year 2001 cost estimates, an average
inflation rate of approximately 2.2% was used. This rate is based on changes in the consumer price index and
GDP implicit price deflator [Appl01].

15.1 - Cost Reduction Features

The following features were integrated into the JetRanger upgrade program in order to reduce operating costs
and provide a more affordable helicopter.
Existing Components: In an effort to minimize development and certification costs, primary systems such as the
main rotor and transmission, are based on existing designs. The main rotor hub is similar to the hub of the Bell
412. The hingeless rotor configuration reduces the complexity of the system by replacing hinges with
elastomeric bearings. Although, initially, the hingeless rotor costs more to develop, these costs are offset, in the
long term, because of a lower maintenance costs compared to an articulated rotor. The transmission has not
been completely redesigned. An existing one, similar to the one on the LongRanger 206L, is optimized for the
helicopter upgrade. Integrating improved versions of existing components will reduce certification and

86
 406-UM TerpRanger
development costs while at the same time providing a higher degree of reliability at a lower risk than completely
new systems.
Active Tracking Tabs: Although active tracking tabs are a new technology, the time saving benefits in the
maintenance associated with main rotor trim will outweigh the development costs in the long term. The current
tracking process is time and resource intensive, therefore an active system that can perform the task in minutes
rather than hours or days will significantly influence the long term operating costs of the vehicle.
Easy and Efficient Maintenance: A Health Usage and Monitoring System (HUMS) is incorporated into the
design to enhance maintenance predictability. This feature serves to significantly reduce operating costs, by
reducing the maintenance cost per flight hour to one-fourth the time required by current helicopters [Tara98],
and by facilitating fewer parts, tools and ground support equipment.
Vibration Reduction Technology: Improved vibration reduction technology provides higher reliability and
improves the fatigue life of critical components. Improved reliability and longer fatigue life significantly
reduce operating costs.
Multiple Options: The JetRanger upgrade program offers a wide variety of options for additional capabilities.
Customization of the helicopter to suit a particular need enables the customer to have more control over the
acquisition cost of the vehicle. A complete listing of the customization options appears in Section 16.

15.2 - Acquisition Cost

The acquisition cost of the TerpRanger 406 was determined via the relationships presented in the RFP cost
model. The primary cost drivers are total production quantity, productio n rate and weight. Variables embedded
within the cost relationships account for technological advances and manufacturing complexities to provide a
comprehensive cost estimate. Table 15.1 displays the acquisition cost breakdown for the baseline TerpRanger
406.

15.3 - Operating Costs

An aircraft’s operating costs may be divided into two main groups: Direct Operating Costs (DOC) and Indirect
Operating Costs (IOC). The DOCs can be divided into the following subgroups: cash DOCs (maintenance,
flight crew, fuel and oil), and ownership DOCs (depreciation, hull insurance, and finance). The IOCs are divided
into the subgroups of aircraft IOCs (ground property, control and communications, and ground handling), and
passenger related IOCs (liability insurance, amenities, and commissions). DOCs differ from IOCs in that DOCs
are typically incurred per flight hour while IOCs are independent of flying hours and are expressed as annual
costs. Because IOCs are dependent upon operator policy and airport location, they vary significantly from
location to location and are therefore difficult to predict. IOC estimates are difficult to calculate in a
preliminary design because of their sensitivity to factors such as geographical location and the policies of local

87
 406-UM TerpRanger
governments. Therefore they are excluded from this report. Three methods for calculating the cash DOCs are
considered in this analysis. The total DOC for the JetRanger upgrade is the average value of all three methods.

Table 15.1 - Baseline Helicopter Acquisition Cost Breakdown

Aircraft Subsystem Cost ($)

Main Rotor 93,236
Tail Rotor 48,283
Airframe Structure 190,766
Engine 57,540
Engine Installation 87,914
Drive System 81,552
Vibration Suppression 13,902
Landing Gear 12,179
Flight Controls 14,354
Instruments 41,889
Hydraulics 2,668
Electrical Systems 15,254
*
Avionics N/A
Furnishings and Equipment 20,883
Air Conditioning 3,643
Load and Handling 528
Final Airframe Assembly 89,026

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COST 773,616

Tooling Amortization & Profit 386,808
TOTAL ACQUISITION COST 1,160,424

* Avionics costs for the baseline helicopter

are accounted for in the instrument group.

15.3.1 - Fuel Cost Driver DOC Calculation

This method employs a DOC breakdown presented at the NASA Aircraft Economic Workshop [Lesl96]. In this
model, fuel costs contribute approximately 12% of the total DOC. A comparison of the DOCs between similar
helicopters and the TerpRanger is shown in Table 15.2.

15.3.2 - Maintenance Cost Driver DOC Calculation

Similar to the method above, this model assumes that maintenance costs contribute approximately 43% of the
total DOC. The results of this calculation method are also presented in Table 15.2.

88
 406-UM TerpRanger

15.3.3 - Tishchenko Method

This method provides a global estimate of the cash DOC in terms of purchase price, fuel price and crew salary.
The Tishchenko formula [Tish02] that yields DOC/ flight hour is defined as:
Px
DOC fh = 3 × + Pfuel × Q + N crew × M crew
10000
where P r is the acquisition, or purchase price in $, Pfuel is the fuel price, Q is the fuel consumption in gallons per
flight hour, Ncrew is the number of crew members, and Mcrew is the crew salary per flight hour. The total life of
the aircraft is assumed to be 10000 flight hours. The results of this method are presented in Table 15.2 below.

15.4 - Ownership DOC

According to the NASA Aircraft Economic Workshop [Lesl96], ownership DOCs constitute approximately 74%
of the total DOC. Ownership DOCs were determined in each of the aforementioned cash DOC methods once
the total DOC is calculated. The final estimate of the ownership DOC is the average of the results from each
method. Table 15.2 displays these results for the TerpRanger upgrade and provides a comparison to other,
similar helicopters.

Table 15.2 - DOC/fh Calculations and Comparison

NASA Model by 12% Fuel NASA Model by 43% Maintenance

Cash Ownership Total Cash Ownership Total Cash
DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC
TerpRanger 398 1212 1610 450 1370 1820 450
Bell 206B -3 355 1010 1365 497 1416 1913 497
Bell 206L-4 498 1416 1913 596 1697 2293 596
MD500 D 363 1032 1394 302 860 1163 302
SA315 688 1957 2644 756 2151 2907 756
EC120 310 882 1192 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tishchenko Method [Tish02]

Cash Ownership Total
TerpRanger Total DOC
DOC DOC DOC
TerpRanger 439 1250 1689 Avg. Cash DOC 410
Bell 206B -3 351 999 1350 Avg. Ownership DOC 1198
Bell 206L-4 515 1466 1981 TOTAL DOC 1607
MD500 D 282 801 1083
SA315 466 1326 1791
EC120 370 1054 1425

89
 406-UM TerpRanger
The following information is applicable to the DOC calculations
• The cost analysis is based on 400 nm range and 140 knot cruise speed. The number of flight hours per
year is assumed to be 1000.
• The maintenance DOC is reduced by 25% in order to account for the maintenance cost saving benefits
obtained from the HUMS system, the hingeless rotor configuration, the active tracking tabs and optimized
transmission technology.
• The fuel cost of 1.5 $US/gal assumed in this analysis is based on current fuel prices defined by Leslie
[Lesl96] and Bell Textron [Bell02].

The complete operating cost estimate and breakdown is shown in Table 15.3.

Table 15.3 - Operating Cost Breakdown

OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN

Cash DOC Breakdown
% [Lesl96] Cash DOC ($/fh)
Fuel 12 49
Crew 22 90
Engine 23 94
Scheduled Inspection 6 25
Scheduled Overhaul 5 20
Unscheduled Maintenance 6 25
Scheduled Retirement 11 45
On Condition 15 61
TOTAL CASH DOC 100 410
Ownership DOC Breakdown
Depreciation 39 467.08
Insurance 30 359.30
Finance 31 371.27
TOTAL OWNERSHIP DOC 100 1197.65
TOTAL DOC ($/fh) 1607.16

15.5 - Cost Comparison

To demonstrate the affordability of the TerpRanger 406 upgrade proposal, the DOC estimates are compared
with existing rotorcraft of similar gross weight and performance. Table 15.4 displays the results of this
comparison. The calculations for the operating cost breakdown and the performance comparison, the fuel,
maintenance, and acquis ition costs are obtained from Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft and the Helivalue price
guide [Tayl01], [Heli01]. All cash DOCs are the average values of the three methods presented above.

90
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 15.4 - Cost and Performance Comparison

Parameter TerpRanger Bell 206B-3 Bell 206L-4 MD500 D SA315 EC120
Gross
3524 3200 4450 3000 4300 3780
Weight (lb)
Fuel Weight
622 614 747 432 1026 724
(lbs)
Range
400 369 324 261 278 393
(nm)
Cruise
140 115 117 130 103 122
Speed (kts)
Base Price
(US $ 1.16 0.836 1.28 0.56 1.04 0.88
million)
Cash DOC
410 401 536 315 636 340
(US $/fh)

Table 15.4 clearly demonstrates the affordability of the 206 JetRanger upgrade. The DOC for the upgrade is
only 2% higher than the original 206B-3, and it is much lower than the operating cost of the 206L-4.
Furthermore, the TerpRanger substantially outperforms both vehicles in terms of cruise speed and range. The
MD-500D has a much lower operating cost, however its performance capability is inferior to the TerpRanger
upgrade. Likewise, other, more modern helicopters, such as the EC120, have lower operating costs, but have
lower performance than the upgrade. Operators who already own the 206B-3 would especially find it more
attractive to spend money on a high performance upgrade rather than purchase a completely new, modern
helicopter with poorer performance. The performance benefits gained for the upgraded 206 make for a highly
competitive helicopter at only a modest increase in operating cost relative to the original 206B-3.

15.6 - Analysis Limitations

The methods used to predict the TerpRanger’s acquisition and operating costs are based upon historical trends
and as a result, do not accurately capture the influence of new technologies such as the active tracking tab
system. Additionally , research and development costs associated with systems such as the hingeless rotor,
active tracking tabs, optimized transmission, and control software are difficult to measure and are not directly
factored into the estimate. The operating cost estimates are global estimates and in the absence of a more
detailed cost database and economic model, these methods provide reasonable estimates of the upgraded
vehicle’s acquisition and operating costs.

Section 16 - Summary of Upgrade Options and Multimission Capability

The TerpRanger 406 Upgrade program offers a wide selection of interchangeable avionics and vibration
suppression technologies that enhance the capabilities of the aircraft. The expanded capabilities of the vehicle

91
 406-UM TerpRanger
improve its mission versatility making the TerpRanger upgrade an innovative and attractive design solution for
civilian as well as military operators.

16.1 - Interchangeable Upgrade Options

In addition to the standard structural, main rotor, tail rotor, and transmission modifications, the avionics and
vibration suppression systems of the original aircraft have been enhanced in order to expand the mission
capabilities of the aircraft. The following section summarizes the options available to the customer. Costs for
each upgrade option are provided in Table 16.1, but a detailed analysis of the TerpRanger’s acquisition and
operating cost is provided in Section 15.

16.1.1 - Avionics Upgrades

The following list summarizes the avionics options available to the TerpRanger 406 upgrade. Details of each
system are provided in Section 10.
Option 1: This option incorporates a FADEC display on the instrument panel. This is the most inexpensive and
simplest option to implement.
Option 2: Digital avionics displays, GPS system, and Multifunction Display (MFD) panel.
Option 3: Option 2 plus Meggitt MAGIC MFDs with EGPWS passive CFIT and SkyWatch mid-air
collision avoidance systems.
Option 4: Option 2 plus Meggitt MAGIC MFDs All-weather capable active OASys collision avoidance
system.

16.1.2 - Vibration Suppression

The following list summarizes the vibration suppression options available to the TerpRanger upgrade. Details
of each device are located in Section 9.
Option 1: Active tracking tab, PZT smart struts, and LIVE isolators.
Option 2: Active tracking tab, PZT smart struts, and Antiresonance force isolators.
Option 3: Active tracking tabs, PZT smart struts, and elastomeric dampers enhanced with the AVRS system.

16.1.3 - Aircraft Options Cost Summary

Table 16.1 displays the available combinations vibration suppression and avionics options and there influence
on the acquisition cost of the TerpRanger. Details of the calculation of the vehicle’s acquisition cost are
provided in Section 15. The highlighted entry indicates the baseline upgrade price.

92
 406-UM TerpRanger

Table 16.1 - Upgrade Options Cost Summary

Avionics
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Option 1 1,167,375 1,190,981 1,244,740 1,365,739
Vibration
Suppression Option 2 1,176,871 1,200,477 1,254,236 1,375,235
Option 3 1,217,820 1,241,426 1,295,185 1,416,184

16.2 - Multimission Capability

Throughout this proposal, the TerpRanger has demonstrated itself to be an innovative upgrade solution for an
aging helicopter. The 206 JetRanger is one of the most widely used helicopters in the world and has operated in
many different roles including: law enforcement, forest service, air taxi, EMS, firefighting, agricultural and
military. Increased speed and range along with modern avionics and vibration suppression devices enhance the
original vehicle’s mission capabilities and enable it to perform missions that are beyond the 206B-3’s
capabilities.

16.2.1 - Passenger/VIP Transport

Like its predecessor, the TerpRanger 406 accommodates 5 people with a separate area in the aft fuselage for
luggage, leaving an uncluttered interior. The TerpRanger offers a high cruise speed and range combined with
reduced levels of vibration and noise that make the vehicle well suited for passenger and VIP transport. The
extended range and relatively low operating cost of the TerpRanger allows the vehicle to potentially provide
commuter service to VIPs in areas such as the Northeast corridor of the United States.

16.2.2 - Search and Rescue (SAR)

The high cruise speed, range and 4.2-hour endurance make the TerpRanger well suited for SAR missions. In
addition, advanced rotor tip geometries improve the figure of merit of the vehicle and help make it efficient to
operate in hover that is desirable in a SAR mission.

16.2.3 - Military Operations

The military version of the JetRanger enjoys widespread use in the armed forces of many nations. The inherent
versatility of the aircraft allows it to fulfill many military roles including: surveillance, patrol, remote area
support, and medical evacuation. The enhanced range, cruise speed and efficient hovering capability offered by
the TerpRanger allow the vehicle to outperform its predecessor in these missions. Therefore, the TerpRanger
406 will open a highly lucrative upgrade market for the military version.

93
 406-UM TerpRanger
Section 17 - Conclusion
The 2002 Student Design Competition Request For Proposals issued by the American Helicopter Society and
Bell Helicopter Textron indicated the existence of a large pool of aging light helicopters that present a
commercially viable opportunity for upgrade and remanufacture. This report is the response from the University
of Maryland and describes the design of the 406-UM TerpRanger, an innovative upgrade program for the Bell
Model 206 JetRanger. The TerpRanger exceeds all of the requirements specified in the RFP with a minimal
increase in acquisition and recurring costs of the helicopter. The most stringent requirement was an increase in
cruise speed from between 110 – 130 knots to 140 knots. Consequently, the TerpRanger design is optimized for
high-speed flight while still maintaining low cost of operation and extensive multi-mission capability.

The heart of the upgrade program is the new four-bladed, composite, hingeless main rotor. The rotor features
three different airfoils suitably distributed over the blade span in order to postpone transonic drag increases on
the advancing blade and airfoil stall on the retreating blade, and an advanced-geometry blade tip design to
improve its Figure of Merit in hover. Active trailing-edge tabs are provided to enable in-flight tracking of the
blades, obviating the extensive downtime usually required for this task.

The TerpRanger upgrade incorporates a state-of-the-art engine and an upgraded transmission, both of which are
designed to increase their mean time before repair. An auxiliary fuel tank is included in order to extend the
TerpRanger’s mission radius. A variety of avionics suites are offered to reduce pilot workload and improve
situational awareness. Special attention was paid to vibration reduction in the TerpRanger as this is also a
limiting factor for high-speed flight. A choice of three different vibration-reduction schemes is offered to the
operator to improve the ride at high cruise speeds and minimize fatigue for the airframe.

Together, these modifications enable the TerpRanger to cruise at a speed of 145 knots, carrying a payload of
1125 pounds over a distance of 424 nautical miles. This represents a 24% increase in cruise speed, a 20%
increase in payload and an 15% increase in range over the baseline JetRanger, all for a modest 2% increase in
direct operating costs.

The JetRanger has been the world’s most popular light helicopter for the past 25 years. The TerpRanger
Upgrade Program will ensure that it remains so for many more years to come.

94
 406-UM TerpRanger

MIL-STD-1374 PART I – TAB PAGE: 1

NAME: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MODEL: TERPRANGER
DATE: JULY 2, 2002 REPORT:

GROUP WEIGHT STATEMENT

AIRCRAFT

(INCLUDING ROTORCRAFT)

ESTIMATED - CALCULATED - ACTUAL

CONTRACT NO. N/A

AIRCRAFT, GOVERNMENT NO. N/A

AIRCRAFT, CONTRACTOR NO. N/A

MANUFACTURED BY N/A

MAIN AUX
ENGINE MANUFACTURED BY N/A
ENGINE MODEL N/A
ENGINE NO. 1 0
ENGINE TYPE RFP-SPECIFIED
PROPELLER MANUFACTURED BY N/A
PROPELLER MODEL N/A
PROPELLER NUMBER N/A

PAGES REMOVED PAGE NO.

95
 406-UM TerpRanger

MIL-STD-1374 PART I – TAB GROUP WEIGHT STATEMENT PAGE: 2

NAME: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND WEIGHT EMPTY MODEL: TERPRANGER
DATE: JULY 2, 2002 REPORT:

1 WING GROUP
2 BASIC STRUCTURE – CENTER SECTION
3 - INTERMEDIATE PANEL
4 - OUTER PANEL
5 - GLOVE
6 SECONDARY STRUCTURE – INCL. WING FOLD WEIGHT LBS.
7 AILERONS – INCL. BALANCE WEIGHT LBS.
8 FLAPS - TRAILING EDGE
9 - LEADING EDGE
10 SLATS
11 SPOILERS
12
13
14 ROTOR GROUP 216.68
15 BLADE ASSEMBLY 152.77
16 HUB & HINGE – INCL. BLADE FOLD WEIGHT 63.91
17
18
19 TAIL GROUP 47.14
20 STRUCT. - STABILIZER (INCL. LBS. SEC. STRUCT.) 10.67
21 - FIN – INCL. DORSAL (INCL. LBS. SEC. STRUCT.) 15.44
22 VENTRAL
23 ELEVATOR – INCL. BALANCE WEIGHT
24 RUDDERS – INCL. BALANCE WEIGHT
25 TAIL ROTOR - BLADES 8.74
26 - HUB & HINGE 12.29
27
28 BODY GROUP 462.28
29 BASIC STRUCTURE - FUSELAGE OR HULL
30 - BOOMS
31 SECONDARY STRUCTURE - FUSELAGE OR HULL
32 - BOOMS
33 - SPEEDBRAKERS
34 - DOORS, RAMPS, PANELS & MISC. - FUSE
35 - BOOM
36
37 ALIGHTING GEAR GROUP – TYPE SKID 71.28
38 LOCATION RUNNING STRUCT. CONTROLS
39 MAIN
40 NOSE / TAIL
41 ARRESTING GEAR
42 CATAPULTING GEAR
43 TAIL SKID
44
45 ENGINE SECTION OR NACELLE GROUP *
46 BODY - INTERNAL
47 - EXTERNAL
48 WING - INBOARD
49 - OUTBOARD
50
51 AIR INDUCTION GROUP 0.49
52 - DUCTS
53 - RAMPS, PLUGS, SPIKES
54 - DOORS, PANELS & MISC.
55
56
57 TOTAL STRUCTURE 797.87

* INCL. IN BODY GROUP

96
 406-UM TerpRanger

MIL-STD-1374 PART I – TAB GROUP WEIGHT STATEMENT PAGE: 3

NAME: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND WEIGHT EMPTY MODEL: TERPRANGER
DATE: JULY 2, 2002 REPORT:

58 PROPULSION GROUP AUXILIARY MAIN 507.04

58 ENGINE INSTALLATION 151.54
60
61
62 ACCESSORY GEARBOXES & DRIVE
63 EXHAUST SYSTEM 2.99
64 ENGINE COOLING 42.26
65 WATER INJECTION
66 ENGINE CONTROL 7.85
67 STARTING SYSTEM
68 PROPELLER INSTALLATION
69 SMOKE ABATEMENT
70 LUBRICATING SYSTEM
71 FUEL SYSTEM 62.75
72 TANKS - PROTECTED
73 - UNPROTECTED
74 PLUMBING, ETC.
75
76 DRIVE SYSTEM 239.66
77 GEAR BOXES, LUB SY & ROTOR BRK 221.75
78 TRANSMISSION DRIVE 17.91
79 ROTOR SHAFTS
80
81 FLIGHT CONTROLS GROUP 99.24
82 COCKPIT CTLS. (AUTOPILOT LBS.)
83 SYSTEMS CONTROLS
84
85 GENERAL PURPOSE EQUIPMENT 250.24
86 AUXILIARY POWER PLANT GROUP
87 INSTRUMENTS GROUP * *
88 HYDRAULIC & PNEUMATIC GROUP 12.71
89
90 ELECTRICAL GROUP
91
92 AVIONICS GROUP * *
93 EQUIPMENT
94 INSTALLATION
95
96 ARMAMENT GROUP (INCL. PASSIVE PROT. LBS.) * *
97 FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT GROUP * *
98 ACCOMODATIONS FOR PERSONNEL
99 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT
100 FURNISHINGS
101 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
102
103 AIR CONDITIONING GROUP *
104 ANTI-ICING GROUP * *
105
106 PHOTOGRAPHIC GROUP
107 LOAD & HANDLING GROUP *
108 AIRCRAFT HANDLING
109 LOADING HANDLING
110 BALLAST
111 MANUFACTURING VARIATION OR CONTINGENCY 22.84
112 TOTAL CONTRACTOR CONTROLLED
113 TOTAL GFAE
114 TOTAL WEIGHT EMPTY – PG 2-3 1689.94

* INCL. IN BODY GROUP

* * INCL. IN GENERAL PURPOSE EQUIPMENT

97
 406-UM TerpRanger

MIL-STD-1374 PART I – TAB GROUP WEIGHT STATEMENT PAGE: 4

NAME: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND USEFUL LOAD AND GROSS WEIGHT MODEL: TERPRANGER
DATE: JULY 2, 2002 REPORT:

115 LOAD CONDITION

116
117 CREW (1) 176.4
118 PASSENGERS (4) 705.6
119 FUEL LOCATION TYPE GALS. 700.29
120 UNUSABLE 2.18 14.80
121 INTERNAL 101 685.49
122
123
124
125 EXTERNAL
126
127
128 OIL 9
129 TRAPPED
130 ENGINE
131
132 FUEL TANKS (LOCATION )
133 WATER INJECTION FLUID ( GALS.)
134
135 BAGGAGE 242.55
136 CARGO
137
138 GUN INSTALLATION
139 GUNS LOCAT. FIX. OR FLEX. QUANTITY CALIBER
140
141
142 AMMO.
143
144
145 SUPP’TS
146 WEAPONS INSTALL.
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162 SURVIVAL KITS
163 LIFE RAFTS
164 OXYGEN
165 MISC.
166
167
168
169 TOTAL USEFUL LOAD 1833.84
170 WEIGHT EMPTY 1689.94
171 GROSS WEIGHT 3523.78

98
 406-UM TerpRanger
REFERENCES
[AHS01] AHS International Directory, Vol. 47, No 1, 2001.
[Alex86] Alex, F.W. and McCoubrey, G.W., ”Design and Structural Evaluation of the SH -2F Composite Main Rotor Blade”, Journal
of the American Helicopter Society, April, 1986, pp. 345-359.
[AMC74] “Engineering Design Handbook Helicopter Engineering”, AMC Pamphlet-706-201, August, 1974.
[Amph02] Amphitech, http://www.amphitech.com/, June 20, 2002.
[Ande76] Anderson, R.G., “Composite Main Rotor Blade For the 214 Helicopter,” Proceedings of the 32 nd American Helicopter
Society Forum , Washington, D.C., May 1976.
[Appl02] Applied Reasoning, The Financial Forecast Center, www.neatideas.com/info/inflation.html, June 3rd , 2002.
[Bell95a] Maintenance and Overhaul Instructions Manual for Bell Model 206A/B JetRanger (BHT -206A/B-M&O-1), Revision 41, ©
1995 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
[Bell95b] Structural Repair Manual for Bell Model 206 Series Helicopters (BHT -206-SRM-1), Revision 1, © 1995 Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc.
[Bell98] Maintenance Manual for Bell Model 206 Series JetRanger (BHT -206A/B-SERIES-MM-1), © 1998 Bell Helicopter Textron
Inc.
[Bell99] Bell 206B-3 Product Data Book, © 1999 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
[Bell01a] Bell 206B-3 Technical Information, Bell Helicopter Textron, January 2001.
[Bell01b] Bell 407 Product Data Book, © 2001 Bell Helicopter Textron, Textron Canada Ltd.
[Bend02] Bendixking, http://www.bendixking.com/, June 6, 2002.
[Bern02] Bernhard, A., “Sikorsky,” Private Communication, 22nd May, 2002.
[Bfga02] BFG Avionics, http://www.bfgavionics.com/, May 28, 2002.
[Brau80] Braun, D., “Development of Antiresonance Force Isolators for Helicopter Vibration Reduction,” Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, Sept., 1980, pp. 37-44.
[Couc02] Couch, R.N., “Experimental Characterization of NiMnGa Ferromagnetic Shape Memory Bars Under Variable Loading
Conditions,” Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Smart Structures and Intelligent Systems, San Diego, CA, 2002.
[Cres78] Cresap, W.L., Myers, A.W. and Viswanathan, S.P., “Design and Development Tests of a Four-Bladed Light Helicopter
Rotor System”, 34th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D.C., May, 1978.
[Deso88] Dessoper A., Lafon P., Philippe J.J. and Prieur J., “Effect of an Anhedral Sweptback Tip on the Performance of a Helicopter
Rotor,” 44 th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington DC, June 16-18, 1988
[Deso88] Dessoper A., Lafon P., Philippe J.J. and Prieur J., “Effect of an Anhedral Sweptback Tip on the Performance of a Helicopter
Rotor,” 44 th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington DC, June 16-18, 1988
[Dudl54] Dudley D.W., “Practical Gear Design.” 1st edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, c1954.
[Dudl84] Dudley D.W., “Handbook of Practical Gear Design” New York, McGraw-Hill, c1984.
[Dudl92] Dudley D.W., “Dudley’s Gear Handbook” 2st edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, c1992.
[Dyes91] Dyess S.B., “Drive System Weight Optimization”, Proceedings 50th Annual International Conference SAWE, San Diego,
California, May 1991.
[Egpw02] EGPWS, http://www.egpws.com/, June 18, 2002.
[Epps00] Epps, J.J., “Methodology for In-Flight Tracking of Helicopter Rotor Blades Using Shape Memory Alloy Actuators,”
Proceedings of the 56 th American Helicopter Society Forum , May, 2000.
[FAA01] USDOT/FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet No. H2SW for Bell 206 Series Helicopters, Revision 40, April 12, 2001.
[Feld00] Feld, W.M., Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them – APICS Series on Resource Management, St.
Lucie Press, 2000.
[Garn99] Garner, L.J., Wilson, L.N., D.C., Rediniotis, O.K., “Development of a Shape Memory Alloy Actuated Biometic Vehicle,”
Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Smart Structures and Intelligent Systems, March, 1999.

99
 406-UM TerpRanger
[Gemb99] Gembler, W., and Schweitzer, H., “Smart Struts – The Solution for Helicopter Interior Noise Problems.” Proceedings of
Associaxione Italiana Di Aeronautica Ed Astronautica, Rome, September, 1999.
[Ham95] Ham, A. J, “ Flight-Testing and Frequency-Domain Analysis for Rotorcraft Handling Qualities.” Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, Vol. 40, April 1995.
[Harr79] Harris, F. D., et al, “Helicopter Performance Methodology at Bell Helicopter Textron,” Proc. 35th Ann. Forum American
Helicopter Society, Washington D.C. May, 1979
[Harr86] Harris D. H., “AHIP: The OH-58D From Conception to Production”, Proceedings of the 42nd Annual American Helicopter
Society Forum , Washington D.C. June 1986.
[Harr86] Harris, F.D., “AHIP: The OH-58D From Conception To Production,” Proc. 42 nd Ann. Forum, Amer. Heli. Soc.,
Washington, D.C., June 1986.
[Harr97] Harris, F. D., and Scully, Dr. M. P., “Helicopters Cost Too Much,” Proc. 53rd Amer. Heli. Soc. Ann Forum, Virginia Beach,
April 1997.
[Harv79] Harvey, Keith, and Hughes, C., “Design, Analysis and Testing of a New Generation Tail Rotor,” Proceedings of the 35th
American Helicopter Society Forum, May 1979.
[Hawl80] Hawles, D.R., “Liquid Inertia Vibration Eliminator,” Proceedings of the 36th American Helicopter Society Forum , May,
1980.
[Heli01] Helivalue$, Inc., The Official Helicopter BlueBook, Helivalue$ Inc., 2001.
[Hirs01] Hirschberg, M, “On the Vertical Horizon: IHPTET –Power of the Future”, http://www.vtol.org/IHPTET.HTM, June 20th ,
2002.
[Hoer75] Hoerner, S.F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Practical Information on Aerodynamic Drag and Hydrodynamic Resistance., Midland
Park, N. J. 1965.
[Jaco80] Jacobs, C., “Static Test of OH-58 Airframe Assembly, Part II Test Results,” BHTI Report No. 206 -095-013, December 16,
1980.
[Kora00] Koratkar, N.A., and Chopra, I., “Wind Tunnel Testing of a Mach-Scaled Rotor Model With Trailing Edge Flaps,”
Proceedings of the 56 th American Helicopter Society Forum , Virginia Beach, VA, May, 2000.
[Land00] Land, J. and Weitzman, C., “ How HUMS systems have the potential of significantly reducing the direct operating cost for
modern helicopters through monitoring”, Proceedings of the 51st AHS Anuual Forum, Fort Worth, Texas, May, 1995.
[Lesl96] Leslie, P., “Short Haul Civil Tiltrotor and Bell Model 412 Cost Drivers,” NASA / Industry / Operator Rotorcraft Economics
Workshop – NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, May, 1996.
[Lewi87] Lewicki, D.G., and Coy, J.J., “Vibration Characteristics of OH-58A Helicopter Main Rotor Transmission,” NASA Technical
Paper 2705 , 1987.
[Lewi92] Lewicki D.G., “Development of a Full- Scale Transmission Testing Procedure to Evaluate Advanced Lubricants”, NASA
technical paper 3265 , August 1992.
[Lows92] Lowson, M., “Helicopter Noise,” The Aeronautical Journal, June/July, 1992, pp. 209 -223.
[Megg02] Meggitt, http://www.meggittavi.com/, June 19, 2002.
[OHan98] O’Handley, R.C., “Model for Strain and Magnetization in Magnetic Shape Memory Alloys,” Journal of Applied Physics,
vol. 83, No. 6, 1998, pp. 3263-3270.
[Padf96] Padfield,G.D., Helicopter Flight Dynamic: The Theory and application of Flying qualities and simulation Modeling, AIAA,
Washington, D.C.,1996.
[Pegg69] Pegg, R. J., “ A Flight Investigation of a Lightweight Helicopter to Study the Feasibility of Fixed-Collective-Pitch
Autorotations,” NASA Technical Note, NASA TN D-5270, June 1969.
[Prou95] Prouty, R.W., Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control., Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, 1995.
[Prou95] Prouty, R. W., Helicopter performance, st ability and Control, Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, 1995.
[Oldr96] Oldroyd, Paul K. and Sehgal, A., “Design, Development and Fabrication of the Model 430 Bearingless Main Rotor Yoke,”
Proceedings of the 52nd American Helicopter Society Forum, Washington, D.C., June 1996.

100
 406-UM TerpRanger
[Redi99] Rediniotis, O.K., Lagoudas, D.C., Garner, L.J., and Wilson, L.N., “Development of a Spined Underwater Biomimetic
Vehicle with SMA Actuators,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol.3668, March, 1999.
[Roge01] Roget, B. and Chopra, I., “T railing Edge Flap Control Methodology for Vibration Reduction of Helicopter With Dissimilar
Blades.”Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Forum , Seattle, WA, April 16-18, 2001.
[Schm76] Schmidt A.H. “A Method for Estimating the Weight of Aircraft Transmissions”, Proceedings 35th Annual International
Conference SAWE, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May, 1976.
[Shan89] COL Shanahan, MD, “Injury in US Army Helicopter Crashes October 1979 – September 1985,” The Journal of Trauma,
1989.
[Shan94] Col. Shanahan, MD, “Projected Effectiveness of Airbag Supplemental Restraint Systems in US Army Helicopter Cockpits,”
Proceedings of the 50th American Helicopter Society Forum, 1994.
[Shen02] Shen, J. and Chopra, I., “Actuation Requirements for a Swashplat eless Helicopter Control System With Trailing-Edge
Flaps.” Proceedings of the 43 nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, Denver, CO, April 22 -25, 2002.
[Ship72] Shipman, D. P., “Fuselage Nodalization,” Proceedings of the 28 th American Helicopter Society Forum, May, 1972.
[Simu01] Simula Safety Systems, Applied Technologies Division: Cockpit Airbag Systems <http://www.simula.com/ATD/cabs.asp>
[Sing02] Singh, K., “Design of an Improved Shape Memory Alloy Actuator for Helicopter Blade Tracking.” Proceedings of SPIE
Conference on Smart Structures and Intelligent Systems, San Diego, CA, 2002.
[Sinh02] Singh, K., “Design of an Improved Shape Memory Alloy Actuator for Helicopter Blade Tracking,” University of Maryland
Master’s Thesis, College Park, Maryland, 2002.
[Smit99] Smith, M.R., “The Model 427 Pylon Isolation System,” Proceedings of the 55th American Helicopter Society Forum , May,
1999.
[Step84] Stepniewski, W.Z. and Keys, C. N., Rotary -Wing Aerodynamics, Dover Publications, New York, 1984
[Tara98] Tarascio, M. J., “An Advanced Rotorcraft Design Concept for Project Air 87 – Volume Two,” RMIT University
Undergraduate Thesis, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.
[Tayl01] Taylor, J.W.R., Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft - 2001/2001, Jane’s Publishing Company, London, England, 2001.
[Teal01] World Military and Civil Aircraft Briefing, © 2001 Teal Group Corporation.
[Tish02] Tishchenko, M.N. and Nagaraj, V. T., ENAE 634 Helicopter Design Lecture Notes, University of Maryland, College Park,
2002.
[Ulla00] Ullakko, K., et. al., “Magnetic Shape Memory (MSM)- A New Way to Generate Motion in Electromechanical Devices,”
ICEM 2000, August, 2000. pp.1195-1199.
[Weit00] Weitzman, C., “ Development of Low Cost HUMS”, Proceedings of the 55 th AHS Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada, May,
1999.
[Wils90] Wilson, F. T., “Fuselage Aerodynamic Design Issues and Rotor/Fuselage Interactional Aerodynamics,” AGARD Report on
Aerodynamics of Rotorcraft. No.781, November 1990, pp. 4-1 to 4-37.

101