In 2018, NASA formed an Urban Air Mobility Noise Working Group to assemble noise experts from industry, universities and government agencies to identify, discuss, and address urban air mobility (UAM) noise issues. This paper presents a set of high-level goals intended to address barriers associated with UAM noise that may hamper their entry into service. It summarizes the current practice, identifies gaps in the current practice, and makes recommendations to address the gaps to achieve the high-level goals in four areas of interest: Tools and Technologies, Ground and Flight Testing, Human Response and Metrics, and Regulation and Policy.
A first-of-its-kind demonstration of the use of localized, non-harmonic active flap motions, for suppressing low frequency, in-plane rotor noise, is reported in this paper. Operational feasibility is verified via testing of the full-scale AATD/Sikorsky/UTRC active flap demonstration rotor in the NFAC’s 40by 80-Foot anechoic wind tunnel. Effectiveness of using localized, non-harmonic active flap motions are compared to conventional four-per-rev harmonic flap motions, and also active flap motions derived from closed-loop acoustics implementations. All three approaches resulted in approximately the same noise reductions over an in-plane three-by-three microphone array installed forward and near in-plane of the rotor in the nearfield. It is also reported that using an active flap in this localized, non-harmonic manner, resulted in no more than 2% rotor performance penalty, but had the tendency to incur higher hub vibration levels.
Commercial airlines are obligated to operate such that an aircraft can suffer an engine failure at any point in its mission and terminate the flight without an accident. Only minimal aircraft damage is allowable, such as brake replacement due to very heavy application, or an engine inspection and/or possible removal due to use of an emergency rating. Such performance criteria are often referred to as zero exposure, referring to zero accident exposure to an engine failure. The critical mission segment for meeting one engine inoperative (OEI) criteria is takeoff. For a given weight, wind, and ambient condition, fixed wing aircraft require a balanced field length. This is the longer of the distance to take off if an engine fails at a predetermined critical point in the takeoff profile, or the distance to reject the takeoff and brake to a stop. Rotorcraft have requirements for horizontal takeoff procedures that are equivalent to a balanced field length requirements for fixed wing aircraft. Rotorcraft also perform vertical procedures where no runway or heliport distance is available. These were developed primarily for elevated heliports as found on oil rigs or rooftops. They are also used for ground level operations as might be found at heliports at the end of piers or other confined areas.
As part of the Integrated Technology Rotor/Flight Research Rotor (ITR/FRR) Program a number of advanced rotor system designs were conceived and investigated. From these, several were chosen that best meet the started ITR goals with emphasis on stability, reduced weight and hub drag, simplicity, low head moment stiffness, and adequate strength and fatigue life. It was concluded that obtaining low hub moment stiffness was difficult when only the blade flexibility of bearingless rotor blades is considered, unacceptably low fatigue life being the primary problem. Achieving a moderate hub moment stiffness somewhat higher than state of the art articulated rotors in production today is possible within the fatigue life constraint. Alternatively, low stiffness is possible when additional rotor elements, besides the blades themselves, provide part of the rotor flexibility. Two primary designs evolved as best meeting the general ITR requirements that presently exist. An I shaped flexbeam with an external torque tube can satisfy the general goals but would have either higher stiffness or reduced fatigue life. The elastic gimbal rotor can achieve a better combination of low stiffness and high fatigue life but would be a somewhat heavier design and possibly exhibit a higher risk of aeromechanical instability.
Software test environments are often different from field environments. Using test data exclusively to estimate a field failure rate will not usually give a very accurate estimate. In this paper, we extend an empirical calibration methodology for adjusting the failure rate estimate obtained from analysing test data. In addition to scaling the estimated failure rate of a fault, we propose scaling the estimated number of residual faults as well. We also derive likelihood ratio tests to formally determine (from previous releases of the software) if test, and field environments are significantly different. We illustrate our new results with two telecommunications case studies. The combination of the likelihood ratio test, and the calibration methodology offers a practical way to extend the application of software reliability growth models to less formal test environments.
