Field of the Invention

This invention relates to rotorcraft in general and rotor heads in particular.

Background of the Invention

Rotor heads include a swashplate mechanism rotatably mounted on a mast and a servo arrangement for actuating the swashplate mechanism.

Some conventional rotor heads include a mast, a swashplate mechanism displaceable along the mast and a stationary servo arrangement for actuating the swashplate mechanism for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades. The servo arrangement includes at least three servos. The mast can be either a solid mast or a hollow mast for reducing weight.

Other conventional rotor heads, for example, as disclosed in US Patent No. 2,994,386 to Enstrom entitled Control Mechanism, include a hollow mast, a stationary swashplate mechanism mounted at a fixed position along the hollow mast, a stationary servo arrangement for actuating the swashplate mechanism for cyclic control of its rotor blades only, and a stationary dedicated collective control servo for collective control of its rotor blades through the hollow mast. The servo arrangement includes at least two servos.

Servos can fail to correctly respond to an input command in a wide range of failures including inter alia a “lock-in-place” failure and “hard-over” failure. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued FAA order 3030.26C classifying failure severities as follows:

No Safety Effect - There is no impact on safety. No worse than normal operations.

Minor - There is no significant effect on the aircraft or aircrew safety, but does slightly increase aircrew workload and/or decrease safety. Major - There is a significant reduction in safety margins; slight injuries to aircrew or minor damage to aircraft.

Hazardous - There is a large reduction in safety margins; serious injury to aircrew or significant damage to aircraft.

Catastrophic - There is loss of aircrew life or loss of aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrarv/media/Order/4040.26C.pdf

For helicopters, a lock-in-place failure and a hard-over failure are typically considered as catastrophic failures. For multi-rotor rotorcraft, a single servo’s lock-in-place failure are typically considered as a hazardous failure and a single servo’s hard-over failure is classified as a catastrophic failure.

Fault Tolerant Flight Control Systems (FTFCSs) have been developed to at least partially mitigate some rotor head servo failures. FTFCSs employ technologies including inter alia Fault Detection, Isolation and Recovery (FDIR), adaptive-control algorithms, neural networks, and the like. Exemplary references include inter alia Helicopter Safe Landing Trajectory after Main Motor Actuator Failures by Yunjie Wang et al, Applied Science 2020, 10, 2917: doi:10.3390/app 10082917, Fault Tolerant Flight Control by Edwards et al., LNCIS 399, pp47-89. ISBN: 978-3-642-11689-6, and the like.

There is a need to further mitigate some rotor head servo failures.

Summary of the Invention

The present invention is directed towards provisioning collective control of a rotor head’s at least two rotor blades independent of its servo arrangement for actuating its swashplate mechanism for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades.

One aspect of the present invention is a so-called dual collective rotor head including a swashplate mechanism for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades, a servo arrangement for actuating the swashplate mechanism and an additional dedicated collective control servo for collective control of its rotor blades independent of the servo arrangement. The present invention envisages two preferred embodiments of the so-called dual collective rotor heads as follows: First, a dual collective rotor head including a hollow mast wherein the dedicated collective control servo controls the collective control of its rotor blades through the hollow mast independent of its servo arrangement. And second, a dual collective rotor head wherein its dedicated collective control servo displaces its servo arrangement along its mast for collective control of its rotor blades independent of its servo arrangement. The servo arrangement is preferably mounted on a platform and the dedicated collective control servo displaces the platform along the mast. In both embodiments, their dedicated collective control servos are preferably stationary.

Another aspect of the present invention is a Flight Control System (FCS) for controlling a dual collective rotor head’s servo arrangement for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades and its dedicated collective control servo for collective control of its rotor blades. A FCS is pre-set for dividing collective control of a dual collective rotor head between its servo arrangement and its dedicated collective control servo in an absence of a servo failure in its servo arrangement and its dedicated collective control servo at a predetermined ratio. A FCS is typically pre-set for more or less equally dividing its collective control between its servo arrangement for actuating its swashplate mechanism and its dedicated collective control servo.

Assuming a servo arrangement and a dedicated collective control servo are both fully operative, then two extreme divisions of collective control therebetween are as follows:

First, the FCS employs the servo arrangement only and does not employ the dedicated collective control servo hereinafter referred to as a 100% servo arrangement / 0% dedicated collective control servo ratio. In the case of a 100% servo arrangement / 0% dedicated collective control servo ratio, a dedicated collective control servo is effectively in standby mode and only utilized for collective control on an occurrence of a servo failure in a servo arrangement.

And second, the FCS does not employ the servo arrangement and employs the dedicated collective control servo only hereinafter referred to as a 0% servo arrangement / 100% dedicated collective control servo ratio. In the case of a 0% servo arrangement / 100% dedicated collective control servo ratio, a servo arrangement is utilized for cyclic control only during standard operation and is only additionally utilized for collective control on an occurrence of a dedicated collective control servo failure.

A further aspect of the present invention is a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions for execution in a flight control system in a rotorcraft including at least one dual collective rotor head.

Yet a further aspect of the present invention is a rotorcraft including at least one rotor system having a dual collective rotor head. A dual collective rotor head can be equally deployed in new rotorcraft and retro-fitted to existing rotorcraft. The present invention can be equally deployed in single rotor rotorcraft, namely, helicopters, and multi-rotor rotorcraft, for example, quadcopters, hexacopters, octocopters, and the like.

Brief Description of the Drawings

In order to understand the invention and to see how it can be carried out in practice, preferred embodiments will now be described, by way of non-limiting examples only, with reference to the accompanying drawings in which similar parts are likewise numbered, and in which:

Fig. 1 is a block diagram of a conventional rotorcraft including multiple rotor systems each having a rotor head with a swashplate mechanism for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades;

Fig. 2 is a pictorial view of a conventional rotor head having a swashplate mechanism for cyclic control and collective control of their rotor blades; Fig. 3 is a schematic representation of the Figure 2 rotor head;

Fig. 4 is a table showing standard operation of the Figure 2 rotor head and the flight consequences of an occurrence of a Servo 2 “lock-in-place” servo failure;

Fig. 5 is a table showing standard operation of the Figure 2 rotor head and the flight consequences of an occurrence of a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure;

Fig. 6 is a pictorial view of another conventional rotor head having a swashplate mechanism for cyclic control of its rotor blades only and a dedicated collective control servo for collective control of its rotor blades only;

Fig. 7 is a schematic representation of the Figure 6 rotor head;

Fig. 8 is a side view of one embodiment of a dual collective rotor head with its servo arrangement and its dedicated collective control servo in their midposition;

Fig. 9 is a schematic representation of the Figure 8 dual collective rotor head;

Fig. 10 is a pictorial view of the Figure 8 dual collective rotor head with its servo arrangement in its mid position and its dedicated collective control servo in its maximal up position;

Fig. 11 is a side view of another embodiment of a dual collective rotor head with its servo arrangement and its dedicated collective control servo in their midposition;

Fig. 12 is a schematic representation of the Figure 11 dual collective rotor head;

Fig. 13 is a pictorial view of the Figure 11 dual collective rotor head with its servo arrangement in its mid position and its dedicated collective control servo in its maximal up position;

Fig. 14 is a block diagram of a rotorcraft including one or more dual collective rotor heads; Fig. 15 is a table showing standard operation of a dual collective rotor head and its servo responses on an occurrence of a Servo 2 “lock-in-place” servo failure; and

Fig. 16 is a table showing standard operation of dual collective rotor head and its servo responses on an occurrence of a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure.

Detailed Description of the Drawings

The present description is divided into three sections as follows: Section 1 : Conventional rotorcraft and conventional rotor heads Section 2: Dual Collective Rotor Heads (DCRHs) Section 3: Dual collective rotor head operation and failure workaround

Section 1 : Conventional rotorcraft and conventional rotor heads

With reference to Figure 1 to Figure 7, a rotorcraft 10 includes a fuselage (not shown) and a Flight Control System (FCS) 11 for controlling one or more rotor systems 12 according to an input maneuver for controlling rotorcraft movement. For illustrative purposes, a rotor system 12 is shown having two rotor blades but the present invention can be equally implemented on rotor systems having more than two rotor blades. The FCS 11 includes control loops 13 and an actuating mixer 14 for commanding cyclic control and collective control of the rotor system(s) 12. In the case of a multi -rotor rotorcraft, the FCS 12 can issue the same or different cyclic commands and collective commands to its rotor systems 12 depending on the number of rotor systems 12 and an input maneuver. The control loops 13 receives input from sensors 16 for providing input to the actuating mixer 14.

Depending on a rotorcraft’s complexity, a FCS 11 can be constituted as a Fault Tolerant Flight Control System (FTFCS) that includes a Reconfiguration and Adaptation Module (RAM) 17 employing the above described technologies including inter alia Fault Detection, Isolation and Recovery (FDIR), adaptive- control algorithms, neural networks, and the like. In this case, the RAM 17 may also receive input signals from the sensors 16 and servos 26 for issuing output signals to the control loops 13 and the actuating mixer 14.

With reference to Figure 2 and Figure 3, each rotor system 12 includes a rotor head 20A having a mast 21 configured for attachment of two rotor blades 22, and a motor (not shown) for driving the mast 21. The mast 21 can be solid (see Figure 3) or hollow to reduce its weight.

The rotor head 20A includes a swashplate mechanism 23 for cyclic control and collective control of the rotor blades 22. The swashplate mechanism 23 is rotatably mounted on the mast 21 and displaceable therealong. The rotor head 20A includes a stationary servo arrangement 24 having three equispaced servos 26 denoted Servo 1, Servo 2 and Servo 3 including control rods 27 for actuating the swashplate mechanism 23 between a Servo Arrangement (SA) MAX UP position for maximum collective and a Servo Arrangement (SA) MAX DOWN position for minimum collective. The swashplate mechanism 23 includes a pair of upwardly extending push rods 28 terminating in a pair of ball joints 29 for rotatably receiving a pair of horns 31 rigidly connected to their corresponding rotor blades 22. The push rods 28 can be accommodated in a suitably shaped and dimensioned hollow mast 21.

Figure 4 shows servo commands for cyclic control and collective control of a rotor head 20A's rotor blades 22 for six input commands: Roll right, Roll Left, Pitch Up, Pitch Down, Collective Up and Collective Down and the servo responses on an occurrence of a Servo 2 “lock-in-place” servo failure. Figure 4 additionally shows flight consequences and failure severity of a Servo 2 “lock-in- place” servo failure for two rotorcraft types: a single rotor helicopter and a multirotor rotorcraft, for example, a quadcopter. In the former, a Servo 2 “lock-in- place” servo failure is regarded as a catastrophic failure. In the latter, a Servo 2 “lock-in-place” servo failure is regarded as a hazardous failure. Figure 5 shows servo commands for cyclic control and collective control of a rotor head 20A's rotor blades 22 for six input commands: Roll right, Roll Left, Pitch Up, Pitch Down, Collective Up and Collective Down and the servo responses on an occurrence of a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure. Figure 5 additionally shows flight consequences and failure severity for two rotorcraft types: a single rotor helicopter and a multi -rotor rotorcraft, for example, a quadcopter. Both in the former and the latter, a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure is regarded as a catastrophic failure.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show a rotor head 20B having a similar construction as the rotor head 20A and therefore similar parts are likewise numbered. The rotor head 20B differs from the rotor head 20 A insofar as the rotor head 20B’s collective control of its rotor blades 22 is separated from their cyclic control as follows: The rotor head 20B includes a hollow mast 21 and a swashplate mechanism 23 stationary mounted therealong. The rotor head 20B includes a stationary servo arrangement 24 including a pair of servos 26 denoted Servo 1 and Servo 2 deployed at a right angle therebetween and a pair of control rods 27 for actuating the swashplate mechanism 23 for cyclic control of the rotor blades 22 only. The swashplate mechanism 23 includes a pair of upwardly extending push rods 28. The rotor head 20B includes a stationary dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 3 with a control rod 33 upwardly extending through the hollow mast 21 for collective control of the rotor blades 22 only. The dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 3 has a Dedicated Collective Control Servo (DCCS) MAX UP position for maximum collective and a Dedicated Collective Control Servo (DCCS) MAX DOWN position for minimum collective.

The rotor head 20B includes a bifurcated masthead 34 with a pair of spaced apart slots 36. The rotor head 20B further includes a crosspiece 37 extending through the pair of spaced apart slots 36 and terminating at a pair of downward depending vertical legs 38 thereby assuming an inverted U-shape. The dedicated collective control servo 32’ s control rod 33 is rigidly connected to the crosspiece 37. The rotor head 20B includes a pair of rockers 39 each having a rocker inner end 41 adjacent the mast 21, a rocker center 42 and a rocker outer end 43 remote from the mast 21. Each rocker inner end 41 includes a ball joint 44 connected to an vertical leg 38. Each rocker center 42 is rotatably connected to a horn 31 rigidly connected to a rotor blade 22. Each rocker outer end 43 includes a ball joint 46 connected to a push rod 28.

Section 2: Dual Collective Rotor Heads (DCRHs)

The Dual Collective Rotor Heads (DCRHs) of the present invention are similar in construction to the conventional rotor heads and therefore similar parts are likewise numbered. The DCRHs of the present invention include a dedicated collective control servo 32 with a control rod 33 for collective control of the rotor blades 22 independent of their servo arrangement 24.

Figure 8 to Figure 10 show a DCRH 50 A similar to the rotor head 20 A insofar as it includes a swashplate mechanism 23 rotatably mounted on a mast 21 and displaceable therealong. The DCRH 50A includes a stationary servo arrangement 24 having three servos 26 denoted Servo 1, Servo and Servo 3 for actuating the swashplate mechanism 23 with upwardly extending push rods 28 for collective control and cyclic control of its rotor blades 22. The servo arrangement 24 displaces the swashplate mechanism 23 between a SA MAX UP position for maximum collective and a SA MAX DOWN position for minimum collective.

The DCRH 50A is additionally similar to the rotor head 20B insofar as it includes a hollow mast 21 and a dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 4 for longitudinally displacing a control rod 33 upwardly extending through the hollow mast 21 for collective control of the rotor blades 22 independent of the stationary servo arrangement 24. Accordingly, the DCRH 50A includes a bifurcated masthead 34 with spaced apart slots 36, a crosspiece 37 with a pair of downward depending vertical legs 38, and a pair of rockers 39 connected to the push rods 28, the horns 31 and the vertical legs 38. The dedicated collective control servo 32 has a DCCS MAX UP position for maximum collective and a DCCS MAX DOWN position for minimum collective.

Figure 8 shows the DCRH 50A with its servo arrangement 24 and its dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 4 in their mid-position while Figure 10 shows the DCRH 50A with its servo arrangement 24 in its mid position and its dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 4 in its DCCS MAX UP position.

Figure 11 to Figure 13 show a DCRH 50B similar to the rotor head 20 A insofar it includes a swashplate mechanism 23 rotatably mounted on a mast 21 and displaceable therealong. The DCRH 50B includes a stationary servo arrangement 24 having three servos 26 denoted Servo 1, Servo and Servo 3 for actuating the swashplate mechanism 23 with upwardly extending push rods 28 for collective control and cyclic control of its rotor blades 22. The servo arrangement 24 displaces the swashplate mechanism 23 between a SA MAX UP position for maximum collective and a SA MAX DOWN position for minimum collective.

The DCRH 50B differs from the rotor head 20A insofar as the servo arrangement 24 is not stationary and includes a platform 51 for supporting the servo arrangement 24. The DCRH 50B employs its dedicated collective control servo 32 for longitudinally displacing the platform 51 along the mast 21 for collective control of the rotor blades 22 independent of the servo arrangement 24. Such longitudinal displacement inherently leads to similar longitudinal displacement of the supported swashplate mechanism 23 and the servo arrangement 24. The dedicated collective control servo 32 has a DCCS MAX UP position for maximum collective and a DCCS MAX DOWN position for minimum collective.

In an alternative arrangement, a DCRH 50B can employ a dedicated collective control servo 32 to directly longitudinally displace a servo arrangement 24 and therefore a swashplate mechanism 23 along a mast 21. Figure 11 shows a TOTAL MAX UP position for maximum collective on commanding the servo arrangement 24 to its SA MAX UP position and the dedicated collective control servo 32 to its DCCS MAX UP position and a TOTAL MAX DOWN position on commanding the servo arrangement 24 to its SA MAX DOWN position and the dedicated collective control servo 32 to its DCCS MAX DOWN position.

Figure 11 shows the DCRH 50B with its servo arrangement 24 and its dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 4 in their mid-position while Figure 13 shows the DCRH 50B with its servo arrangement 24 in its mid position and its dedicated collective control servo 32 denoted Servo 4 in its DCCS MAX UP position.

Section 3: Dual collective rotor head operation and failure workaround

With reference to Figure 14 to Figure 16, a rotorcraft 60 is similar in construction to the rotorcraft 10 and therefore similar parts are likewise numbered. The rotorcraft 60 differs from the rotorcraft 10 insofar as the rotorcraft 60 includes one or more rotor systems 12 each having a DCRH 50 and a Flight Control System (FCS) 61 configured for commanding cyclic control and collective control of each DCRH 50. In the case of a multi-rotor rotorcraft, the FCS 61 can provide the same or different cyclic commands and collective commands to its rotor systems 12 depending on the number of rotor systems and an input maneuver. The FCS 61 can optionally include a RAM 17 similar to the FCS 11 and additionally may receiving input signals from sensors 16, the servos 26 and the dedicated collective control servos 32. The FCS 61 is pre-set for dividing collective control of each DCRH 50 between its servo arrangement 24 and its dedicated collective control servo 32 at a ratio between 100%/0% respectively, and 0%/100%, respectively.

Figure 15 shows standard operation of a DCRH 50 for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades 22 for an exemplary pre-set 50%/50% collective control division between its servo arrangement 24 and its dedicated collective control servo 32 for six input commands: Roll right, Roll Left, Pitch Up, Pitch Down, Collective Up and Collective Down. Figure 15 also shows a DCRH 50’ s servo response on an occurrence of a Servo 2 “lock in place” servo failure for the standard six input commands: Roll Right, Roll Left, Pitch Up, Pitch Down, Collective Up and Collective Down. Provision of the dedicated collective control servo 32 facilitates normal cyclic control and collective control notwithstanding the Servo 2 “lock in place” servo failure for both a single rotor rotorcraft and a multi-rotor rotorcraft, for example, a quadcopter. Accordingly, in the former, a Servo 2 “lock-in-place” servo failure is a minor failure compared to Figure 4’s catastrophic failure. In the latter, a Servo 2 “lock-in-place” servo failure has no safety effect compared to Figure 4’s hazardous failure.

Figure 16 shows standard operation of a DCRH 50 for cyclic control and collective control of its rotor blades 22 for an exemplary pre-set 50%/50% collective control division between its servo arrangement 24 and its dedicated collective control servo 32 for six input commands: Roll right, Roll Left, Pitch Up, Pitch Down, Collective Up and Collective Down. Figure 16 also shows a DCRH 50’ s servo response on an occurrence of a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure for the standard six input commands: Roll Right, Roll Left, Pitch Up, Pitch Down, Collective Up and Collective Down. Provision of the dedicated collective control servo 32 facilitates enabling positioning a swashplate mechanism at a mid-high collective point and no cyclic control for both a single rotor rotorcraft and a multirotor rotorcraft, for example, a quadcopter. Accordingly, in the former, a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure is a catastrophic failure the same as Figure 5’s catastrophic failure. In the latter, a Servo 2 “hard-over” servo failure is a major failure compared to Figure 5’s hazardous failure. While particular embodiments of the present invention are illustrated and described, it would be obvious to those skilled in the art that various other changes and modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention.