Ad 0901651

UNCLASSIFIED
AD NUMBER
AD901651
NEW LIMITATION CHANGE

TO
Approved for public release, distribution
unlimited
FROM
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't.
agencies only; Test and Evaluation; FEB
1972. Other requests shall be referred to
Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division,
Attn: SDQH, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
45433.
AUTHORITY
asd, usaf ltr, 17 apr 1974
THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

CATEGORY- 1
PERFORMANCE TEST
UN-INOF THE
F UH-N HELICOPTER
F
T
n
-l
ROBERT H.SPRINGER
Project Engineer
DONALD BERGER
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
Project Pilot
1
TECHNICAL REPORT No.72-17
MAY 1972 DD
/ UJ
0.1sTrbution limited to U.S.Government agencies oniy
__-
i ight-tteron.oo.
AFB, Ohio
45433.
es Evla4o) Ferar997.Ohe72qet JUL
AIR FOIRCE FIGHT TEST CENTER

V I
EDWAIRD SA IFORCE BASE* CALIFORNIA
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
• UNITED STATIES AIR FORCE
Qualifie d reueiters may obtain,coois of thisreport from the
Defense Documentation Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria,
Va. Department of Defense contractors must be established for
DDC services, or have "need-o know" certifiedby cognizant
military agency of their project or contract.
DDC releose to OTS is, not authorized
used. for
When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are
operation,
any purpose other than a definitely related government procurement
any obligation whatsoever;
the government thereby incurs no responsibility nor
and the fact that the government may have formulated, furnished, or in anyway
ii not to be regarded
supplied the said drawings, specifications, or any other data
by implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or any
other
person or corporation or conveying any rights or permission to-manufacturo, use
or
sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.
Do not return this copy, Retain or destroy
tor
ION
0
WIIITE aEC1IOK C3
3W SEC1IIR 0
BUFF
TIFICA
.. ...................
O.........
BY............ CO.ES
juniorIlAL
IIIST. \AVAIL tCA
,'~t-j
-
:,r
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE wo I

HEADQUARTERS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION (AFSC)n
WRIGHT.PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. OHIO 45433
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: ASD/SDQH 6-42 (Maj Thompson/54480/bjs/R&D 13-2-3N)
SUBJECT: ASD Addendum to FTC-TR-72-17, Ul-IN Performance Tests
TO: Recipients of FTC-TR-72-17

(Initial distribution on attached list)
This report is a part of and should remain attached to FTC-TR-72-17,

"Category II Performance Test of the UH-IN Helicopter". As noted
in Volume I of the report, Volume II contains only detailed tech-
nical data which substantiates the test results presented in Volume I.
Therefore, Volume II has been printed and distributed only to selected
addressees who have demonstrated engineering interest in the UH-IN
system. The paragraph. numbers below correspond to the recommendations
in the AFFC Technical Report, Volume I.
1 through. 7. Concur with.intent. ASD has initiated action to incor-

porate ihe iquired information in the appropriate aircraft manuals.
8. Concur with intent. ASD has forwarded this recommendation to the

Airframe Contractor for review and comments.
FOR THE COMMANDER
S LLIAM EASTMAN, Jr, 4 Col, USAF 1 Atch

Chief, Helicopter Program Office a/s
Directorate of Combat Systems
Deputy- for Systems
A' -
nST RPORT DISTRIBUTION
H-i
HQ USAF: r-Q/RDPN/PRPL/SAMI/SMEM=VA/SSSRA
AHQ AFSCi. DOV/SD.VS/DLTA
HQ ASD: sDQH*/smPL/xRHD, HQ x-TD: SNDI/ENIE
HQ APLC: ',NCAAi-PC. A7-FDL,: PC-C
AFTC: 651t TGE* ADTC: DLOSL,/D!;GZ//DLYS
WRAMA: KMMD- 1*Al1MEAP* 'SAAMIA: IMMIiLO
OCAMA: MMMAA HQ TAC: DRLS/D*'L/DDSO
USAFSOF: DR
ISOW/DM, 317 SOS, 8-34 FMS (EGLIN AFB AUrX #9, FLA)
I-Q MAC: DOjQ HQ ARRS: ARXRD
USA AVSCOM: AlMSAV-R-F
USA AVSYS TEST ACTIVITY: SA.VTE-P' (EDWARDS AFB, CALIF)
USA tQ'v-M: AMSWE-REW9
USA AE&SW: LIBRARIAN
DCASO (OTTOWA 6, ONTARIO, CANADA)
1 CANADIAN LOG LIAISON: MCLRCA*
BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY*
UNITED AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD*
FAA: MS-110/FS-16O*
DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTER*
USDA FOREST SERVICE
TEE RAND CORP: LIBRARY D
SANDIA CORPORATION LIBRARY I
155OATTWG: DO
EQ ATC: T±ME/TtAT-B
STTC: TSOP-E/T9OP-T/37ST104
HQ COMD: DOT/flMM, 1 CQMP WIG: WLO/DOHL
EHQ SAC: OAI
USAFA: DFAN
AU: AvUL/LSE-;6389
1002 IG GP: "IGDSFR
USAF' &AM: S'vIKN
CINCACAF: DOMQ
HQ USAFE: DOL
HQ 17AF: IDOOW, 7TH SOS: SOSO
USAPSO: COT/iME
NASC: AIR-503-D, -5104C2, -5362/OAP-31*,
NATC: CT-14/FT 2312*
NADC: ADL
USA BPA: SAVBC-E
(*Denotes recipients oiE su~bstant iazing dcia- epr
ZE
V
FTC-TR-72-17
VOLUME I OF II
CATEGORY II
PERFORMANCE TEST
OF THE
UN-IN HELICOPTER
ROBERT H. SPRINGER DONALD BERGER

Project Engineer Lieutenant Colonel, US AF
Project Pilot
Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only

(Test and Evaluation), February 1972. Other requests
for this document must be referred to ASD (SDQH),
Wright.Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433.
.- T' V. 7,
FOREWORD
Testing was conducted between 17 November 1970 and 16 February 1972

at Edwards AFB, Bakersfield, Bishop and the nearby high altitude test
site of Coyote Flats, California, and in Canada at Canadian Forces Base
Cold Lake, Alberta. The tests were conducted under authority of AFFTC
Project Directive 69-49B (Program Structure 443N). UH-IN helicopter
USAF S/N 68-10776 was utilized for these tests.
The authors of this report wish to express their appreciation to
Sergeant W.T. Geary, Jr., Technical Sergeant J.C. Dixon, Miss Nancy Hart,
Mr. P.W. Martin, and Captain R.J. Taylor, Canadian Armed Forces, for their
assistance in data reduction and engineering analysis. In addition,
the dedicated efforts of Mr. D. Abramowitz, crew chief, and his mainte-
nance crew are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks and apprecia-
tion are expressed to Mr. John Somsel, project manager, for his guidance
and assistance.
Foreign announcement and dissemination by the Defense Documentation
Center are not authorized because of technology restrictions of the U.S.
Export Control Acts as implemented by AFR 400-10.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:

9 MAY 1972
ROBERT H. SPRIIER JAMESW, WOOD

Project Engineer Colonel, USAF
Commander, 6510 Test Wing
DONALD BERGER1
OAER ROBERT M. WHITE
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Brigadier General, USAF
Project Pilot Commander
ii-
ESTRACT
his report presents the results
tests conducted to obtain data for theof the UH-IN Category II performance
Flight Manual. In general, hover,
climb, level flight, and takeoff performance equalled or exceeded that
estimated in the Flight Manual; the exception being level flight at low
weight and/or altitude. Level flight tests with external armament re-
sulted in a 5- to 10-percent reduction in range capability depending on
loading. The UH-lN had excellent single-engine performance resulting in
a relatively small AVOID area on the height-velocity curve. A single-
engine go-around was possible at all conditions outside a well defined
CAUTION area. Slope landing tests were made on slopes up to 17 degrees.
The standard airspeed system would not register airspeeds below 15 to 20
knots, and there were position errors of up to 9 knots in level flight and
7 knots in climb. Discrepancies in the engine power indicating systems
were found to be sufficient to possibly cause an unnecessary replacement
of a satisfactory engine.
iii
table of contents
Page
LIS r OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi
LISa OF TABLES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLSviii
INTRODUCTION 1
TEST AND EVALUATION_ 2
Pitot-Static System Calibration 2
Hover Performance 6
Takeoff Performance 11
Climb Performance 15
Level Flight Performance 16
Compressibility 16
Twin-Engine Operation 17
Maximum Range Performance- 17
Maximum Endurance (Loiter)_ 17
Single-Engine Operation 18
External Armament 19
Center of Gravity Location 20
Vibration 20
Lateral 21
Verti cal 21
Pitch Link Loads 21
Autorotational Descent Performance 38
Slope Landing 38
Height-Velocity 39
Engine Performance 41
General 41
iv
Page
Engine Inlet Performance _______________________________42
Power Available ____________________________________43
Power Available Determiination _______________________________44
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ______________ 46
REFERENCES __________________________________41
BIBLIOGRAPHY __________________________________48
APPENDIX I - TEST TECHNIQUES, DATA ANALYSIS METHODS, AND TEST DATA * 1

General__________________________________________
Pitot-Static System Calibration __________________________________2
Hover__________________________ 2
Takeoff __________________________________________3
Climb _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5
Level Flight I____________
Vibration _________________________________________8
Aoteretational Descents I____________
Slope Landing _______________________________________
Hcight-Volicity_______________________________________ 10
Power Determination ______________________________________11
APPENDIX 11 - GENERAL AIRCRAFT INFORMATION__________________ 152
Dimensions and Design Data _________________________________182
Rotor Systems 185
Power Plant ___________________________________186
Weight and Balance i
187____________________
Flight Limits_________________________________ 187

Test Instrumentation l
187____________________
Instrumentation List __________________________________ _ 1817
*Appendixes I and 11will be published in volume 11.
v
ii
DI
list of illustrations
Figure Title Page
1-3 Airspeed Calibration Summary 3-5
4 Compressibility Effects on Power Required to Hover 8
5 Hover Ceiling Summary - Standard Day_ 9
6 Hover Ceiling Summary - Hot Day 10
7 Takeoff Performance Summary_ 12
8 Compressibility Effects on Power Required for
Level Flight . 23
9-12 Level Flight Performance Summary - Twin-Engine 24-27
13 Optimum Level Flight Maximum Range Cruise
Altitude Summary -28
14 Maximum Range Cruise Performance Altitude

Effects Summary 29
15 Compressibility Effects on Maximum Endurance
Power Required 30
16-18 Level Flight Performance Summary - Single-Engine_ _ 31-33
19-21 Level Flight Performance Summary - With
External Armament 34-36
22 Pitch Link Loads Survey 37
Appendix I, Volume 11
1 Airspeed Calibration - AVpc 14

2 Airspeed Calibration - Standard System 15
3 Altimeter Static Source Calibration 16
4-6 Nondimensional Hovering Performance 3ummary 17-19
7-13 Nondimensional Hovering Performance 21-27
14-17 Flight Control Positions in Hovering Flight 29-32
18 Nondimensional Takeoff Performance 33
19-21 Takeoff Distance Required to Clear a 50-ft
Obstacle 34-36
Obstacle 38-40
Obstacle 42-44
A 4.
Figure Title Page
obstacle 46-48
Obstacle 50-52
38-39 Sawtooth Climb Performance 53-54
40-41 Con*.", iuous Climb Perf ormance 55-56
42-51 Nondimensional Level Flight Performance
Summary 57-66
52-101 Nondimensional Level Flight Performance 67-116
102-111 Vibration Characteristics 117-126
112-113 Pitch Link Load Survey 127-128
114-117 Sawtooth Autorotational Descent Performance 129-132
118 Slope Landing Slope Angle Limits and Cyclic
Control Positions 133
119-126 Height-Velocity Performance 134-141
127-138 Engine Characteristics 142-153
139-141 Engine Inlet Characteristics 154-156
142-153 Engine Characteristics 157-168
154-159 Engine Inlet Characteristics16-7
160-161 Engine Topping Variance with T a 175-176
162-163 Single-Engine Shaft Horsepower Available 177-178
164-165 Time History of Engine Topping 179-180
166 Comparison of Pilot Panel and Special
Instrumentation Readings for ITT and Ng 181
Appendixl11, Volume 11
1 Principal UH-1N Dimensions 183
2 Torquemeter Operation 187
3-8 Combining Cearbox Torquemeter Calibration 188-193
9 Longitudinal Center of Gravity Limit
Envelope 194
10 Airspeed Limit Envelope 195
O__
40......41... 3i__
uio_ .
9
,,st ie tables
Table Title Page
I Hovering Ceiling Test and Flight Manual
Comparison 7
II Single-Engine Hovering Performance 7
III Comparison of Test and Flight Manual Level
Flight Performance 17
IV Single- and Twin-Engine Operation Level
Flight Performance Comparisons 18
V Level Flight Performance with External
Armament 19
VI Level Flight Power Required Increases with
External Armament 20
VII Single-Engine Power Available Loss Summary - 44
Appendix I, Volume 11
I Summary of Hover Test Conditions 3

II Summary of Level Flight Test Conditions 6-7
listof abbreviatins and symbols

Item Definition Units
A rotor disk area
BHC Bell Helicopter Company - - -
C centigrade or Celsius
C power coefficient dimensionless
CM thrust coefficient dimensionless
CIT indicated compressor inlet total temperature deg C
(tt2 )
cps cycles per second
FAT free air temperature (ta, ambient air tem- deg C
perature)
GW gross weight lb
H geopotential altitude (pressure altitude) ft
AH PC correction for static source (altimeter) ft
position error
h tapeline altitude ft
International Civil Aeronautics Organization - - -
ICAO
viii
TT,
IGE in ground effect
ITT inter turbine temperature deg C
K Kelvin
KCAS knots calibrated airspeed
KIAS knots indicated airspeed (corrected for
instrument error)
KTAS knots true airspeed
m local slope of a curve variable
MTIP advancing blade tip Mach number dimensionless
NAMPP nautical air miles per pound of fuel - - -
NAMT nautical air miles traveled

NE engine output shaft speed rpm
Nf power turbine speed (N2 ) rpm
Ng gas producer speed (NI ) rpm
NR main rotor speed rpm
OAT outside air temperature (ttic indicated deg C
total temperature corrected for instrument
error)
OGE out of ground effect ft
PA pressure altitude ft
Pa atmospheric or ambient pressure in. Hg
P3 compressor bleed air pressure for fuel control psi
Pt2 compressor inlet total pressure in. Hg
Q engine output torque ft-lb
R rotor radius ft
Re Reynolds number dimensionless
R/C rate of climb ft per min
R/D rate of descent ft per min
N,
RNE referred engine output shaft speed (-) rpm
S/E single-engine operation a
shaft horsepower 550 ft-lb

shp sec
SL sea level
T temperature (always used with a subscript) deg K
Ta ambient or atmospheric temperature deg K
UACL United Aircraft of Canada, Limited - - -
V velocity (used in general terms) kt
Vc calibrated airspeed kt
ix
Vi indicated airspeed (corrected for instrument kt
error)
VNE indicated airspeed never to exceed kt
Vt true airspeed kt
AVpc correction for airspeed position error kt
W gross weight lb
Wf fuel flow lb per hr
Pa
a ambient pressure ratio ) imensionless
6t
2 engine compressor inlet pressure ratio dimensionless
(Pt2/Pas L )
A' incremental change in a parameter variable
rotor blade azimuth (zero at the tail, deg
180 deg at the nose)
8a ambient temperature ratio (= Ta/TaSL) dimensionless
Ot2 engine compressor inlet temperature ratio dimensionless
2(
(=Tt2 /TaSL)
rotor advance ratio dimensionless
rotor angular velocity rad per sec
Subscripts
Item Definition
a ambient
i indicated
s standard day conditions
t test day conditions or total
SL sea level
2 engine station (compressor inlet face)
3 engine station (compressor)
5 engine station (inter turbine)
Nam
INTRODUCTION
The UH-lN is a twin-engined, single-main-rotor helicopter which
is basically a military version of the civilian Bell Helicopter Model
212. The primary missions for which the UH-IN was procured are the
Tactical Air Command's Special Operations Forces missions of countei-
insurgency, unconventional warfare, and psychological operations. The
secondary missions are the transport of personnel and equipment and the
delivery of protective fire by the installation of appropriate weapons.
The UH-lN armament system consists of pintle-mounted 7.62mm miniguns
(XM-93), 40mm grenade launchers (XM-94), and rocket launchers (LAU-59/A)
with seven 2.75-inch folding fin rockets per pod.
The Category II performance test program was conducted by Air Force
Flight Test Center (AFFTC) personnel. The first flight was on 17 Novem-
ber 1970, and the last flight was on 16 February 1972. The performance
test data were acquired utilizing UH-lN USAF S/N 68-10776. Two hundred
fifty-one sorties for 277 flight hours were required for 162.8 test hours.
The extra hours were required for ferry, functional check flights and
other flying in direct support of the test program. The test aircraft
was also used for flying qualities and propulsion testing concurrently
with the performance testing and accumulated a total of 335 sorties and
432.8 flying hours during the Category II test effort.
The test aircraft sustained major damage in an accident on 16

February 1972 during height-velocity testing at Edwards Air Force Base.
The Category II performance testing terminated on that date. As a result,
the planned single-engine takeoff tests at 2,300 feet PA, autorotational
descent tests above 10,000 feet, and height-velocity tests at 9,500
pounds and 10,500 pounds at 2,100 feet PA were not completed.
The UH-lN helicopter has a single two-bladed main lifting rotor and
a tractor tail rotor instead of the more conventional pusher tail rotor.
The UH-lN utilizes the basic UH-lD fuselage and is equipped with thin tip
main and tail rotor blades. The aircraft is powered by a United Aircraft
of Canada Limited T400-CP-400 power package consisting of two PT6T-4
free-turbine turboshaft engines coupled to a combining gearbox having a
single output shaft. Each engine has an uninstalled rating of 900 shaft
horsepower at sea level, standard day conditions. Overrunning clutches
in the combining gearbox allow engine torque to be transmitted in one
direction only, thus providing for both single-engine operation and two
engine-out autorotation. Load sharing between the two engines is equal-
ized by an automatic torque matching device. The maximum allowable forward
speed is 130 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), and the maximum gross weight
is 10,000 pounds. The maximum allowable gross weight for testing pur-
poses was 10,500 pounds and 11,500 pounds for tethered hover tests. Ex-
cept for a short period, the maximum allowable altitude was 15,000 feet.
The empty weight of the test helicopter, including test instrumentation,
was 6,733 pounds. The production UH-IN has an empty basic gross weight
of approximately 6,000 pounds.
The original installed calibrated test power package was gearbox S/N
4064 with engines S/N 66127 and S/N 66128. This power package was re-
placed on 5 August 1971 when a power degradation was observed. A new
calibrated test power package, gearbox S/N 4061, with engines S/N 66121
and S/N 66122, was installed. On 11 September 1971, engine S/N 66121
was replaced when a broken inter-turbine-temperature (ITT) lead fitting
was found. The new left engine was S/N 66126.
I
TEST AND EVALUATION
Pilot-Static System Calibration
The pitot-static system calibration tests were conducted to deter-

mine the position error of the standard and test (boom) airspeed and
altimeter systems. Both airspeed systems were calibrated in level flight
by the tower fly-by and ground-speed course methods. The standard system
was calibrated in climb and autorotational descent by comparing it to the
boom system. The standard system static source position error (altimeter)
was determined by the tower fly-by and ground-speed course methods in
level flight only. The calibrations were conducted in the clean configura-
tion only. Airspeed calibration summary curves are shown in figures 1
through 3, and the calibration test data are presented in figures 1 through
3, appendix I.
The standard airspeed system position error in level flight was
within specification limits (MIL-I-5072A, reference 1) at speeds above
39 knots indicated airspeed. Zero error existed at 67 KIAS and the error
was 2 knots or less from 51 to 125 KIAS. This speed range covers the
level flight maximum endurance (loiter) and recommended cruise (maximum
range) speeds. The error at airspeeds less than 39 KIAS was greater than
specification limits (+4 knots). At 30 KIAS the error increased to 6
knots. Airspeed did not indicate below 15 knots. Flight in the speed
range of 20 to 40 knots is normally limited to takeoff and landing, but
many mission requirements necessitate relatively slow flight, frequently
close to the ground.
The standard airspeea system position error was in excess of the

specification limits below 70 KIAS in climb and below 75 KIAS in auto-
rotation. Best climb speed was 48-52 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS)
which required a position error correction of 6 knots. Minimum rate of
descent autorotation speed is 57 KIAS which requires a position error
correction of 9 knots. The correction at the airspeed for maximi'm
range in autorotation was 4 knots or less.
The large airspeed position error in low speed level flight, climb,
and autorotational descent was attributed to the location of the standard
system pitot-static source. The pitot-static source head was located on
the upper forward fuselage over the cockpit area. This location was sub-
ject to heavy rotor wash influence at low speeds in forward flight and
in climbs. In autorotation the pitot-static source is subject to severe
airflow disturbance due to the large angle between the relative airflow
and the fuselage. Means of reducing airspeed indicating errors should
be investigated. (R8)1
The static source position error resulting in an altimeter error

was within specification limits at indicated airspeeds greater than 45
knots. Below this speed the altimeter error was qreater than the specifica-
tion limits. However, the maximum errorwas less than 25 feet, and is
acceptable.
1
Boldface numerals preceded by an R correspond to the recommendation numbers tabulated in the Conclusions and
Recommendations section of this report.
7 7 7M
t~~tiN d5l~J ~ A~~' 7TiItr
~;I4 4 Pu
lit rl T tt
~'~j42 TL
1 0
1-it
'~-i-r ~ ~~~~tTH
1__ 1.t t
t I'%
1k V1
~4Oatr 4rfnliI
IF I T-
Ur, E rA o
110A
j ..~A ~
, ~.0!
A,
A 4 oo
100 ~ ~ AI
go ~
4XA
0;A
80,--.
I~i 12&Icrrmr Fligwot Mi'Al
A4 40I
100
9-49lq 1j 2
~j80 IA A A
Indcaed
-it 'c A 1~nioa1
.. iue Aised-~b~ib2btmtL!
A A I"
-4-
- 77, I t --
-- IFRI
r :-T R
~-1v
~h~t
Flgi 'Mn
40
I I '~E~ghc nuT,
Cat~II tAu~r~taioA
H-40
30r 'IITIt1q
Hover Performance
In-ground-effect (IGE) and out-of-ground-effect (OGE) hovering
performance data were obtained by tethered and free flight techniques
at average pressure altitudes of 2,000 and 9,600 feet. Tethered hover-
ing was investigated at skid heights from 2 to 60 feet in less than 3
knots of wind. Free flight hovering was done at all tethered skid heights
plus 100 feet skid height.
Special attention was given to determining increases in power re-
quired due to rotor blade compressibility. The increase in power required
due to compressibility was undetectable at low gross weight, altitude,
and skid heights. The compressibility effects became noticeable as the
gross weight, altitude and/or skid height were increased. For the typical
mission condition shown in figure 4, the power required increased approxi-
mately 9 percent as the temperature varied from 40 degrees C to 0 degrees
C. The estimated power required figures in the Flight Manual (reference
2) were 7 to 8.5 percent higher than test data for corresponding blade tip
Mach numbers. The nondimensional hovering performance data are presented
in fiqures 4 through 13, appendix I.
Hovering ceiling performance was better than estimated in the
Flight Manual. Table I compares test and Flight Manual hovering per-
formance. A free flight hover OGE ceiling test was made at the following
conditions: 10,090 pounds gross weight, -6.4 degrees C ambient tempera-
ture, 320.5 rpm rotor speed. The OGE hover ceiling was 8,710 feet PA.
The Flight Manual gives a ceiling of only 4,500 feet for these same con-
ditions. Calculated hover ceiling summaries for standard day and hot day
conditions are shown in figures 5 and 6. Table II shows computed single-
engine hovering performance.
It was determined that the UH-lN OGE boundary varied from skid
heights of 55 to 57 feet as the thrust coefficient varied from minimum
to maximum, respectively (figures 4 through 7, appendix I). In order
to ascertain that 60 feet skid height was sufficient to be OGE, free
flight hover data were obtained at 100 feet skid height.
The tethered hovering tests were conducted with constant referred

rotor speeds (NR//O), and because of the temperature ranges experienced
during the tests, main rotor speeds were varied from 324 rpm down to as
low as 294 rpm. Increasingly greater tail rotor thrust was required as
the main rotor speed was reduced. This resulted from more main rotor
shaft torque being required to maintain a constant shaft horsepower as
the main rotor shaft rpm was reduced, and more thrust was required of
the tail rotor to counter the main rotor shaft torque. Directional pedal
positions as a function of main rotor thrust coefficient (CT) are pre-
sented in figures 14 through 17, appendix I. Left directional pedal
travel was never lower than 14.5-percent (1 inch) remaining for the
tethered hover tests at main rotor speeds of 314 rpm (94 percent) to 324
rpm (100 percent). Main rotor speeds less than 314 rpm resulted in more
left pedal travel required, and at high CT and low rpm combinations, 10
percent or less of pedal travel remained. The good directional control
characteristic is attributed to the large chord tail rotor blade and
tractor tail rotor installation.
6
f!
Table I
HOVERING CEILING TEST AND FLIGHT MANUAL COMPARISON

Standard Day
1
Military Power
Rotor Speed 324 rpm (100 percent)
4-Ft Skid Height 15-Ft Skid Height OGE
2 2 2
Flight Manual Test Flight Manual Test Flight Manual Test
Pressure
Altitude Weight
Gross(lb) Weight
Gross(lb) Weight
Gross(lb) Weight
Gross(lb) Gross(lb)
Weight Gross Weight
(ft) (lb)
SL * * *
5,000 9,950 10,430
10,000 10,150 10,200 9,250 9,550
*Gross weight limited to 10,500 pound maximum.

1
Derived from figure 163, appendix I.
2
Test gross weight calculated for conditions stated.
Table II
SINGLE-ENGINE HOVERING PERFORMANCE 1
Standard Day
Military Power
NR 314 rpm (97 pct)
Maximum Gross Weight (lb)

Altitude 4-Foot OGE
SL 9,190 7,820
5,000 8,200 7,000
iComputed values: power required derived

from figure 13, appendix I; power avail-
able derived from figure 163, appendix I.
T~~~
4--,4
- - - - - - --- - ---
I T
G9WEGt
5 9b,0 LBM,0-
w~~~~ IH16t FTSl.

T EBT L~~E1~0:~
V 4r A-trCV'
* I ~w
* I 'T
1*oo
19--- 0 -
0 10ZO4
FREE
AIR T0MPROTURGNT(*C)
I5 r-t 6:ot~t~iFbd10VCi
n6RE QMP -:SfU --
)T O-c~p ' 00 E-NN
I7 Y F.TGO
"I
ROT6A SiEO ='Z4RP!I0*6
14Q0
SKID) V46I-r
12pbo~3 - \ StFT
G+WS WEIGVHT
I. II
74 7
ITEGO~t::M
. .... 4y
ILIT,, Fi~-riNWE-:f
f1o 4' 15P

* tUM
LOW0L
*01.~ IDI~Y I~jS WIGHT
*
I 4;
*I: ~ J
V.
MdX1MM:ALQWWATE5T
e -r66
I 'P0 0 I 1 6SsPOP4
FIUE I.y HO-~

, Takeoff Performance
Takeoff tests were performed at a pressure altitude of approximately
9,600 feet (10,500 feet average density altitude). The test gross weight
was varied from 9,000 pounds to 10,500 pounds. The rotor speed was 324
rpm (100 percent) at the start of all takeoff tests. Five basic takeoff
techniques were used:
1. Level acceleration from a 4-foot hover without rotor rpm bleed.
2. Level acceleration from a 4-foot hover with rotor rpm bleed.
3. Climb and acceleration from light-on-skids without rotor rpm bleed.

4. Climb and acceleration from light-on-skids with rotor rpm bleed.
5. Level acceleration from a 15-foot hover without rotor rpm bleed.
These techniques are described in detail in appendix I.
Figure 7 compares the takeoff performance for level acceleration
from a 4-foot hover and climb and acceleration from light-on-skids tech-
niques for one set of conditions. The climb and acceleration takeoff
technique always yielded shorter distances to clear a 50-foot obstacle
than the level acceleration. The typical reduction in distance was 100
feet. The use of rotor bleed with either method always resulted in a
reduction in distance required. The maximum performance was attained
using rotor rpm bleed with the climb and accelerate technique. This re-
sulted in a 150-foot (30 percent at 25 KIAS) reduction in distance compared
to level acceleration with no bleed. Figures 18 through 37, appendix I,
present the takeoff test data.
As can be seen, with the conditions in figure 7, a vertical takeoff
and climbout were possible when using the rotor rpm bleed technique, but
this was not possible when rotor rpm bleed was not used. The advantage
of the NR bleed technique over maintaining 100 percent NR was that it
assured topping power was always reached. Present topping procedures
are based on 97 percent NR. Maintaining 100-percent NR did not always
assure that engine limits of Ng and ITT were reached. Since these limits
are independent of one another, the pilot must be aware of all of them
and assure that these limits are not exceeded.
The vertical climb takeoff poses one major hazard; considerable
flight exposure in the avoid area of the height-velocity curve. Therefore,
the vertical climb takeoff should not be used except when operational
necessity requires this and the risk involved in operating in the height-
velocity avoid area is acceptable.
The standard airspeed system was unreliable below 20 KIAS. Consistent
minimum takeoff distances in this speed range could only be accomplished
by holding a pitch attitude.
The level acceleration from a 15-foot hover technique simulated a

takeoff with a sling load. The technique involved was basically the
same as the level acceleration from a 4-foot hover. The performance for
a given set of conditions was less, however, since more power was required
to hover at 15 feet than at 4 feet. Therefore, less excess power was
available for the takeoff acceleration and climbout.
11
<4T4
A,~05MWIGHT 9760
PRL-JfPLtAItU -7 9t§00 FT'
+ 1 F~~EE~eTfMPEPTUa 8§4.
E~t0 L i ~
ON~i~ 7 IN 4mIO
MLITR? POWER.PiT S0 FT'
I F*E- CCL~ao
1kO 4*TibA
"0 PO -'EMEE
140 W.2.;:O 5FO LEE
jcO0
o CUMS ANI' PrCELEROTE

0 FF6flMLa4TH10 5KIDS
Z WITH PTCAA SPEED BLEED
%P 7O.0 30 so co
CLIMfB OUT TRUE PARSPEED (KT)
12? FIGSAJfrE t. PRFOIF:h4RNCE 5UMMARY,

TAKErCFOFW
-. 3-v
Section II of the Flight Manual should be changed to incorporate the

following: (R2)
TYPES OF TAKE-OFF (Change to Read)
The factors governing the type of take-off to be accom-

plished are the gross weight of the helicopter, the
pressure altitude, outside air temperature, wind direc-
tion and velocity, the size of the take-off area, and
the tactical situation. The most commonly used types
of take-off are take-off to a hover, normal take-off
and maximum performance take-off. Maximum performance
take-off techniques are level acceleration, climb and
acceleration and the slide take-off. For all tech-
niques, coordinate the collective pitch and Nf governor
(beep) switch as required to maintain the desired rotor
speed. The NR may overshoot when the beep switch is
held continuously at full increase. Overshoot of NR can
be controlled by "pulsing" the switch as collective pitch
is increased until maximum NR is reached. NR is then
easily controlled with collective pitch. Rotor rpm bleed
may be used with any of the three maximum performance
techniques. The advantage of using rotor rpm bleed
over maintaining 100-percent NR is that it assures
topping power is always reached. Take-off distances
listed in Appendix I are for maximum performance take-
offs with and without rotor bleed techniques when
maximum allowable (or available) power is maintained
until clear of obstacles and climbout airspeed is main-
tained in accordance with Appendix I.
TAKE-OFF TO A HOVER (Remains unchanged)
NORMAL TAKE-OFF (Remains unchanged)
MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE TAKE-OFFS (Change to read)
Level Acceleration
The level acceleration take-off may be required when
operating from small and/or restricted areas when
sufficient power to hover out of ground effect is
not available. From a hover, accelerate as rapidly
as possible to the climb-out airspeed, reference
Appendix I, maintaining maximum power at 100% NR.
Climb out at this airspeed, maintainiihg maximum
power until clear of all obstacles, then smoothly
increase airspeed to normal climb speed.
Rotor "Bleed"
If a shorter distance to clear an obstacle is
required, use the level acceleration technique com-
bined with rotor bleed. As the climb airspeed is
reached and the climb started, slowly bleed the
rotor rpm from 100% to 97%. As the rotor rpm is
bled, care must be taken not to exceed engine limi-
tations. As the obstacles are cleared, lower the
13
- -,- ~- - N'
collective pitch slightly to allow NR to increase
to 100% while maintaining airspeed. After 100% NR
is obtained, establish normal climb.
IWARNINGI
During climb-out do not let the air-
speed drop below translational lift
speed (approximately 15 knots) or
Saircraft settling may occur. If the
aircraft starts to settle, lower the
nose of the aircraft slightly to in-
crease airspeed.
Climb and Acceleration
From a light-on-the-skids condition, smoothly increase

power to maximum while maintaining NR at 100%. At the
same time use cyclic stick to obtain the desired climb-
out airspeed in accordance with Appendix I.
NOTE
Due to the unreliability of the air-
speed indicator below 20 KIAS, use
pitch attitude change to establish
the take-off.
Approximately 5 degrees of nosedown pitch change will

give 25 KIAS climb-out speed.
After the desired height has been reached, smoothly

transition to a normal climb. Vertical takeoffs and
climbs to out-of-ground effect are not recommended;
however, if operational necessity requires a vertical
climb, accelerate to minimum climb airspeed as soon
as possible after clearing obstacles.
Rotor "Bleed"
If the absolute maximum performance is required for
take-off, the rotor bleed technique may be used in
conjunction with the climb and acceleration. As the
aircraft passes through a 10 foot height, slowly bleed
the rotor from 100% to 97%, taking care not to exceed
engine limits. When sufficient altitude for obstacle
clearance is obtained, lower collective slightly to
regain 100% NR and then transition to normal climb
speed.
14
IWARNINGI IIII
aircraft settling may occur. If the
crease airspeed.
Slide
Apply maximum allowable power and move the cyclic
control stick forward far enough to obtain take-off
airspeed. The helicopter will normally fly itself
off the surface at translational lift speed. When
airborne, use cyclic stick to correct any nosedown
pitching while accelerating to the climb-out airspeed.
IWARININGM
aircraft settling may occur. If the
crease airspeed.
CROSS WIND TAKE-OFF (Remains unchanged)
Climb Performance
Twin-engine climb performance to 15,000 feet PA was determined for
gross weights of 8,500 and 10,000 pounds at maximum continuous power (88-
percent torque) and 314-rpm (97-percent) rotor speed. The UH-lN heli-
copter was limited to a pressure altitude of 15,000 feet at the time
these tests were conducted because the flight envelope had not been
approved above that altitude. The test data are presented in figures 38
through 41, appendix I.
The installed engines were essentially "flat-rated" up to 15,000

feet at the temperatures encountered during the climb tests. A torque
of 88 percent (maximum continuous power) could be maintained throughout
this altitude range.
The calibrated airspeeds for maximum rates of climb ranged from 53
to 59 knots. An average climb airspeed of 56 KCAS (50 KIAS) was satis-
factory for all weight and altitude combinations. The characteristics
of the sawtooth climb data indicated that since the curvature of the
fairing in the area of the maximum rate of climb was relatively flat, a
15
..
_7 .t
deviation in climb speed of 3 KCAS from best climb speed will not sig-
nificantly reduce the rate of climb. The establishment of a single

climb speed for all conditions will make the pilot's task easier. The
Flight Manual recommends 55 KIAS (60 KCAS) based on estimated performance.
Holding an exact airspeed durinq the continuous climbs was tedious due
to the relatively neutral static longitudinal speed stability.
Any slight upsetting inputs allowed the airspeed to change slightly with
very little tendency to return to the trimmed airspeed. However, since
the speed changes encountered were generally less than +3 knots and no
difficulties ensued, only a slightly increased pilot workload was required
to maintain the desired airspeed.
Climb tests with external armament were not flown. However, the
minimum-power-required airspeeds shown in the speed-power performance
tests indicated that these airspeeds ranged from 52 to 65 KCAS with two
LAU-59/A rocket launchers only, and from 50 to 63 KCAS with full external
armament. Based on the climb characteristics, an average climb speed
of 56 KCAS is acceptable for all external armament conditions. Therefore,
a single climb speed of 56 KCAS is recommended for all climb conditions,
clean or with external armament.
Level Flight Performance

Level flight performance tests were conducted to determine power
required and specific range (nautical air miles per pound of fuel, NAMPP)
over a wide range of gross weights (W), pressure altitudes, and free
air temperatures (FAT). The tests were conducted with controlled advanc-
ing blade tip Mach number so (at a constant gross weight, airspeed, and
density altitude) the power-required increase due to compressibility
effects could be determined. All basic test conditions were flown
twin-engine with a clean mid cg loading. Single-engine conditions were
flown to investigate the increased range and loiter time potential.
Level flight performance tests were flown with external armament in-
stalled to determine the effects on power required, fuel flow, and
specific range. Level flight performance tests were flown with full
forward and aft cg locations to determine their effects on power required.
Figures 42 through 101, appendix I, present the level flight non-
dimensional data.
Compressibility
The level flight tests of the UH-lN showed that for a given gross
weight, airspeed, rotor speed, and density altitude, the power required
increased with increasing advancing blade tip Mach number above the
critical Mach number. Figure 8 illustrates the increased power required
for one set of conditions.
The increase in power required due to compressibility was also more
pzonounced at higher altitude and/or gross weight. This was due to an
increased main rotor blade angle of attack, which resulted in a lower
critical Mach number.
Tests indicated that for referred rotor speeds (NR//) up to 310
rpm, no increase in power required due to compressibility occurred.
Therefore, for all forward speeds and a rotor speed of 314 rpm (97 per-
cent), free air temperatures down to 23 degrees C would not result in a
16
power-required increase due to rotor blade compressibility. For tempera-
tures below 23 degrees C, power required could increase up to 26 percent.
Figures 9 through 12 illustrate the effects of temperature on level
flight range and loiter performance.
Twin-Engine Operation
Maximum Range Performance
Tests showed that specific range performance at sea level compared

very closely with that estimated in the Flight Manual. However, as the
cruise altitude was increased, the test specific range (NAMPP) was much
greater (improved) than that estimated in the Flight Manual. Table III
illustrates the differences between test and Flight Manual.
Table III
COMPARISON OF TEST AND FLIGHT MANUAL LEVEL FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
Gross Weight = 9,000 pounds

Standard Day Conditions
NR = 314 rpm (97 percent)
Mid cg
Maximum Endurance 1
(Loiter) Maximum Range
Fuel Flow Vc Vt
Pressure (lb/hr) (kt) Test Percent NAMPP 2 (kt) Test Percent
Altitude Flight Flight Increase in Flight Flight Increase in
(ft) Test Manual Test Manual Fuel Flow Test Manual Test Manual Snecific Panae
SL 490 480 67 65 -2.0 0.183 0.180 116 116 +1.5
5,000 460 420 65 62 -9.5 0.200 0.190 118 11 +5.5
10,000 410 415 57 58 +1.0 0.209 0.181 il 102 +15.7
iMaximum endurance calculated at minimum power required.
NAMPP is at speeds for 0.99 maximum NAMPP or VNE, whichever is less.
Figures 9 through 12 summarize the twin-engine level flight perfor-

mance test results. Optimum cruise altitude for maximum range increased
as gross weight was decreased. Figure 13 summarizes the optimum altitudes
for maximum range cruise for various gross weights and temperature condi-
tions.
Figure 14 summarizes the effects of density altitude and compressi-
bility on maximum range cruise performance for various FAT's at a gross
L weight of 9,000 pounds.
Maximum Endurance (Loiter)
Test results agreed very closely with the Flight Manual estimates
for fuel flows and calibrated airspeeds for maximum endurance at all
gross weights and altitudes except at or near 5,000 feet. Table III and
11 p
figures 9 through 12 show the test result summaries and comparisons with
the Flight Manual estimates. Compressibility effects at minimum-power-
required speeds (maximum endurance) were apparent, but the difference in
fuel flow was within 20 pounds per hour throughout the temperature range
of cold to hot day as is seen in figures 9 through 12. Figure 15 shows
the power-required variation due to compressibility for a typical maximum
endurance flight condition for various FAT's.
Single-Engine Operation
Single-engine level flight performance tests were conducted at

conditions duplicating twin-engine tests to compare maximum range and
endurance. Power required under identical flight conditions was the
same as for twin-engine operation. However, the single-engine fuel flow
was lower than twin-engine fuel flow for the same total shaft horsepower.
Table IV and figures 16 through 18 compare single- and twin-engine opera-
tion level flight performance for the maximum range and endurance con-
ditions.
Since the engine power section output shafts operate through a
common combining gearbox having a single drive shaft to the rotor trans-
mission, no asymmetrical forces result from single-engine operation.
Maximum range may be increased more than 25 percent by single-

engine operation for long range cruise. Loiter time may also be increased
by an average of 25 percent by single-engine operation. When the opera-
tional situation requires the maximum possible range and/or loiter time,
single-engine operation should be used. (R3)
Table IV
SINGLE- AND TWIN-ENGINE OPERATION LEVEL FLIGHT PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS

Standard Day Conditions
Mid cg
Maximum Endurance Fuel Flow1 Maximum Range

2
Pressure (lb/hr) NAMPP True Airspeed (kt)
Altitude Twin Single Difference Twin Single Difference Twin Single Difference
(ft) Engine Engine (pct) Engine Engine (pct) Engine Engine (pct)
SL 495 350 -29.1 0.155 0.206 +36.6 100 90 -10.5
5,000 450 340 -24.5 0.185 0.233 +25.9 112 104 -7.6
10,000 425 335 -21.2 0.196 0.253 +29.1 109 106 -3.3
1
Maximum endurance calculated at minimum power required.
2
NAMPP is at speed for 0.99 maximum NAMPP or VNE, whichever is less.
18
7777"-- 7
External Armament
Level flight performance tests were flown with external armament
installed to determine the power required and specific range data. The
tests were flown with two different loadings:
1. Rocket pods only - two LAU-59/A rocket launchers, mid cg, and
cargo doors closed.
2. Full armament - two LAU-59/A rocket launchers, two XM-93 miniguns
extended fixed to fire forward, mid cg, and cargo doors open.
table ofV.the results of the armament tests for one

A comparative summary
condition is shown in
Figures 19 through 21 present a summary of the armament tests com-

pared with the clean loading. Specific range reduction for the rocket-
pod-only loading remained fairly constant up to 10,000 feet PA, averaging
armament averaged
5 percent. Specific range reduction with full external
10 percent up to 10,000 feet PA. Table VI shows an example of the varia-
tion in power required for the clean, rocket-pods-only, and full armament
loadings.
Maximum possible range with full armament installed may be achieved
by flying enroute to an operational area with the XM-93 miniguns stowed
inside and the cargo doors closed. This could result in a 3 to 4 percent
greater specific range potential than with the guns extended.
Table V
LEVEL FLIGHT PERFORMANCE WITH EXTERNAL ARMAMENT

Hot Day (MIL-STD-210A)
Mid cg
1 2
Maximum Endurance (Loiter) Maximum Range
Pressure Fuel Flow (lb/hr) (NAMPP)
Altitude Pods Increase Full Increase Pods Decrease Full Decrease
(ft) Clean Only (pct) Arm (pct) Clean Only (pct) Arm (pct)
SL 525 538 2.5 545 3.8 0.181 0.174 -3.3 0.165 -8.8
5,000 470 497 5.7 500 6.4 0.188 0.180 -4.3 0.172 -8.6
1Maximum endurance calculated at minimum power required.

2
NAMPP is at speed for 0.99 maximum NAMPP or VNE, whichever is less.
19
Table VI
LEVEL FLIGHT POWER REQUIRED INCREASES WITH EXTERNAL ARMAMENT
Gross Weight 9,500 pounds

VT = 100 Knots
NR = 314 rpm (97 pct)
MIL-STD-210A Hot Day
Clean Rocket Pods Only Percent Increase Full Armament Percent Increase
Altitude Cla RkP Over Clean Ful Over Clean
(ft) reg reg Condition reg Condition
SL 598 673 6.5 710 18.6
5,000 595 644 7.6 671 12.7
10,000 702 782 11.4 838 19.3
Center of Gravity Location

Level flight performance tests were flown to determine the effects
of cg location on power required. The aft cg location (sta 142.9) re-
sulted in small power-required differences when compared with the mid
cg (sta 137) data. A forward gg location (sta 130.1) resulted in signifi-
cant power-required increases.
The power-required increase with a forward cg location resulted in

a calculated 5-percent reduction in specific range. The aft cg condition
resulted in an insignificant change in specific range.
Vibration
Vibration data were obtained during level flight performance tests.
The flights selected for the vibration analysis provided two flight enve-
lope cross sections: (1) Maintaining a constant coefficient of thrust
(CT) with the referred rotor speed (NR//a) varying from 300 to 340 rpm
to evaluate compressibility effects, and (2) maintaining a constant
NR//Oa with varying CT's from 0.0032 to 0.0050 to evaluate gross weight
and altitude effects. The forward and aft center of gravity location
level flights were evaluated to determine the effect of these conditions
on vibration. The vibration pick ups were located at the pilot's seat
(sta 46.7) and in the cargo area at station 133. The vibration data are
presented in figures 102 through 111, appendix I.
Qualitative pilot comments indicated the vibration levels in the

UH-lN were less than those in the UH-lF. Vibration levels were highest
at light gross weights at Vmax. However, at airspeeds below 120 KIAS
the vibration level was well within the comfort range. Qualitative analy-
sis indicated that higher vibration levels were present with the aft cg
configuration. For most conditions, the UH-lN met the specification of
MIL-H-8501A (reference 3).
20
- . - A77
Lateral
In general, the lateral vibrations at station 133 were greater than

at the pilot's seat for the first harmonic (2/Rev), but for the second
(4/Rev) and third (6/Rev) harmonics, the vibrations at the pilot's seat
were greater than at station 133. When the coefficient of thrust (CT)
was held constant, the higher rotor speed produced the lower vibration
levels. In the aft cg loading, the vibrations at the pilot's seat were
greater than with the forward cg loading; vibrations at station 133 re-
mained approximately constant.
Vertical
In general, for vertical vibrations the first harmonic had the

higher vibration levels at the higher airspeeds and were greater at the
pilot's seat than at station 133. For the second and third harmonics,
the higher vibration levels were at the lower airspeeds and were greater
at station 133 than at the pilot's seat. For the constant CT condition,
the higher rotor speeds had the lower vibration levels. With the aft cg
loading, the vibrations at the pilot's seat were greater than with the
forward cg loading, while the station 133 vibrations remained approxi-
mately constant.
Pitch Link Leads

Pitch link load data were collected throughout the Category II per-
formance program. One pitch link on the main rotor was instrumented by
BHC to determine actual pitch link loads during flight. Pitch link load
data were collected during all flight modes (level flight, partial power
descent, autorotation, climb, landing, and takeoff), and throughout the
flight envelope. Only level flight data were reduced for analysis; how-
ever, time histories of other flight modes illustrating typical wave forms
are shown in figure 22.
Pitch link load data are presented in terms of the range load
curve. The range load is defined as follows:
Maximum Load - Minimum Load

Range Load 2
where the maximum load and the minimum load are determined during one
revolution of the main rotor.
Figure 112, appendix I, illustrates the variation of range load
with v, VT, and CT. The three flights presented were at a constant
referred rotor speed of 320 with CT varying from 32.0 x 10- 4 to 50.0 x 10- 4 .
The general shape of the curves resembles that of a speed-power plot in
that the variation of range loads with airspeed exhibits a "bucket."
There was no apparent "knee" (drag divergence) in the range load curves
as was experienced with the CH-47 (FTC-TR-66-46, reference 4). It
should be noted that the CH-47 has a fully articulated rotor system,
whereas the UH-lN has a semi-rigid teetering main rotor system. The
minimum level of range loads increased by approximately 100 pounds as CT
increased from 32.0 x 10- 4 to 50.0 x 10-4. At airspeeds above 85 knots
the range loads at high values of CT increased more rapidly than did the
'range loads at lower values of CT.
21
Figure 113, appendix I, presents a family of curves at a constant
CT of 43 x 10- 4 for values of referred rotor speeds varying from 300 to
340. As in figure 112, appendix I, the general shape of the curves
resembles aspeed-power plot. At the lower referred rotor speeds (300,
310, 320) there was an indication of a "step" input in the "bucket" of
the curve. The presence of this anomaly was noted in the speed-power
data during this program as well as other helicopter performance programs
conducted at the AFFTC. Indications of this "step" were not as pro-
nounced for the higher referred rotor speeds (330 and 340). As
referred rotor speed decreased from 340 to 310, the range loads also
decreased. However, as the referred rotor speed was reduced from 310 to
300, the range load increased instead of decreasing as might have been
expected.
Actual values of pitch link loads recorded during level flight
varied from approximately 1,375 pounds as a maximum tensile load to
approximately 425 pounds as a maximum compression load. These maximum
values occurred on separate flights. The largest pitch link load varia-
tion observed during any one rotor revolution was approximately 1,200
pounds.
At airspeeds between approximately 117 KCAS and 45 KCAS the maximum

tensile loads always occurred during the retreating portion of the blade
cycle, and the lowest tensile loads (maximum compression load) occurred
on the advancing segment of the revolution. However, as airspeed de-
creased below 45 KCAS, the point at which the maximum tensile load
occurred shifted from the retreating phase to the advancing phase of the
revolution. The point of occurrence of the minimum tensile load (maxi-
mum compression load) did not shift. Similarly, at airspeads above 117
KCAS the point at which the minimum tensile load (maximum compression
load) occurred shifted from the advancing segment of the revolution to
the retreating portion of the blade cycle. The point of occurrence of
the maximum tensile load did not shift.
22
T'-0-CP;-400. &1Nkf
CRt
I CNIMTIOWIS
C)i-NIT ALtTrU0~k ;OOO FT
ROtOR4 SOt 314 RPW9-t/h)
70
LLI Iss
30 z 1' 0 04 0 4
FRt lt EP kTUE .C
oIU t8 LMO -5IUN ;FCT ,oi4,rm z:Lxj c-u-e FL--r-k 2

-777777
F1 7r-- T
'T. IT -S~
STRIRRO r_04
I '~~~H~T .D~Ay ,IL4~ A~ 3~d
1LONIG RriNGIE cRui% - CL ~Y- l4I
&V ~
80'
so,
.4 25LNG RAt4QE-CRUISE ,
.99M~XM~ RP~S9~'
Ik L
4
MI'
:
a 71f ,
I7,
......... -r1
ag= 'g-Lre~ T I - ,
t>~jj ::'~ -77

4~~~~~~~~~j~~I 4 *-~'-~ T j~ W 111~ ~g j~ffi"rl -
~ ~ ~ T4~~uw~
tI V~
-i17
* __ ~ *1I0
Tdk. SP t
3 LH 4 0 ARGJRI~ 0tiFobYMLTY' 1O):A-.
- , I
4-K-V
4 r
lid I um
-I
4
1101
100 iZ
rk L U NIL
t~h
9G RGE CRUl~t'
W
['a * AXIMLJM NRM PP OR'V
400I
740 S.o9-1, O
.aqAet miV.pf~iiac -SkkayWn.Eki 2

W-IN, MSAP
Rates,
1. F 0rng ased on
' PRESSUtZ LT~TD
ROOR SPD
0 31F'6
ko OOO FT
4 k Pt, z:(9T %)
chaticteristics of TWIN 'ENGI NE blERRTIO'N
eng~e 'S/K. 464.-.NE. . HJY si.(M0
2. SYMBOL 0 DENOTE% FREE-' AIR'TEtMPI-ERTURE-
FLIGHT 'MFANQL- - ,rNDRRO bRY* JO ~.-
STPHND~kRD E)FY 140T: DRY(ML- ST--ioPk 110 C
'1_30 LQNd f11ANGE CRI - .L R(I-T21O)-zcIi
.99 M4RXImum NI4mop OR VN~.
4)
4 JVIL
00
So I
4J
-4LON4 RRNGEF CRUISE
LrO
£ITER-, MINIMUMK
7g POWER REQUIRED
'-4 60
U 50"
OpWER RE9;UIRED
:5400 4
7,000 8100 9q0- 0pQo 11W00

Grois Wight'-.Lb
26 Figure 11 LevelI light' PeiforAhci6-Sumiiy-Y Twin Enginesl

T_ F-, 'T'7
17.i~
'71E.IP.RT
13 "Ir-
bC.LD
12~
: I ; F
5I A 0 If 3 DAy
1.. lIxm -N t R
f T
'10~
4.~L~ 1 R 1a~ErU!~-
ji UM Ni M
I J
W-4ukuEur
R IIo
7,00
T., T,-
7-1'i- i-2i-
-'c T- O-iN S.,
TWIN EaNGINE OP6RTO

I FoTOR, $IP6;D 3t4.,P 'c
OF GRVIT y
0ETE 3tT y~1 . -i
.
.............
1 I1
OIT CUIE -
CMUMS
OPTM~J CRI
~~tLTIT66E:
(MIL-STD-,210R)i
90
~ .~hN~tFDR RLTITUDEI
SIL 50 0 0 ,0-1 1,0
212-r1lr~
W3 W
%~R~ 4EIIOT 9.OO;L
t .
STI
N-A
711
.. ... ........ ....

: .. .. .. .
II'~~ -1 41.
'14~ T,.,
44"li Fql tff~~ ~~
- Ti I:
TA
0 - P :, ) iP . 4 _ T7
co 14 ATA si
T7 t IMI
- *!G +r4
1t I q .M.
1, 4
F7
[4-W Soo- ~-
50 -
j-a
....... ..
E E RI
F.EE E ~
01UR M~ 7 $ ay- Iy
14 ip'1
'T4 C 4O&I~O$~
fairin-i bS-L- RcaTQ PEEO (3

* ~ ~dizatrsidi.o
~~ b t'~ .It
2i'
L. aft OP ftl
-ATIi
1 3 0 LO~~Rt~GECRUI~, E.,H.P.T~
Po.99 MXjMUM. 'NAMIP OR,
N
120:
E--
90
3~o LONC. RRNG. ;CRUIiSR.

.99
c) A)CMUM' 'NAtMOO OR Vw J
V.> .25
.0 'A
.0
L61 16 MNIU
~,40O0
Eiguto.i~ Lee Fr~~~~

1!gl Singie- Engine
"T.4
4 ~ ~ ~ 40~ - 41* tpRA,~
Motes 15 -- V S- RL..iA-'P i
1201
~
----------
4J
100-
LONG RA -e OcatL- .
.20 -' ----
60 .
So
30~ ( ~ ve
20
zjO 8,001
I AT
drss WI4'L
~ ~~
Figure Lee ~ ~ Ig ,inl,9~ie
-FV F77 V,.-77,..,n' -
I ~~'~'~*~~"I' UF11 ~rFA.FF .. ,1F~,T'~" F'
r-gi -. WCTY , !.N. A
I T .
-'i * 140O
* 90F
F ,p. 0
L6
ii IT
. I' Im"1F F
'I IQ
J "U
7~z 8001 10
9t. Q I00
Fk Fw F -
-toQir Levert i-t. 1 33
4
#iur 4 ib t
SA'T S , 'n le , , F
tjIM
4 1 P *- r '9 -P4.~
4pe a .AIFtU
.9,A Y, '~j (;''V
PO 'A
~~91, 9.ReAJml teWATEUP
P4 ".4-
r4'
3- ;9' 40
~ ~ t45~
Soo1 w
-------------
V
,.~ 8
!:±I
~ LA.~, kA ~3~-WP OR kjlip]
90 "
t -4
:L:&j
~ 1Tr. ~ ~ 77 ~ 1~T
~F~O E~ L'~ Ji..44Li'
IfI
T7 A.'
-4T; -R- i AI :7k p f
--- CA\J~o
1101
i%'Sg 'IiztW
-7, L6 Om ik
IJ L
f~~ f600L,
,-A so.. 50I
L_ 40d,
u~tri
itx1light. &~r
Lvel rmiAni" r..Jt3
L, (ft-AC~ Foo
7F-,.
)J'60e -ARM
~-~( Rcie~A C G*
190I
..
51, w0
OT J
66, ~ -
OPP
CW - I
.-s $00
400 R~C~
306,~ *~
7 IO 1
If Fiur 2-L~ll'0EteriLAiaet
* 4~ 0.t ti With
LOAD- p
RANGE
2 P MAX M
I80z 2TO S(OO Yto 90 I80 2.70 SA60 =0 -10 Z70'~

0- Pt~UNP MIN
HIGH AIRSPEED Vc%IZ5KT MODERATE AkIRSPEED LOW AIRSPEED V--=(oKTr
(LEVEL FLIGHT C.OND 6, Vt 94 KT (LEVEL FLIGHT C.ONO 315)
TABLE nh APPENDIX 1) (LEVEL FLIGHT COND E5, TABLE IE APPENDIX 1)
TABLE IE APPENDIX I)
-P MAX
PP MAX
P MIN
P MIN
CLIMB AUTOROTRhITON PARTIA'L POWGR DESCENT

Ve-EAKTr Vc- -71 YKT Vc .691(T
(Ng 21 r-~
NOT ES
1. THE CLIMB UTOROTRTION, AND PRRTIRL PO\JER OF-SCEW7 'DRTP
RE FoR AN AVERAGE %40 LB GROSS WEIGHT ) 9,7-oo FT
PRE.SSURE ALTITUDE , ( DEG C RMBI11NT TEMPERTUP-.E AND
MI r) - CG LOCR710ON.
Z.. THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION IS CoNEC-cYW% WITH Y-0
BEING THE A'ZIMUT" POSITION OVER THE. TRIL. OF TWlE LIOT.
FIGURE 22- PITCH LINK~ LORDS SURVEY
37
Autorotatlonal Descent Performance
Autorotational descent performance tests were conducted at gross

weights of 8,500 and 10,000 pounds and at pressure altitudes of 5,000
and 10,000 feet. Rotor speeds from 294 rpm (91 percent) to 339 rpm
(104.5 percent) were tested at various airspeeds. The results of the
autorotational descent tests are presented in figures 114 through J17,
appendix I.
The tests showed that relatively little change in rate of descent
occurred with changes in weight or altitude. Increases up to 30 feet
per minute rate of descent occurred as gross weight increased from 8,500
to 10,000 pounds. For a given gross weight, the rate of descent increased
approximately 100 feet per minute when the altitude was increased from
5,000 to 10,000 feet.
Rotor speed had the greatest effect on the rate of descent, with
the minimum allowable rotor speed of 294 rpm (91 percent) resulting in
the lowest rate of descent. At a rotor speed of 294 rpm the minimum
rates of descent were approximately 1,620 and 1,720 feet per minute at
pressure altitudes of 5,000 and 10,000 feet, respectively. For airspeeds
near the minimum rate of descent, the rate of descent increased approxi-
mately 325 feet per minute as the rotor speed was increased from 294 to
339 rpm.
The calibrated airspeeds for minimum rate of descent and maximum
glide distance decreased slightly with rotor speed (2 to 3 knots), but
were essentially independent of gross weight and altituae. For a rotor
speed of 294 rpm the calibrated airspeeds for minimum rate of descent
and maximum glide distance were found to be 66 and 86 KCAS, respectively.
Slope Landing
Slope landings were made to determine the slope angles upon which
the UH-lN could be safely landed with various gross weights and cg loca-
tions. Before starting the actual slope landings, the main-rotor-to-
fuselage clearance was investigated with various fore and aft cyclic
control and collective control inputs.
The fuselage-rotor blade clearance tests showed that the rotor

blades at no time came closer to any portion of the fuselage than 10 to
12 inches. Simultaneous aft movement of the cyclic and lowering of the
collective produced this minimum clearance from the tailboom. To pro-
duce this situation the cyclic was moved 6.3 inches aft to the stop and
the collective was lowered 4.1 inches to full down, all in 0.3 second.
Simultaneously lowering the collective 4.1 inches to full down and for-
ward motion of the cyclic 6.4 inches to full forward, within 0.3 second,
gave 15 to 20 inches clearance from the test noseboom. The nearest the
rotor blade came to any standard installation on the forward section of
the aircraft was approximately 15 inches from the UHF/VHF antenna located
above the pilots' compartment. No overrunning of the stabilized position
of the rotor blade was evident when the rotor was unloaded by rapidly
dropping the collective.
The slope landings were accomplished on semi-prepared surfaces on a
hill having a wide variety of slope angles up to approximately 17 degrees.
21
The surface was typical of those found in this desert region - decomposed
granite and irregular quartz rock ranging in size from very fine gravel
to rocks as large as 3 inches in diameter. The helicopter landing skids
made slight (if any) imprint on the surface. This surface was relatively
slippery at the higher slope angles and required care when landing the
aircraft. The nature of the surface did not limit the slope angles
attained, however. The maximum angles attained were dictated by cyclic
control limits or structure-ground clearance. These tests were conducted
using the techniques outlined in the Flight Manual, and these techniques
were satisfactory under the conditions tested. The results of the slope
landing tests are presented in figure 118, appendix I.
Cross-slope maximums were dictated by lateral cyclic control limits.
The tests were conducted without limiting the control movement to a 10-
percent-remaining range. Therefore, the slope angles allowing a 10-per-
cent remaining-control margin were slightly less than the maximum slopes
obtained during the tests.
Nose up-slope maximum points were affected by the test noseboom
installation configuration more than forward cyclic control limits. A
nose up-slope maximum of 17 degrees accommodated all permissible longi-
tudinal cg locations which allowed at least a 10-percent-remaining con-
trol margin. At this slope angle, the mid cg condition control margin
was approximately 10 percent, while with a forward cg condition, fuselage
proximity to the ground was the limiting factor. With an aft cg condi-
tion 20-percent longitudinal control margin remained.
Nose down-slope angles were limited 3olely by the tail skid proximity
to the ground. Mid and forward cg conditions resulted in essentially the
same slope angles of 10 and 11 degrees respectively. An aft cg condition
resulted in a greatly reduced maximum slope of 5 degrees. More than 10-
percent control margin remained at the maximum slope angles for all the
cg conditions.
Height-Velocity
Tests were conducted to determine the envelopes which, in case of
a single-engine failure, defined the minimum height-velocity combinations
from which flight could be maintained or a safe landing effected. The
approach to the conduct of these tests was to maintain maximum available
power on the remaining engine during all phases of the landing or air-
speed recovery to effect a go-around.
The UH-IN exhibited excellent single-engine performance at relatively
low height-velocity combinations. Engine response time was sufficiently
rapid to prevent large rotor speed losses when one engine was retarded;
consequently, large reductions in collective control to regain rotor
speed were not necessary. Maximum available power on the remaining en-
gine was easily attained and maintained. The single-.engine height-
velocity test results are presented in figures 119 through 126, appendix
I.
The power ratio (single-engine power available divided by the power

required to hover OGE) was a critical factor in the height-velocity per-
formance; that is, when the density altitude was reduced, more power was
available and less power was required to hover OGE; consequently, a higher
39
power ratio resulted. For example, at a gross weight of 9,990 pounds
and density altitude 4,730 feet, a power ratio of 0.6100 resulted; how-
ever, at 10,500 pounds and density altitude of 3,160 feet, a power ratio
of 0.6435 developed which resulted in slightly reduced AVOID and CAUTION
areas (reference figures 121 and 122, appendix I).
The following conditions tested did not result in height-velocity

curves.
Pressure Density
Gross Weight Altitude FAT Altitude
(ib) (ft) (deg C) (ft) Power Ratio
7,500 3,890 11 4,310 725/690 = 1.051
8,410 2,040 4.7 1,380 889/876 = 1.014
Single-engine chops were made from a hover at all skid heights from 300
feet down to as low as 3 to 4 feet without striking the ground or having
to land. In both cases, the power ratio was greater than one.
The single-engine GO-AROUND area encompasses those test points in
which the go-around minimum height above the ground was in excess of 5
feet and no difficulties were encountered. The CAUTION areas contain
the marginal go-arounds in which the height above the ground was less
than 5 feet, or those wherein very poor acceleration to climb speed was
encountered, and those landings which could have been a go-around instead
of a landing. The boundary that delineated the AVOID area was determined
by mandatory landings. In general, the UH-lN could be consistently landed
at true airspeeds near or less than the 15 knots specified in MIL-H-8501A
(reference 3). At 9,500 pounds gross weight and a density altitude of
approximately 10,700 feet, the minimum landing speeds were not more than
19 knots true airspeed (KTAS).
The following discussion should be included in the Flight Manual

after the first paragraph under the heading FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS UNDER
SINGLE ENGINE CONDITIONS (in Section II under ENGINE FAILURE): (R4)
FLIGHT OPERATION NEAR THE AVOID AREA

The failure of an engine near the AVOID area of the
height-velocity diagram requires prompt action by
the pilot if a safe landing or a go-around is to be
made. When operating near the AVOID area, the pi-
lot should be aware of his minimum single engine
level flight speed and climb speed. These speeds
will vary with helicopter gross weight and density
altitude. If altitude permits, at least a 200 nose-
down attitude should be established to accelerate
to the level flight or go-around airspeed. At the
sate time, the power on the operating engine should
be increased to maximum and collective pitch should
be used to establish 97% NR minimum. As the height
at which an engine failure occurs decreases, a
progressively shallower nosedown attitude should be
used. Below 30 feet the collective pitch should be
40
lowered only slightly to regain rotor rpm to avoid
building up a high sink rate. As the level flight
airspeed is reached, the helicopter should be re-
turned to a level attitude and a climb established
after climb speed is attained. When clear of all
obstacles, the aircraft should be accelerated to
above 55 KIAS.
If a landing is required following the loss of an

engine, two techniques may be used, depending on the
landing speed required. If a prepared surface is
available, a single engine slide landing can be made
using a skids-level attitude and collective pitch to
cushion the landing. If a slow touchdown speed is
required, a moderate flare can be used at 25 feet
to slow the helicopter. Maintain maximum power on
the operating engine in the flare by maintaining rotor
rpm ar 97% NR. An increase in rotor speed in the
flare m cause the operating engine Nf governor to
sense an overspeed and cause a reduction in power.
Establish a skids level attitude prior to touchdown
and cushlon the landing with collective pitch.
The following discussion should be included in Appendix I, Flight

Manual Performance Data, under the paragraph titled: Height Velocity
Chart. (R4)
The height velocity diagrams are plots of minimum

heights versus airspeed for a safe single engine
landing and/or go-around. The curves obtained are
based on level, unaccelerated flight, in very light
wind conditions (less than 3 knots). The informa-
tion is based on a rotor rpm of 100% prior to engine
failure and maintaining 97% NR during the descent,
go-around or landing. No consideration was given to
altitude loss due to nonstandard pilot technique and
turns. The green area of each curve represents the
altitude/airspeed combinations in which a single
engine go-around can be made. The yellow area
represents the altitude/speed combinations in which
a safe landing can be made; and the red area indi-
cates those combinations in which the loss of an
engine will most probably result in damage to the
helicopter. Continuous flight at altitude/airspeed
combinations within the red or yellow areas of the
curves should be avoided.
Engine Performance
General
Steady state engine, engine inlet, and engine power available (topping
power) data were obtained over a wide range of ambient temperatures and
pressure altitudes (-38 degrees C to +42 degrees C and sea level to 15,000
feet Hp).
41
These data (figures 127 through 166, appendix I) were primarily
collected using UH-lN S/N 68-10776 (referred to as 776); however, topping
power data collected on UH-lN S/N 68-10774 during testing in the climatic
laboratory at Eglin AFi3, Florida, are included.
Two calibrated T400 engine packages were required for use on 776
during the test program; they were gearbox S/N 4064 with power sections
S/N 66127 and S/N 66128, and gearbox S/N 4061 with power sections S/N
66126 and*S/N 66122. Power section S/N 66121 was initially part of the
S/N 4061 power package, but was replaced after a short period of time
due to a damaged ITT thermocouple lead. Engine package gearbox S/N 4064
was replaced with package S/N 4061 after deterioration of power available
became pronounced and reliability of the engine package decreased.
Engine response to transient power inputs was tested as part of the
Category II Systems Evaluation Test Program, and the results are presented
in reference 5.
Engine Inlet Performance

Engine inlet conditions (pressure and temperature) were determined
at the inlet screen of each engine. Nine total temperature and three
total pressure probes were stationed in series around each inlet screen
to record average inlet values. The inlet data are shown in figures 139
through 141 and 154 through 159, appendix I.
Observation of the inlet characteristics indicated the following:
1. At power settings below 91-percent Ng, compressor inlet temperatures

can rise 15 to 20 degrees C due to reingestion of compressor bleed
air. This problem was previously identified in reference 2.
2. Rises in compressor inlet temperature at high power settings above

92-percent Ng typically averaged 3.5 degrees C in a hover, 5.0 de-
grees C in level flight and 6.0 degrees C in a climb.
3. The ratio of compressor inlet total pressure (Pt2 ) to ambient pres-
sure (Pa) typically averaged 1.002 in a hover, 0.996 in level flight,
and 1.018 in a climb.
During the engine topping tests, it was noted that flight mode
(level flight, hoer, climb) did not influence the topping torque at-
I
tained, that is, power available. It was therefore deduced that the
inlet pressures and temperatures were independent of flight mode. The
data presented in paragraphs 2 and 3 above showed there were inlet
changes with respect to flight mode; however, calculation of power avail-
able using the inlet conditions for the various flight modes showed
power available to be virtually the same for hover and climb, but for
level flight it was approximately 11 shaft horsepower (shp) (1.0 percent)
less than hover and climb for standard day sea level ambient conditions.
Since the scatter bands of each set of data (temperature or pressure)
for the various flight modes overlap each other, power available can be
considered to be independent of flight mode. Inlet values recommended
for calculating power available are a CIT rise of 5.0 degrees C and
Pt2/Pa of 1.005.
42
pp
Power Available
Power available (topping power) was obtained using UH-lN's S/N 68-
10774 and S/N 68-10776. The topping power presented for 774 was obtained
during tethered ground run tests at Eglin AFB, Florida. Ambient tempera-
tures for these tests were varied from -38 degrees to +42 degrees C.
Almost all of the topping power presented for 776 was obtained during
hover and level flight. Ambient conditions encountered during these
tests were temperatures from -35 degrees to +32 degrees C, and pressure
altitudes from 2,000 to 9,500 feet. The relationships of Ng, Wf, and
ITT with OAT for the topping power checks are shown in figures 160 and
161, appendix I. The following observations can be made concerning
these data:
1. The No. 1 (left) power sections topped only on Ng, except at cold
temperatures when they topped on Wf. The No. 1 power sections were
never observed to top on ITT.
2. The No. 2 (right) power sections generally topped on ITT, except at

colder temperatures when they topped on Ng and Wf.
3. An average Wf limit of 575 pounds per hour was observed for both P
the No. 1 and No. 2 engines.
From the topping relationships, and using the single-engine rela-

tionships of figures 131 through 138 and 146 through 153, appendix I,
the power available charts of figures 162 and 163, appendix I, were
constructed.
ASD letter 12-72 (T400 Temperature Lapse Rate Data, Category II

UH-lN Helicopter), presented expected (both U.S. Navy test and contractor
estimated) power-available lapse rate data with respect to ambient tem-
perature. Since power-available determinations have been a UH-lN problem,
causing unwarranted engine changes in some cases, the above-mentioned
letter requested AFFTC to provide as much information in this area as
possible. Table VII shows the values determined by AFFTC flight test
as compared to the other agencies. The differences betweei, the No. 1
and No. 2 engines are apparent, and evidently a result of the parameter
on which the engine topped, that is, either Ng or ITT. If the engine
topped on ITT, the power-available difference from sea level standard
day to +35 degrees C was a decrease of approximately 17 percent. if it
topped on Ng, a power decrease of approximately 13 percent was noted.
Power-available percentage increases due to a temperature change from
standard day at sea level to -20 degrees C varied with each engine, be-
cause standard day power available changed and power available at -20
degrees C remained essentially constant at 900 shp. The decrease of
power available per engine with pressure altitude was determined to be
approximately 25 to 35 shp per 1,000 feet at pressure altitudes from sea
level to 4,000 feet, and 20 to 25 shp per 1,000 feet for altitudes above
4,000 feet.
Calculated power available at sea level standard day for the four
engines used in this test was 840, 825, 810 and 775 shp. Averaging
these values and subtracting the average from 900 shp, yields 88 shp
which represents an average installation loss for the UH-lN. This number
compares favorably with the computed installation loss of 85 shp presented
at the 1 December 1971 T400 engine meeting at NASC. The Wf limit of 575
43
pounds per hour was sufficient to allow the engine to develop up to 900
shp. This is considered adequate single-engine performance as it repre-
sents 72 percent of the main transmission power limit at the recommended
topping rotor rpm.
Table VII
SINGLE-ENGINE POWER AVAILABLE LOSS SUMMARY

Percent Loss at Sea Level
from Standard Day to 35 Degrees C
Loss
Data Basis (pct)
T400 Engine Specification 712B -12.7
NAVY (NAPTC) Test -16
AFFTC - Engine topped on Ng -13
AFFTC - Engine topped on ITT -17
Power Available Determination

Correlating the topping power data was a difficult task. Category
II testing was bound by the Technical Order (T.O.) information regarding
topping power checks which was received concurrently with field distribu-
tion. Because the early T.O. data were optimistic, many adjustments were
made to the fuel control governors (Nf and Ng), the ITT bias system, and
the torque control system to obtain T.O. topping power. These adjustments
probably contributed to some of the scatter that can be observed in the
engine plots in appendix I. The cockpit procedures used to top the engines
were the same as those described in operational supplement T.O. 1H-I(U)N-
6CF-lS-5 (reference 6), and this procedure is considered satisfactory.
While determining power available, several important facts were
discovered which warrant discussion. To determine power available, an
accurate relationship of indicated torque to output torque is essential.
This relationship involves two systems: the hydromechanical torquemeter
relationship of pounds per square inch (psi) to output shaft torque (Q),
and the electrical transmitter system which changes psi to indicated
torque. The Category iI engines were calibrated so that the psi-versus-Q
relationship was accurately known. Among the four power sections at high
power settings (near topping), the Q varied 2.5 percent (figures 4, 5, 7,
and 8, appendix II). This means that if the system design relationship
(Q versus
error exists th*e the
psi)in was average of these values, an initial +1.25-percent
T.O.cirs
Figure 166, appendix I, shows pilot's panel indicated Ng and ITT

values compared to those recorded on the special instrumentation. If
the special instrumentation indications are assumed to be the more cor-
44
rect, a 1.5 percent low reading in Ng and a 10 degrees C low reading in
ITT were realized. These deviation values (Ng, ITT, and Q) correspond
with the accuracies reported in ASD/SDQH letter 7-85, T400 Engine Meeting,
19 Jtuly 1971.
Low ITT and Ng can mean a substantial power loss at topping power.
Considering power section S/N 66127, for example, which limited on Ng,
if 100-percent Ng was attained at sea level standard day, then 67.5-
percent torque would be realized. If the indicator were reading 100
percent and the engine were actually at 98.5-percent Ng, 62.5-percent
torque would be realized. This 5-percent difference in torque would
probably mean rejection of a good power section. If an engine was
limiting prematurely on ITT, that is, 800 degrees C instead of 810 de-
grees C, approximately 2.5 percent less torque would be produced. Since
the indicating systems can drastically affect the indicated power output,
frequent calibrations of the torque, ITT, and Ng systems should be made
so that an indicating problem will not cause the replacement of an other-
wise satisfactory engine. (R5)
As a result of contractor information supplied at the December 1971
T400 engine meeting, topping power checks were made wherein topping power
was maintained for 5 minutes. The contractor maintained that the com-
pressor blades would elongate after approximately 4 minutes, making the
engine more efficient, and more torque would be realized for given ITT
and Ng conditions.
Stabilization occurred after approximately 4 minutes as is shown in

figures 164 and 165, appendix I, but the behavior of the stabilization
was again a function of which parameter the engine topped on. When the
engine topped on Ng, torque remained constant, but ITT typically dropped
25 degrees C. When the engine topped on ITT, Ng increased approximately
1 percent and torque increased 2.5 percent. Due to a possible reduction
in engine life from prolonged operation at high power settings, the time/
topping check should be accomplished only if the engine output is margi-
nally acceptable. (R6)
For all topping checks it is very important to keep constant the
maximum possible number of parameters which influence power. As a
result, topping should be done during hover or on the ground if possible.
If this is not possible the check should be made in level flight. Climb
checks should be made only if checks using the other flight modes are
not possible. (R7)
45
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The UH-IN Category II performance tests showed that the test air-
craft performance generally exceeded that estimated in the Flight Manual.
A notable exception to this was level flight at low gross weights and/or
altitude where the tests showed lower performance than the Flight Manual.
Single-engine performance was good and enhanced the operational capability
of the helicopter.
The data obtained in this test program are characteristic of the

UH-lN series helicopter.
1. The data obtained in this test program should be incorporated into
the Flight Manual.
The Flight Manual, Section II, does not include takeoff techniques
utilizing rotor speed bleed.
2. The discussion on page 13 of this report should be included in the

Flight Manual.
Single-engine operation may increase level flight maximum range

more than 25 percent and loiter time 25 percent.
3. When the operational situation requires the maximum possible range

and/or loiter time, single-engine operation should be used (page
18).
The Flight Manual contains no discussion on the techniques following
an engine failure near the AVOID or CAUTION areas of the height-velocity
curve.
4. The discussions on pages 40 and 41 of this report should be in-
cluded in the Flight Manual.
Considerable difficulty was experienced in properly adjusting the
engines to obtain topping power. Errors in the engine indicating systems
can drastically affect the indicated power output and may cause the un-
necessary replacement of a satisfactory engine.
5. The engine torque, ITT, and Ng indicating systems should be cali-

brated frequently (page 45).
Time/topping power checks require prolonged operation of the engine

at high or maximum power settings which could result in a reduction in
engine life.
6. The time/topping power check should be accomplished only if the

engine output is marginally acceptable (page 45).
46
Engine topping power is governed by ITT, Ng or fuel flow, depending
on atmospheric conditions and the flight modes which affect compressor in-
let conditions. To obtain proper topping power indications, the conditions
which influence power should be held constant.
7. Engine topping power checks should be made during hover or on the
ground if possible. If this is not possible the check should be made
in level flight. Climb checks should be made only if checks using
the other flight modes are not possible (page 45).
Large airspeed position errors exist in low speed level flight,

climb, and autorotational descent.
8. Means of reducing airspeed indicating errors should be investigated

(page 2).
REFERENCES
1. Instrument Systems, Pitot-Static Tube Operated, Installation of,
Military Specification, MIL-I-5072A, 14 April 1961.
2. Flight Manual, UH-IN Helicopter, T.O. lH-I(U)N-I, March 1971.
3. Helicopter Flyinq and Ground Handling Qualities; General Require-

ments for, Military Specification, MIL-H-8501A, 7 September 1961.
4. Somsel, John R., and Thomas, David W., Captain USAF, Determination
of the Effects of Rotor Blade Compressibility on the Performance
of the CH-47A Helicopter, FTC-TR-66-46, Air Force Flight Test
Center, Edwards AFB, California, March 1967.
5. Russell, Edward B., Major USAF, and Brandt, Jerome C., UH-lN Cate-
gory II Propulsion System Evaluation, FTC-TR-71-39, Air Force Flight
Test Center, Edwards AFB, California, August 1971.
6. Functional Check Flight Procedures, USAF Series UH-lN Helicopter,
T.O. IH-!(U)N-6CF-l, 1 March 1971, as supplemented.
47
..
IA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Springer, Robert H., Nasal, Timothy P., Grawi, Franklin L.,

Captain USAF, Flanigen, Edwin G., Lieutenant Colonel USAF,
Angle, Theodore G., Major USAF, Air Force Preliminary Evalua-
tion of the UH-lN Helicopter, AFFTC Report FTC-TR-70-22,
August 1970.
Detail Specification for Twin Engine Helicopter, Bell Heli-

copter Report No. 212-947-010, 16 October 1969.
Model Specification, Engine, Aircraft, Turboshaft, Twin Power

Section, YT400-CP-400 and T400-CP-400, United Aircraft of
Canada Limited, UACL Spec. No. 712, 16 September 1968.
Berger, Donald, Lieutenant Colonel USAF, and Nasal, Timothy P.,
UH-lN Category II Flying Qualities Evaluation, FTC-TR-71-50,
Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California, Novem-
ber 1971.
Berger, Donald, Lieutenant Colonel USAF, and Nasal, Timothy P.,
UH-lN Category II Flying Qualities Evaluation, FTC-SD-71-50,
Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California, Janu-
ary 1972.
Angle, Theodore E., Major USAF, and Ford, James A., UH-IN
Category II Tropical Weather Tests, FTC-TR-71-1, Air Force
Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California, February 1971.
Nelsen, Gary L., Major USAF, and Ford, James A., UH-lN Cate-
gory II Desert Tests, FTC-TR-71-48, Air Force Flight Test
gory II Arctic Tests, FTC-TR-72-10, Air Force Flight Test
gory II Climatic Laboratory Tests, FTC-TR-71-36, Air Force
Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California, August 1971.
Russell, Edward B., Major USAF, and Helmick, Hugh M., Captain
USAr, UH-IN Category II Airframe and Subsystems Evaluation,
FTC-TR-71-37, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB,
California, November 1971.
48
Unclassified
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA . R & D
(Security Classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall report is classified)
1, ORIGtIATING ACTIVITY (Corporate author) 'Ze. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Air Force Flight Test Center Unclassified
Edwards AFB, California 2b. GROUP
P T TITLE .. . /
ategory 3 Performance Test of the UH-lN Helicopter,
Final
Rits"
j~ 17
'Fe- ddleinitialt'i ast namey -
t"i~~
7()r.~ RFb 2
Robert H'.Springer_
kL _.. Colonel, USAF
.Dnld/Bergerj-Lietenant
May 0 2... ~ . TOTAL NO. OF PAGES 7b.NO. 6:

OF REFS
May 72 .
. ".O'- A-8 ',., + - 08 ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)
b.PROJECT ( i -649 7FTC-TR-72-l7...Vj-
c Program Structure 4-4 Sb. OTHER REPORT NO(S) (Any other numbers that may be assigned
d.N/
10. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only

(Test and Evaluation), February 1972. Other requests for this docu-
ment must be referred to ASD (SDQH), Wright-Patterson APB, Ohio 45433. 4
It. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY
This is Volume I of II 6510th Test Wing

Edwards AFB, California
, ABSTRACT This report presents the results of the UH-lN Category II per-
formance tests conducted to obtain data for the Flight Manual. In
general, hover, climb, level flight, and takeoff performance equalled
or exceeded that estimated in the Flight Manual: the exception being
level flight at low weight and/or altitude. Level flight tests with
external armament resulted in a 5- to 10-percent reduction in range
capability depending on loading. The UH-lN had excellent single-
engine performance resulting in a relatively small AVOID area on the
height-velocity curve. A single-engine go-around was possible at all
conditions outside a well defined CAUTION area. Slope landing tests
were made on slopes up to 17 degrees. The standard airspeed system
would not register airspeeds below 15 to 20 knots, and there were
position errors of up to 9 knots in level flight and 7 knots in climb.
Discrepancies in the engine power indicating systems were found to be
sufficient to possibly cause an unnecessary replacement of a satis-
factory engine.
FORM
DD IU61473 UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification
7,
" .........
.. ...
' . .. ' ... - - ,' -a I II - I
cuKEY WORS
LINK A LINK B
KEY WO RD)S LINK C
ROLE WT ROLE WT ROLE WT
UH-IN helicopter
performance tests
hover
climb
level flight 4
takeoff
range
slope landing
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification

Ad 0901651

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ad 0901651

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ad 0901651

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNCLASSIFIED

NEW LIMITATION CHANGE

asd, usaf ltr, 17 apr 1974

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

AIR FOIRCE FIGHT TEST CENTER

DDC releose to OTS is, not authorized

Do not return this copy, Retain or destroy

IIIST. \AVAIL tCA

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE wo I

SUBJECT: ASD Addendum to FTC-TR-72-17, Ul-IN Performance Tests

TO: Recipients of FTC-TR-72-17

This report is a part of and should remain attached to FTC-TR-72-17,

1 through. 7. Concur with.intent. ASD has initiated action to incor-

8. Concur with intent. ASD has forwarded this recommendation to the

FOR THE COMMANDER

S LLIAM EASTMAN, Jr, 4 Col, USAF 1 Atch

(*Denotes recipients oiE su~bstant iazing dcia- epr

ROBERT H. SPRINGER DONALD BERGER

Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only

Testing was conducted between 17 November 1970 and 16 February 1972

Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:

ROBERT H. SPRIIER JAMESW, WOOD

APPENDIX I - TEST TECHNIQUES, DATA ANALYSIS METHODS, AND TEST DATA * 1

Flight Limits_________________________________ 187

Instrumentation List __________________________________ _ 1817

*Appendixes I and 11will be published in volume 11.

14 Maximum Range Cruise Performance Altitude

1 Airspeed Calibration - AVpc 14

I Summary of Hover Test Conditions 3

listof abbreviatins and symbols

NAMT nautical air miles traveled

shaft horsepower 550 ft-lb

The test aircraft sustained major damage in an accident on 16

The pitot-static system calibration tests were conducted to deter-

The standard airspeea system position error was in excess of the

The static source position error resulting in an altimeter error

The tethered hovering tests were conducted with constant referred

HOVERING CEILING TEST AND FLIGHT MANUAL COMPARISON

5,000 9,950 10,430

10,000 10,150 10,200 9,250 9,550

*Gross weight limited to 10,500 pound maximum.

Maximum Gross Weight (lb)

iComputed values: power required derived

w~~~~ IH16t FTSl.

ROT6A SiEO ='Z4RP!I0*6

f1o 4' 15P

FIUE I.y HO-~

3. Climb and acceleration from light-on-skids without rotor rpm bleed.

The level acceleration from a 15-foot hover technique simulated a

MLITR? POWER.PiT S0 FT'

140 W.2.;:O 5FO LEE

o CUMS ANI' PrCELEROTE

Z WITH PTCAA SPEED BLEED

12? FIGSAJfrE t. PRFOIF:h4RNCE 5UMMARY,

Section II of the Flight Manual should be changed to incorporate the

TYPES OF TAKE-OFF (Change to Read)

The factors governing the type of take-off to be accom-

TAKE-OFF TO A HOVER (Remains unchanged)

NORMAL TAKE-OFF (Remains unchanged)

MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE TAKE-OFFS (Change to read)