Study of Advanced Structural Concepts For Fuselage

USAAMRDL TECHNICAL REPORT 73-69
STUDY OF ADVANCED STRUCTURAL

CONCEPTS FOR FUSELAGE
By
S. Swatton
19960418 097 October 1973
EUSTIS DIRECTORATE f,
U. S. ARMY AIR MOBILITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY
FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA |"
CONTRACT DAAJ02-72-C-0056
THE BOEING VERTOL COMPANY
(A DIVISION OF THE BOEING COMPANY)
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Approved for public release;
distribution unlimited. ^
DISCLAIMERS
The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized
documents.
When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any
purpose other than in connection with a definitely related Government
procurement operation, the United States Government thereby incurs no
responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the
Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the
said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by
implication or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder or any
other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission, to
manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be
related thereto.
Trade names cited in this report do not constitute an official endorse-

ment or approval of the use of such commercial hardware or software.
DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS
Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the

originator.
THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST
QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE
COPY FURNISHED TO DTIC
CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO
NOT REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U. 9. ARMY AIR MOBILITY RESEARCH A DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY
EUSTIS DIRECTORATE
FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA 23604
This report was prepared by the Boeing Company, Vertol Division,

under the terms of Contract DAAJ02-72-C-0056.
The information contained in this report is a result of research

conducted to extend the basic understanding of advanced design
concepts and composite materials and their application to aircraft
fuselage primary structures.
This effort is one of two parallel studies to investigate advanced

structural concepts for helicopter fuselages. The associated
study program, under the same title, was conducted by Kaman
Aerospace Corporation under the terms of Contract DAAJ02-72-C-0057.
Numerous design approaches, material selections, and fabrication

techniques were investigated for the Cobra AH-lG helicopter tail
section. A quantitative method (math model) for ranking the
proposed design concepts was developed. Although each concept
possesses specific areas of advantages and disadvantages, it
was determined that a monocoque/sandwich structure was the
preferred design concept.
The report has been reviewed by the Eustis Directorate, U.S. Army
Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratory and is considered
to be technically sound. It is published for the exchange of
information and the stimulation of future research.
This program was conducted under the technical management of

Mr. L. Thomas Mazza, Technology Applications Division.
r
Task 1F162208A17001
Contract DAAJ02-72-C-0056
USAAMRDL Technical Report 73-69
October 1973
STUDY OF ADVANCED STRUCTURAL

CONCEPTS FOR FUSELAGE
D210-10683
Final Report
By
S. Swatton
Prepared by
The Boeing Vertol Company

(A Division of The Boeing Company)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for
EUSTIS DIRECTORATE
U.S. ARMY AIR MOBILITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY
FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a study conducted to de-

velop advanced structural concepts and the application of
fiber-reinforced composite materials for the Cobra AH-1G
helicopter tail section.
This study comprised the following tasks:
1. The review and analysis of the AH-1G existing metal

tail section to determine the areas having, highest
potential structural improvement.
2. Development and preliminary design studies of various

advanced structural concepts composed of fiber-
reinforced composite materials and selection of three
concepts for preliminary design trade-off study.
3. Determination of significant design parameters affect-

ing the cost effectiveness and performance of a fiber-
reinforced composite fuselage structure.
4. Generation of a sensitivity analysis for reducing

overall fuselage tail section life-cycle costs.
5. Development of a math model for the overall life-cycle

cost effectiveness and performance of a fiber-
reinforced composite fuselage and utilization of the
math model to recommend the optimum of the three
designs selected for the preliminary design trade-off
study.
The following structural concepts were selected for preliminary

design study:
1. Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell
2. Thin Sandwich Shell with Longerons and Frames

3. Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell
The study results recommend the Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell

as the optimum design concept.
in
FOREWORD
This final technical report concludes the study of "Advanced
Structural Concepts for Fuselage" initiated on April 27, 1972,
for the Eustis Directorate, U.S. Army Air Mobility Research
and Development Laboratory, Fort Eustis, Virginia, by the
Boeing Vertol Company under Contract DAAJ02-72-C-0056, DA Task
1F162208A17001.
The program was conducted at the Vertol Company under the
technical direction of Mr. P. Woods, Program Manager. Mr. C.
McCall, Chief Stress Engineer, was responsible for the tech-
nology input.
Principal investigators for the program were Mr. S. Swatton,
Design Project Engineer; Mr. R. Pinckney, Manager, Composites
Manufacturing; Mr. S. Moszer, Technology; and Mr. G. Willetts,
Systems Evaluation.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY i
FOREWORD V
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xv
INTRODUCTION 1
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AH-1G EXISTING METAL
FUSELAGE TAIL SECTION 2
ADVANCED CONCEPTS 4
CONCEPTUAL STUDIES 10
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS - REVISIONS 28
FINAL SCREENING SELECTION 29
CONCLUSIONS OF PARAMETRIC STUDY 30
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES 31
TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY 59
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA 62

LOADS 63
DYNAMICS 70
MATERIAL ALLOWABLES 71
FABRICATION CONCEPTS 74
STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF CONCEPT 1, MONOCOQUE

SANDWICH CLAMSHELL 85
STRESS ANALYSIS - CONCEPT 1 104
STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF CONCEPT 2 THIN SANDWICH

SHELL WITH FRAMES AND LONGERONS 117
VI1
Page
120
STRESS ANALYSIS - CONCEPT 2
STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF CONCEPT 3
INTEGRALLY MOLDED SKIN/STRINGER CLAMSHELL 132
136
146
MATH MODEL
153
CONCLUSIONS
154
RECOMMENDATIONS
155
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDIX: Math Model Logic and Input Values 157
169
DISTRIBUTION
Vlll
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Original AH-1G Hardware 5
2 Monocoque Sandwich-Mandrel Lay-up 13
3 Monocoque Sandwich-Clamshe11 14
4 Monocoque Sandwich-Graphite Filament Wound . . 16
5 Thin Sandwich Shell With Frames and
Longerons 18
6 Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell ... 19
7 Monocoque Skin/Stringer and Foam Core 21
8 I-Beam Primary Structure - Secondary Side
Panels 23
9 Integrally Molded Waffle Structure 25
10 Concept 1 Monocoque-Sandwich Clamshell .... 33
11 Concept 2 Thin Sandwich Shell With Longerons
and Frames 39
12 Concept 3 Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer
Clamshell 45
13 Strength and Modulus for Various Reinforcing
Fibers 52
14 Residual Strength Versus Coating Weight for
Conductive Coatings Evaluated on Boron-Epoxy
Laminate 55
15 Sign Convention 63
16 Geometry and Station Location, Tail Boom and
Vertical Fin 64
17 Tail-Boom Structural Strength 55

18 Tail-Boom Bending and Stiffness 66
19 Attachment Fittings Designation 67
20 Vertical Fin Spanwise Shear and Bending
Moment 68
ix
Page
Figure
21 Vertical Fin Chordwise Bending and Torsional
Moments 69
22 Lateral, Vertical, and Torsional Stiffnesses

70
of Bell Structure
23 Tail-Boom Mold for Clamshell Autoclaves .... 76
24 Assembly Fixture for Tail Boom 80
25 Fabrication of Vertical Fin Front Spar .... 81
26 Fabrication of Vertical Fin Torque Box .... 83

84
27 Tail-Boom Assembly
28 Structural Tuning System and Circumferential
87
Doublers
29 Access Panel Surrounding Reinforcement .... 87
30 Main Attachment Fitting, Composite Integral

89
Loop-Wound Concept
31 Avionics Shelf Support Structure 91
32 Elevator and Tail Rotor Control Rod Support

Bracket (Typical)
92
33 Elevator Support Structure
92
34 Drive Shaft Hanger Attachment
94
35 Intermediate Gearbox Mounting
95
36 Basic Shell Construction
37 Front Spar-to-Tail-Boom Splice Joint 98
38 Rear Spar/Tail-Boom Bulkhead Attachment

Fitting
39 Upper Torque Box and Trailing-Edge Rib
Installation
40 Charpy Impact Energy Relationship for a Hybrid

Composite of Varied Proportions J-0-*
41 Concept 1 - Section Through Tail Boom .... 105

Figure Page
42 Side-Panel Geometry 10 6
43 Honeycomb Panel Section 10 6
44 Side Panel 108
45 Panel Stresses 109
46 Vertical Fin Geometry Ill
47 Forward Honeycomb Panel Section Ill
48 Forward Panel 112
49 Applied Limit Fin Section Loads, FS 26.0 ... 113
50 Aft Fin Panel Stress Distribution, Right Side . 114
51 Doublers 115
52 Concept 1 Stiffnesses 116
53 Longerons and Frame Spacing Geometry

BS 41.32 - 194.30 120
54 Concept 2 - Section Through Tail Boom 121
55 Longeron Section 122
56 Honeycomb Panel Section 12 4
57 Side-Panel Geometry BS 80.44-101.38 124
58 Compression Stress - Longeron 3 126
59 Side Panel 128
60 Right Side-Panel Stresses 129
62 Concept 3 - Section Through Tail Boom 137
63 Basic Stringer Section and Flange Doublers,

.006-Inch Ply Thickness 139
64 Modulus Orientation 139
65 Compression Stress - Stringers 8 and 9 .... 144
XI
Figure Page
66 Shear Stress - Panel, Stringers 10 and 11 . . . 144
xxi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I Tail-Boom Airframe - Failure Analysis for
AH-1G and UH-1E 3
II Design Parameters 7
III Parameter Interrelationship 8
IV Effect of Design Parameters on Life-Cycle
Costs 9
V Design Selection Considerations - Preliminary
Screening 11
VI Preliminary Screening Selection Results .... 12
VII Cobra Composite Tail-Boom Parameters for
Preliminary Design Selection 26
VIII Cobra Tail-Boom (Composite) Preliminary
Design Selection 28
IX Advanced Composite Materials Evaluated for
Application to Cobra AH-1G Composite Tail
Section 51
X Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell Weight Estimate . 57
XI Thin Sandwich Shell With Longerons and
Frames - Weight Estimate 58
XII Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell -
Weight Estimate 58
XIII Attachment Fitting Axial Loads, Ultimate ... 67
XIV Graphite/Epoxy Laminate Allowables 71
XV PDR 49-III/BP90 7 Laminate Allowables 72
XVI 45 XP251S Fiberglass Laminate Allowables . . 72
XVII Mechanical Properties of Hexcel HRH-10 Nylon
Fiber/Phenolic Resin Honeycomb 73
XVIII Mechanical Properties of Structural
Adhesives 73
XIX E-720E/778(ECDE-l/0-550) Cloth Allowables ... 73
xiii
Table Page
XX Cobra Composite Tail-Boom Fabrication

Tooling Cost Study 75
XXI Stringer Section Properties 138
XXII Crippling Allowable of Basic Stringer

Section 138
XXIII Life-Cycle Cost Effectiveness - Quantity

1000 ($ Millions) 149
XXIV Life-Cycle Cost Effectiveness - Quantity 500

($ Millions) 150
XXV Sensitivity Study Rankings 151
xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A section or stringer area, in.2
A enclosed cell area, in.2
a panel length or span, in.
b panel width, in.
c column fixity coefficient
D panel stiffness parameter, lb-in.
d total honeycomb sandwich thickness, in.
E modulus of elasticity, psi
Fc allowable column buckling stress, psi
Fcc allowable crippling stress, psi
Fcr allowable panel compression buckling stress, psi
Fcu material ultimate compression strength, psi
F. laminate interlaminar shear strength, psi
F allowable panel shear buckling stress, psi
F material ultimate shear strength, psi
F material ultimate tensile strength, psi
f applied compression stress, psi
f applied shear stress, psi
G shear modulus, psi
Gc honeycomb core shear modulus, psi
h distance between honeycomb sandwich facing centroids,
in.
I moment of inertia, in.4
J torsional rigidity, in.4
K general buckling constant
xv
K compression buckling constant
K ms shear buckling3 constant
L longitudinal direction; length, in.
L1 effective column length, in.
M bending moment, in.-lb
N cr allowable compression buckling load per unit length
of edge, lb/in.
N allowable shear buckling load per unit length of
* ' edge, lb/in.
R stress ratio
S shear load, lb
s distance between element centroids, in.
t facing thickness; skin thickness, in.
tc honeycomb core thickness, sandwich, in.
U honeycomb panel design parameter, transverse stiffness,
lb/in.
V honeycomb panel design parameter
Vf fiber volume fraction
W transverse core axis
xvi
Subscripts
c compression
s shear
t tension
X axis direction
y axis direction
z axis direction
Greek Symbols
0 skin panel buckling parameter
M Poisson's ratio
P radius of gyration, in.
XVI1
INTRODUCTION
The development and application of fiber-reinforced composite

materials to primary and secondary airframe structures and
dynamic components have increased rapidly over the last 10
years.
The increasing requirement for more efficient and reliable

aerospace structural materials and systems has triggered
extensive research and development in the application of new,
high-modulus, high-strength fiber materials.
The increase in the use of composite materials has occurred

only because composite materials and designs have been shown
to reduce equipment life-cycle costs and/or increase produc-
tivity.
The structural properties of composite materials have improved

to the point where major secondary airframe components have
essentially become an industry production state of the art.
The major factors for this continued application growth have

been:
1. Lower tool and production man-hours for complex

contours on limited production runs.
2. Improved vibration, impact and crack growth resistance.

3. Elimination of corrosion and related maintenance costs.
4. Improved ballistic tolerance.
5. Improved aerodynamic surfaces; smoother, fewer joints;

less rivets, etc.
The continued development of composite materials, design tech-

niques and manufacturing methods and their improving structural
properties now make them good candidates for primary airframe
structures.
This report presents the results of a study conducted by the

Boeing Vertol Company to determine specific structural design
concepts for the AH-1G tail system by applying composite
materials and material combinations and using their properties
to the fullest advantage.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AH-1G EXISTING METAL
FUSELAGE TAIL SECTION
The existing AH-1G metal fuselage tail section was reviewed

and analyzed to determine areas having the highest potential
for structural improvement.
The study included an examination and evaluation of engineer-
ing drawings, structural reports, and actual tail section
hardware items supplied by USAAMRDL. Maintenance data for the
Navy AH-1G, received from the Navy's 3-M reporting system, was
also used.
In the evaluation, an attempt was made to identify any parts
or areas which would limit performance or be subject to oper-
ational damage and/or environmental change, or in any other
way have high maintenance potential.
The review of the actual tail section hardware, drawings, and
structural data did not reveal any areas of structural defi-
ciencies or design features which might cause maintenance
problems.
Investigation revealed that the Navy 3-M data was probably the
most comprehensive maintenance performance data available for
the AH-1G aircraft. Data collected by the Navy during the
period September 1969 through December 1970, representing
20,262 flight hours, were analyzed. The data segments were
the tail-boom airframe, including the elevator and tail skid,
tail rotor system components and tail drive system components.
Additionally, to provide greater visibility, identical seg-
ments of UH-1E data collected during the November 1969 through
December 1970 period, representing 44,865 flight hours, were
also analyzed. The results of the analyses are presented in
Table I. Preliminary review of this data indicates that the
tail-boom airframe of the AH-1G is a four-to-one improvement
over the UH-1E. Undoubtedly the AH-1G is an improvement;
however, a true magnitude could not be determined by this
study due to the fact that, although the data was collected
during the same time frame, the AH-1G was a relatively new
aircraft, while the UH-1E aircraft had been in service for
some time with the attendant accumulation of flight hours.
Therefore, fatigue-induced failures were low in this data
sample for the AH-1G compared to the UH-1E.
At this point it should also be noted that the 3-M reporting
system is not specific as to the particular component or the
mode or type of failure. For example, a "tail-boom fairing"
may be listed as a failed item and the mode listed as "broken
or cracked." It is not always possible to determine which
fairing is involved, the location, and the type of break.
TABLE I. TAIL-BOOM AIRFRAME - FAILURE ANALYSIS
FOR AH-1G AND UH-1E
Failure Data: AH-1G UH-1E
Mean time between failures 163 Hr 43 Hr

Failures/1000 flight hours 6.12 23.51
FR/1000 % of System
AH--IG Major Failure Items:
Tail-boom assembly 1.33 21.8%

Gearbox access fin cover 1.09 17.7%
Bearing hanger support fitting .99 16.1%
Fairing assembly .79 12.9%
Elevator assembly .49 8.1%
Remaining airframe 23.4%
UH--IE Major Failure Items:
Tail-boom assembly 10.52 44.7%

Tail-boom door assembly 3.97 16.9%
Fairing assembly 2.45 10.4%
Elevator assembly 2.21 9.4%
Gearbox access fin cover 1.07 4.5%
Remaining airframe - 14.1%
AH--IG Major Modes of Failure: % of A/C
Worn, chafed or frayed 16.7%
Missing or loose hardware 16.7% -
Loose 15.8% -
Broken or cracked 13.3% -
Torn 8. 3% -
Other 22.0%
The AH-1G tail-boom airframe is a good, sound and durable

structural^design with a good maintenance history. Most of the
problems encountered are typical of airframe structures, i.e.,
loose rivets or hardware, and broken or cracked parts. These
types of failures can be reduced in composite structural de-
signs whereby mechanical fasteners are eliminated or reduced
by bonded joints.-,- and by the crack-resistant properties of
composite materials.
ADVANCED CONCEPTS
The primary task of this study was the development of advanced

structural concepts using fiber-reinforced composites for the
AH-1G tail section. The primary emphasis was placed on design
ingenuity to produce new and innovative concepts so that the
maximum benefit may be obtained from the properties of compos-
ite materials.
GROUND RULES FOR DESIGN STUDY
The design ground rules for this study were:
1. AH-1G structural loads and dynamics criteria
2. AH-1G structural attachment geometry at fuselage,

gearboxes
3. AH-1G subsystems structural provisions
4. AH-1G access doors, panels and fairings - same number,

accessibility, location and geometry.
In adopting the above ground rules, it was conceded that they

would undoubtedly dictate compromises, resulting in less than
optimum design solutions which might otherwise be obtained
without constraints. In addition, because of these con-
straints, the evaluation of new composite design concepts
results in somewhat conservative payoff calculations.
This conservatism is such that small structural weight reduc-
tions are shown over that of a conventional aluminum sheet-
stringer shell configuration.
Figure 1 shows the original Cobra AH-1G hardware and assemblies
used on the composite tail section. These parts are repre-
sented by the shaded area on the diagram.
SIGNIFICANT DESIGN PARAMETERS

One of the first tasks included in this study was the deter-
mination of the significant design parameters affecting the
cost effectiveness and performance of fiber-reinforced com-
posites as compared to improved metal components. This effort
resulted in two unprioritized listings. The first list, shown
below, contains general parameters common to both types of
construction.
Weight (structural efficiency)
Maintenance
Figure 1. Original AH-IG Hardware,
Repairability
Material costs
Fail-safe structure
Survivable structure (gunfire and crash)
Manufacturing cost
Spares
A further examination was made of more specific (and generally-
unwritten) design criteria and considerations which the de-
signer must consider. Those which influence the above-listed
parameters are shown in Table II.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was performed aimed at reducing overall
fuselage tail section life-cycle costs. The following param-
eters were considered:
Weight
Maintenance
Material cost
Service-incurred damage and ballistic resistance
Manufacturing costs
Structural efficiency
Dynamic response
Performance
The analysis endeavored to determine the interrelationships of
these parameters and their impact on the life-cycle cost.
Table III shows these interrelationships. The impact of the
parameters on the total life-cycle costs is summarized in
Table IV. Total life-cycle costs are the summation of two
basic cost areas: acquisition and user support costs. User
support costs are those incurred in the use of the product.
Basically the study reveals that weight, performance and
structural efficiency are for practical purposes synonymous
for weight alone and that a reduction in weight (improved_
structural efficiency and performance) generally results in
higher acquisition cost but lower life-cycle costs. However,
if maintenance accessibility is hindered or more inspection
TABLE II. DESIGN PARAMETERS
Metal Design Composite Design
Minimize parts count Minimize parts count
Automatic riveting Automatic tape lay-up
Minimum of fasteners Minimum secondary bonding
Single curvature Avoidance of eccentricities
Minimum of machining Gradual change in stress level
Avoidance of eccentricities Fatigue quality (superior to
metals)
Gradual change in stress
level Thermal compatibility
Fatigue quality of material Anisotropie properties
Fretting and corrosion Draft angle desired
Thermal compatibility Fire resistance
Heat treating Types of fasteners
Dissimilar metals in contact Minimum gage
Types of fasteners Vibration, flutter, dynamic
response
Corrosion
Lightning protection
Minimum gage
Vibration, flutter, dynamic
response
0 1
c
(0
nl
G. >> >< >-. o >.^ >-
e \T3 o rH rH rH rH
rH -0 rH TJ 01 rH "0 rH -0
U
0
O H3
0* 0 >01 rH TD
10 11
U U
10 u
rl U
10 01
u U 0
> IS m
rl U
10 01
U 0
*M C r-i 0
U 10 1-1 01 3 11 3 01 3 u 11 3 0> 3
a; cc a C Tl C V C T) a. c -o C "0
u* "- E m in u u 01 u E U U 01 01
r4 U rl U rl O 14 M U rl o u
i
0 c
IO c oi
> Jr.
i-4
>.
rH
>.
rH
>.
^H
>i
t~*
iH
IM -rl *J i-l rH rH -0 t-t l-i r4
3 M M 10 l-l 10 u 10 01 4J 10 rl 10 M 10 u
C 3 0 rl 111 U 11 u o u M 01 U 01 U 01
<0 4J U 01 c 01 c 01 3 01 01 11 01
c 0> c o> C "0 IM C Oi C Oi C 0>
Q) -H
ss
01 01
rl
0 IM
Z 01 32 U
01-H
>1
>1
0 III >1
-4
>.
rH T3
rH
10 i~<
>.
H C (0
H * rH T3 rH 01 H "0 r4 TJ
18 > 4J I) 4J 10 01
a 4-1 0) 10 01
0
4-1
rl 0 c o 0 rl 0
C V) C U M 0
01 3 01 3 01 01 M
c 01 3 01 01 9
M
>i 01
a 4J 0 C TJ MH
0 *M
s* 4J 73
0 IM
C "0
0
0.
0)
u U
01 01
M Z 01 3-5 0 01
a. u Z 01
01 01
U rl
0.
1/1
2 M C >. >. >1 >. > 0
5 3 0) 0 H l-i rH rH rH
EH
4J
O
-H
0
a>
>0 rH "O
10 01
tl 0
*
18
14
-O
01
U
rH "0
18 01
rl U
rH"0
J 0)
M 0
rH -0
10 01
U 0
>!>0
3 -H
5 fc4 *M u 01 3 01 3 01 3 0) 9
e -o
I 9 u
V IM a C "0 C "0 CO C T3 8-
S U) u E
M
01 01
<3 u U
01 01
M
01 01
O U
01 01
0 rl (3 M
B
M
PS
w
>i4J >l rS
35 1 -0 rH rH
M 01 01 01 rH (0
0 u 0> ^ 0 rH >i l-i
10
OS H M (8 10' 0 10 rH
H H i-l<0 H
4 rl O Si 4J rl 4J 4J f rl 8 1 4J 4J -1
01 C Q C 01 0 u C 01 U U 0 B V
s 01 01 01 4J 01 9 01 U 4J
2 I/) M 0)
4-1
X
01 lM <M 4J 01 01 CO M 4J 01 01
S O "4 0 .
iH
M r4
10 >,
r-l
H
10
>i
rH
>i
rH
>l
rH
>l
rH
H 1
p-t H H rH ^1 -0 rH
M a
01 0 io u 4J 4J M 0 u rl IS 01 10 M
M 01 u C 01 rl 01 M 01 M O M 0)
1 *> u
(0
X
01
C

A
Oi
01
<M
0 <M
Z 01
1)J=
4J 01
O-H
oi x:
c o>
S
01
C Oi
Si
01
C
01
(3
9
-O
01
rl
01
C
ss
J3
Oi
0)
o
>|4J >.
rH
>l
rH
rH (0
c rH 0 rH H >i
H
>l
<0 10 0 18 10 iH
-H a o H H H H
Q) 4-1 U 01 4-1 1 4J 14 4J W 10 4 18 rl
4J C 0) o 0 0 C 01 C 01 U 0) H 01
c 01 9 4J 01 3 4J 01 J3 4J 01 J3 4J j; 4J A 4J
H 4J 0> "0 n IM 0 oi a o> oi 4i Out B n C Oi 01
nJ O-H 01 0 0 IM 01 0 O-H 0 O-H 0 a ;H o HO
s CU OS 0 Z 01 Oi V 04 JC 0 o. a o 43 O or o
4J "0 >i"0 >,"0 0 0

01 4J M 01 H 0) 01 0)
.C rH 0) rH 01 0 a n
0> <a J3 18 4J
10 Oi 18 18 4J 18 18 4J 01 4J 10 4J tl 4-1
01 01 -H H 01 M 01 J3 OJ3 oi a 4) 0J3
M 01 01 M 0> 01 U Oi 9 0< M Oi M 01 9 Oi
X C O-H C O-H O-H O-H 0 -H O-H
01 C 01 01 C 01 01 01 e oi C 4) S oi
M O-H O-H J H > H as
01
H >i- 0
'O m iH 0
01 01

01
io o
M C
9 01
*o
01
>
01
0 0) <o o
1 ou i
*0
01 4J
01 1
> 0)
0)
14
18
H > 0 M 01 4J-H 0 01 IS Oi > fip
u O-H M Oi O 0 M 0*4 c O 0
X
3 0
0 -P
M C
0)
U
3
4J 01 4-1
* 4J 01
rl > 3
0.M O
18 3-H
MIM e
a 1c aa 9 9-H 4J
T3 C M B
MIM
-O-H (VH C IS
5 io o 6 01 c is 4J<M-H B 01
01 01
as
g 18
H E CM
18 01
r4 S H 01-H "0 01 01 &2 38 H a
TABLE IV. EFFECT OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ON LIFE-CYCLE COSTS
Acquisition User Life-Cycle

Cost Cost Cost
Reduced weight Increase Potential Potential

reduction reduction*
Improved Potential Potential Potential
maintenance increase reduction reduction**
features
Lower material Reduction Increase Increase

cost
Improved skin- Potential Potential Potential

damage increase reduction reduction**
resistance
Improved Increase Potential Potential
structural reduction reduction*
efficiency
Dynamic Potential Increase Increase

response increase
Reduced Reduction Increase Increase
manufacturing
cost
Improved Increase Potential Potential

performance reduction reduction*
*Positive reduction if maintenan ce is not sacrificed,

**Positive reduction if weight is not sacrificed.
and/or maintenance is required, this favorable cost reduction

may be lost. The same also applies for the reduced life-cycle
costs shown by the improved maintenance features, the benefit
of which may be lost if it incurs an increase in weight
(reduced structural efficiency and performance).
Lower material and manufacturing costs, although reducing

acquisition costs, generally result in a weight increase,
thereby increasing the life-cycle cost.
CONCEPTUAL STUDIES
PRELIMINARY DESIGN SELECTION
In the proposal for this study, Boeing Vertol had shown nearly
two dozen candidate design studies. These, in addition to
others established during the current study, had to be re-
duced to three prime concepts for more detailed evaluation.
The selection process involved first a preliminary screening
followed by a final screening.
PRELIMINARY SCREENING SELECTION
This step was conducted using the considerations listed in

Table V. As a result of this screening, eight concepts were
selected for more detailed study and evaluation. (See Table
VI.) Sketches of these concepts are shown in Figures 2
through 9. It should be emphasized that the design sketches
are conceptual only and do not represent sized structures;
they were mainly intended as exploratory schemes to establish
viable construction concepts.
The delta configuration rigid frame and secondary panel con-
cept did not meet interface requirements in the area of drive
shaft support and fuselage/tail-boom attach points. Several
construction ideas which appeared attractive when shown as
independent sections were found to be unrealistic when applied
to the overall composite concept, which has requirements for
taper, curvature, access cutouts and interface fittings. The
circular sleeve core concept and knitted sleeve concept are
included in this category. The corrugated reinforced bonded
shell is considered to be similar to the skin/stringer con-
cept.
The sandwich shell with corrugated core idea was deemed to be
sufficiently represented in the double-skinned monocoque/skin
stringer/foam core concept. The Tetracore panel system was
investigated and looked feasible but was not included as a
conceptual design due to limited data available pertaining
to the capability of specialized automatic machinery developed
to weave lattice structures comprising compound curvature and
tapering shell thickness.
In the I-beam primary structure concept, the secondary side
panels were not specifically shown but were an attempt at
fulfilling the concept of rigid frame/secondary panel with an
innovative design.
10
TABLE V. DESIGN SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS -
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
1. Customer requests
2. Technical confidence
State of the art
Qualified engineers
Qualified technicians
Successful past performance
3. Design engineer preferences
Optimum integration of all requirements
Performance vs risk and cost
Reliability
Simplicity
Interface problems
Thermal compatibility
Attachments, cutouts, subsystems, etc.
4. Stress engineer preferences
Quality
Strength critical
Stiffness critical
Fatigue resistance
Dynamic response
Minimum gage
Fail safety
5. Manufacturing engineer preferences
Producibility (automation and multifunctional cure, etc.)
Tooling cost/part (multipurpose tools)
Cost of materials (trend of costs)
Cost of labor/part
Cost of assembly (low parts count)
6. Cost effectiveness
Cost vs weight saving ($/lb)
Performance of system (life time)
Maintainability/repairability
Damage and ballistic tolerance
Corrosion resistance
Commonality of parts
7. Quality assurance
Simplicity of inspection
Reliability of inspection
Cost of inspection
11
TABLE VI. PRELIMINARY SCREENING SELECTION RESULTS
Concept
Monocoque sandwich - mandrel lay-up with female

cure mold
Monocoque sandwich - clamshell
Monocoque sandwich - graphite filament wound
Thin sandwich shell with longerons and frames
Integrally molded skin stringer clamshell
Monocoque skin stringer with foam core
I-beam primary structure - secondary panels
Integrally molded waffle structure
The following is a brief description and review of each

preliminary concept evaluated:
Monocoque Sandwich - Mandrel Lay-Up (Figure 2)
This sandwich-shell construction comprises graphite/epoxy

inner and outer covers with Nomex honeycomb core, but no inter-
mediate frames or stringers. Bulkheads are at forward and
rear ends, and at vertical stabilizer front spar frame exten-
sion into tail boom (canted bulkhead). The internal secondary
structure is fiberglass. Overlapping longitudinal joints, top
and bottom, facilitate mandrel lay-up, enabling a complete
shell to be laid up in one assembly prior to curing. The
vertical fin is integral with tail boom and has sandwich type
front and rear spar webs, same materials as shell.
Problems with this concept are: (1) high technical risk with
numerous manufacturing difficulties, and (2) severe access
limitations to locate and attach internal secondary structure.
It requires extra female cure mold.
Monocoque Sandwich - Clamshell (Figure 3)
The structural arrangement is similar to mandrel lay-up

(Figure 2), but the tail boom is made up in two separate
halves, then affixed together via upper and lower splice
joints. This arrangement allows all internal secondary struc-
ture to be easily attached to each open-half shell before the
two halves are bonded together. The primary structure
12
i
H1
-d
c
CO
gi
o
&
(0
en
a)
o
o
o

o
g
CM
OJ
u
rj
P-4
5z<
< o cc
-i m u.
13
J m
i - _.
y JCCizS:
|-5 <Q; Z3
UJ H^C K
> OT U. O J
CO
e
H
u
I
u
H
^

(0
W
<U
D1
O

o
c
o
X
o
I
a.
<
(3
111
H
O
z
14
comprises graphite/epoxy covers with Nomex core. The com-
pound curvature tail-cone section is molded graphite with
internal stiffeners (load-carrying member). Heavy peripheral
and longitudinal internal doublers at forward end of tail boom
consolidate fuselage attachment fittings built in to locally
thickened Nomex core shell. Internal secondary structure
avionics tray supports, etc., are molded fiberglass construc-
tion. The HT graphite characteristics give best strength and
stiffness for lowest weight, but type-A graphite is considered
as giving acceptable performance for greatly reduced material
cost.
Its problem is that graphite does not exhibit good low-

velocity impact resistance without use of high elastic matrix
material and/or dispersion of high impact resistant fibers
(i.e., glass, PRD-49, etc.).
Monocoque Sandwich - Graphite Filament Wound (Figure 4)
This is basically a similar arrangement to that shown in

Figure 3, in that it is a monocoque construction with the same
bulkhead positions and vertical fin design and sandwich shell
material. Moreover, manufacturing is done in a totally differ-
ent way, which would facilitate production by affording
maximum automated processes. The shell is produced by fila-
ment or tape winding the inner skin, hot mold forming the
Nomex core, bonding into place, and then winding the outer
skin similar to the inner cover. Frames, vertical stabilizer,
and secondary structure are added after the shell has been
cured in a female mold. The torque box of the stabilizer
could also be of wound construction.
Problems - This would seem to be a satisfactory mass-production
method for producing the tail-boom shell. However, it is
doubtful that the tail boom, which, although it is a straight-
line element but not symmetrical about the horizontal axis,
could be fully automatically tape or filament wound with the
specific ply orientations required. There are a number of
considerations which could prove retrograde to the winding
process, such as the doubler straps and surrounding reinforc-
ings, which are added locally on inside skin surfaces or in
some cases interposed between basic cover plies. It is doubt-
ful whether the machine could be programmed to lay down
special ply buildups with varying lengths, shapes and orienta-
tions, so the automated sequence would have to be stopped from
time to time in order to hand lay-up doublers. There is also
the question of accurate lay of tape or filament group; there
should be no overlapping of tape edges of the same ply lay-up.
15
c
O
-P
c
e
H
H
-p
H
&
fd
U
U
i
u
H

(
CO
<D
O1
o
u
o

o
s

1-
LU
in
h
Ul
0 V.
0 < H
o Q
Lun
, <<
n -i z cc
H
512 5 < DC CD
-1
Hl in
z LU
h "> O cc
O "J ? LU
o II -Ji
OC
m LU
z <
ai < -> c3 N
w oc? ? h D<
_> in 7 LL Q
_l
0 l O LL >- o"- o< X CD
Hl
W lil o m
CO |
CD h
H *!r
h LU > LU
<JI
co
N DC EC
z .1
LU
E W LL EC
<3 Z <
U-X 3 .
uo
3 0) Z
3 LU Z to 0. l-h
1- CO 3 (13
O >5 < f) DL c/> oc
<LL <ru DC
0. t
LU H
cn cn
O LU
n. >
_J z 1-
3
Z
<
5 i- CM rc *
16
Thin Sandwich Shell with Frames and Longerons (Figure 5)
This arrangement has considerable appeal from the design

aspect, combining the advantages of two configurations. The
skin/longeron system ensures a good fail-safe system with
alternative load paths and skin panels divided into bays by
stringers and frames to limit any possible skin crack propaga-
tion to one bay. The thin sandwich shell affords improved
ballistic tolerance and reduces the number of stringers
required to the extent that four heavy stringers or, more
exactly, longerons are sufficient.
The combination of both systems confers even more redundancy,

in that in the event of damage to one longeron, the sandwich
skin locally is capable of acting as an alternate load path
and taking the same bending load.
A mixed system of composite materials was selected for the
tail-boom shell, comprising PRD 49-3/epoxy covers over Nomex
core for the thin sandwich shell and graphite type-A bulk-
heads, frames, and longerons. Interior secondary structure is
fiberglass "E" or "S." It was established that five inter-
mediate ring frames would be required to support the shell in
addition to the three bulkheads, which are positioned the same
as those shown on the monocoque sandwich - mandrel lay-up with
female cure mold, Figure 2.
The design incorporates a longitudinal upper and lower splice

joint system to allow clamshell fabrication similar to that
depicted in Figure 2.
Vertical fin structural arrangement, materials and installation

are the same as those shown in Figure 2. (Graphite type-A
skins are necessary for stress reasons.)
The longeron/frame system takes approximately 80 percent of

the tail section bending load; sandwich skin, the other 2 0 per-
cent.
Problems - Concept is a heavier structure, shows a larger parts

count, and has all the manufacturing problems of both systems.
Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell (Figure 6)

Construction is similar to conventional skin stringer aluminum
alloy design but uses a mixed composite system. Primary
structure comprises graphite type-A hat section stringers,
floating ring type intermediate frames, and bulkheads. Cover
material is S-glass (not sandwich). Secondary structure is
fiberglass E or S.
17
18
CD
&
e
rd
H
U
CD
tP
C
H
P
cn
\

H
w
-
tu
rs
iH
o
a
>i
iH
rH
(
u
XT'
<D
-p
1-
I
< <a
H
1- 0)

1-
i- uj Z
L. < II e
19
This arrangement obtained good ratings in the parametric
studies due to the well tried and trusted design and for its
good fail-safe qualities.
Again, the tail boom can be fabricated in two clamshell halves

and bonded together, after the secondary structure is fit into
each segment, by upper and lower splice joints running
longitudinally down the length of the tail boom. Vertical fin
structural arrangement, materials and installation are the
same as shown in Figure 2. (Graphite type-A skins are neces-
sary for stress reasons.)
Heavy graphite type-A finger-plate molding members serve as a

collector to diffuse loads from the shell into the four inte-
grated fuselage/tail-boom attachment fittings. These fittings
are designed as "bathtubs" and are considered in titanium or
as a graphite molding; they are positioned between stringers
such that, as well as being primarily bonded to the surround-
ing structure, a system of blind attachments mechanically
fastens fittings to stringers.
Problems - The fiberglass skin, although advantageous from the

low-energy impact aspect, is thick and consequently contributes
significantly to the excessive weight of this concept.
There are many fit-up problems due to the larger number of

stringers and frames required.
High parts count also means increased time to manufacture.
Monocoque Skin/Stringer and Foam Core (Figure 7)
An unusual feature of this semimonocoque sandwich concept is

that the core is envisaged as "foam-in-place" urethane rather
than honeycomb. The tail section bending is carried by
graphite type-A channel pultrusions which are integrated
between inner and outer covers. There are three graphite
bulkheads located in the same positions as shown in Figure 2,
and the shell is fabricated in two halves with the usual joint
at centerline, upper and lower.
Another interesting feature of this concept is the integral

molding of the half segments of tail boom and vertical stabi-
lizer covers forming a "hockey stick" configuration. When the
two "hockey stick" segments are brought together for joining,
the fin spar web, formed on one segment only, overlaps onto a
bonded cap angle on the other segment, where it is attached by
mechanical fasteners plus bonding. All secondary structure is
fiberglass and is assembled to shell halves before being
assembled together.
20
21
The urethane foam filling is carried out after the curing
sequence of each half clamshell, if using "foam-in-place"
technique, or during lay-up operation, if bonding in pre-
formed foam slabs. The main attachment fittings at the
forward end of the shell are titanium and are detachable from
the shell structure by unbolting and removing them through a
notch in the inner skin.
Problems - The fabrication of this concept is considered to be
a high risk. Foaming in-place is a difficult operation involv-
ing exact calculations of foam characteristics and expansion
volume, etc. Due to the high pressures involved in this
method, sophisticated and heavy molds would be required. Pre-
foamed molded and machined urethane slabs bonded during lay-up
would be a surer method, but it is expensive and time-
consuming.
Fit-up problems in locating and bonding in the many pultrusion

stringers, plus high parts count, are further detractions from
this concept.
I-Beam Primary Structure - Secondary Side Panels (Figure 8)
The logic for this concept was that the tail boom configured
as an I-beam, or more exactly a rotated H-beam, would be the
optimum arrangement for a structure carrying high vertical and
lateral bending loads. The secondary structure panels capable
of carrying shears between intercostal frame segments would
form an aerodynamic cover and carry the required access panels.
Upper and lower segments of urethane foam are bonded onto the
basic section caps and have built-in tapering graphite channel
members to afford added beam stiffness. These foam segments
also effectively round off the section top and bottom for
aesthetic and aerodynamic improvement.
The primary I-beam structure is made up in separate sandwich

slabs comprising graphite type-A covers and Nomex core. The
web and cap panels are then jointed to form the I-section by
graphite pultruded angle members running longitudinally, which
are bonded and mechanically attached. The vertical fin is
constructed of graphite and is similar to that shown in Figure
2 except that the rear spar is configured as a one-piece banjo-
type combined spar and tail-boom end bulkhead. The front spar
ends at the intersection with tail-boom skin. The shell is
notched locally, and heavy molded graphite angles running
from the front spar caps protrude down into the boom and con-
nect onto both the canted bulkhead and the web beam to form a
strong front spar attachment to the tail boom.
22
Q
O (00:
tS2S5
KO n.? t S LUw
co ~
Z 0) O g-J
O co a. K o
tu uj in x
<2tj52oo
IM
h
DC h,OU
O 2<1OO
u -i_ m <
x
w
5
O
C
(0
fr
CD
H
in
(0

c
o

CD
co
i
0)
u
+J
u
u
+J
CO
>1
(0
g
H
M
e(0
<
I
00
<
Cd
H
En
23
L
Problems - The two rear underside access panels have to be
repositioned onto the side due to configuration; this violates
the ground rule that access panels remain at the existing
AH-1G location. Secondary structure panels substantial enough
to carry torsional shears and structures become heavy and
inefficient. Also, there are problems with adequately
supporting the elevator.
Integrally Molded Waffle Structure (Figure 9)
The tail boom in this configuration is made up of four main

panel assemblies: upper, lower, left-hand, and right-hand.
Each panel comprises graphite type-A covers bonded to graphite
hat section pultrusion stringers. The frames are made by
bonding graphite intercostals in line around the inner circum-
ference and by adding a peripheral continuous unistrip around
the inner surface to form frame cap continuity.
On assembly, the four panels are bonded along their longitu-
dinal edges by a graphite joint strap. Local frame completion
intercostals are then bonded in at four places, and an over-
lapping length of unicap strap is bonded across the inner
frame positions to make the inner cap continuous all around.
The canted bulkhead and front spar of the vertical fin are
made in one graphite molding with notches to let stringers
through. The remainder of the vertical stabilizer is as shown
in Figure 2.
The forward and rear bulkheads are of sandwich construction in
graphite type-A, and a substantial fingerplate doubler is
bonded to the skin at the forward end to assist diffusion of
loads into the four main attached fittings. The fittings are
titanium and of the "bathtub" type, with a flange configuration
to allow them to be mechanically attached to the stringer
running on each side in addition to bonding.
Problems - The major detraction with this arrangement is the
excessive number of parts which have to be carefully located
and bonded together. The fitting of the frame intercostal
segments requires that all stringers be accurately located
along the total length of the tail boom. Secondary bonding of
further intercostal frame inserts and cap continuity strips is
another complication. This would not be a suitable design for
quantity production methods.
PARAMETER EVALUATION
Table VII lists the four selected parameters, with a definition
of the subjects each encompasses and the approved weighting
factor.
24
DC
SU
_I O UJ
IEO
cnZ
ozifz
? w Z u. ^
U. DC 0 0 CO
(U
U
d
-p
u
M
-P
CO
0)
M-l
m
(0
&
CD
rH
O
s
>1
rH
H
(0
M
tr>
<0
-P

H
z < DC
nz h ; >
Z 1 -DC <
O < Z O DC
UJDI1.U.
25
TABLE VII. COBRA COMPOSITE TAIL-BOOM PARAMETERS
FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN SELECTION
Parameter Consideration Weighting

Factor
Safety and Fail-safe structure
survivability - gunfire and fatigue
Damage tolerance
- ballistic
- operational
- lightning strike
- foreign object damage
Reliability Structural reliability

and Repairability
maintainability Inspectability
Interchangeability
Manufacturing Nonrecurring costs

cost - plant facilities required
(autoclave, tape machines,
etc.)
- tooling costs
- automated processes
Recurring costs
- ease of production
- material cost
- labor cost
- quality control
Design Technical risk

factors Structural efficiency
(weight, performance, strength,
stiffness)
Design simplicity
Dynamic response (tuning)
Safe life
Environmental suitability
Radar transparency
26
Table VIII shows the preliminary design selection. The format
is arranged so as to appraise the preliminary design concepts
against the four basic parameters.
A simple comparative lettering system was used for the rating
process. The point value for each letter input was later
calculated by applying a standard point value allocated to
each letter (see Table VIII, top left-hand) and multiplying
by the appropriate weighting factor (ratio) for each. This
scoring arrangement ensured reasonable consistency between
evaluators and enabled "implications" of the columns to be
understood directly from Table VIII.
TABLE VIII. COBRA TAIL-BOOM (COMPOSITE) PRELIMINARY DESIGN SELECTION
Point Rating for Table Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.
(+ or - May Be Added to Any 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Letter with + = Plus One Point
Mo nocoqu e
and - = Minus One Point)
Sa ndwich 10
i <1) H 3
E = Excellent (10) o +1 3
Si

CM o n
S a)
H C
M 4J
>4
t
C
tti
0 +>
a o
VG = Very Good (8) H 0 CO -H E ft 3
t0 H .H si S IS -rH
G = Good (6) 1-3 t T3 r-\ 0. T3 4-1 to H -r4 i-H tu a) H <D >i H 4-1
E H td -P 31 M M Pi ^ H t-H en
F = Fair (4) H (1) O U G so to -P fc a in o tnu E 4-1 n3 M 0)
1-1 -* E tr>\ to S C r- 8UC tJlr-1
E 3 <D G 0 -H E dl 3 O a) m
G -p u to H IH
(0 -H 3 Si Si 0 0 4J 0 i 4-1 o G td
Ratio Parameter a&u u En tn J H tn U S tn h HMM H &
Fail Safety and F

5 F F F G G
Ballistic Tolerance
Reliability and 0 0
4 E VG E- G- F+ VG- a)
Maintainability H i-H
rrl H
<U <B "
3 Design Factors G+ G+ G+ F+ G F- o O
a G
(fl -
o U
2 Manufacturing Costs G E P- F p+ P
Point Total 91% 91% 80% 73% 72 64%

Concept PlacincJS 1 2 3
27
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS - REVISIONS
Evaluation of two of the concepts, shown in Figures 8 and 9,
was terminated, since they would both obviously fall very low
in the ratings and were considered to be unsuitable for this
application. Two alternative concepts were added to the
evaluation:
Sandwich shell with rib supports (knitted composite
square style sleeves)
Sandwich shell with corrugated core
Both were found to be somewhat less than viable arrangements
when all structural and material ramifications were evaluated.
The knitted sleeve system suffered shortcomings because it was
not feasible to taper the sleeve width going rearward on the
tail-boom shell and still retain constant depth. Another
drawback was the lack of desired laminate orientation, which
is controlled by the geometry of the knit style, and also
loss of basic strength due to weaving laminators out of plane.
The corrugated core system also could not be easily tapered
and was found to be relatively inefficient and heavy when com-
pared to other core systems which carried similar loads.
28
FINAL SCREENING SELECTION
SELECTION OF BEST THREE CONCEPTS BY SPECIALIST RATING
1. The evaluator representing each specific discipline
(e.g.Manufacturing, R&M, etc.) was requested to com-
plete only the parameter line in which he was a spe-
cialist. Where more than two evaluators were avail-
able, a majority vote was used.
2. When tables were received from the various disciplines,
each with one horizontal line of letter ratings, the
letters were then converted to a point value.
3. The point value of each concept was then multiplied
by the appropriate weighting factor (ratio), which
appears in the left-hand column of Table VIII.
4. A master table was prepared which combined these
weighted point values; one line from each discipline
was used to make up a complete parameter tabulation of
specialist evaluations.
5. The point total of each concept was then obtained by
adding each column vertically.
6. The concept with the highest point total was the winner.
SELECTION RESULTS
Table VIII shows the final master chart point total for each
concept, which indicates that the concepts shown in Figures 2
and 3 were tied for highest score, with the concept shown in
Figure 4 having the next highest score. However, as all three
were considered similar forms of a monocoque structure, it
was decided that only one selection would be made from them.
Using this approach, the results were as follows:
Highest point total -
Figure 3 - Monocoque sandwich clamshell (91-1/2 points)
Second highest point total -
Figure 5 - Thin sandwich shell with longerons and
frames (73-1/2 points)
Third highest point total -
Figure 6 - Integrally molded skin/stringer
clamshell (72 points)
29
CONCLUSIONS OF PARAMETRIC STUDY
The winning concept came out clearly ahead of the second and
third place concepts, which emerged close to each other in
points total. From the various preliminary design trade-off
studies based on parameters with weighting factors as outlined
in Table VIII, it can be concluded that the most advantageous
structural design for the Cobra AH-1G tail section when fabri-
cated in advanced composite materials should be a semimonocoque
sandwich clamshell tail boom with a sandwich construction in-
tegral fin using similar material. It is further concluded
that a high-modulus-material, graphite type-A should be uti-
lized for all primary structures, including skins, and that
Nomex should be used as the honeycomb core. Secondary struc-
tures should be of a cheaper material, such as fiberglass with
compatible resin system.
30
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
EVALUATION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE THREE SELECTED

CONCEPTS
The three designs were refined to the extent that comparative

values of weight, structural efficiency, material cost, main-
tenance, dynamic response, service-incurred damage, manufac-
turing cost, ballistic resistance, and structural service
performance could be derived for the tail section.
The three structural arrangements were identified as follows:
Concept 1 - Monocoque sandwich clamshell (Figure 10)

based on winning concept originally
delineated in Figure 3.
Concept 2 - Thin sandwich shell with longerons and

frames (Figure 11) based on the second-
place concept originally delineated in
Figure 5.
Concept 3 - Integrally molded skin/stringer clamshell

(Figure 12) based on the third-place con-
cept originally delineated in Figure 6.
At this stage, prior to commencing actual design and analysis,

a comprehensive review of practical advanced composite materi-
als suitable for tail-boom structural application was carried
out. All aspects of the materials were investigated at this
time, such as material physical properties, general character-
istics, suitable adhesive systems, weight and cost, compati-
bility with other materials in hybrid arrangements, ballistic
tolerance, low-energy impact qualities, and thermal and
chemical stability.
During the evaluation and rating period, the supporting stress

group was preparing material allowable data and conducting
preliminary strength and stiffness checks of viable concepts
and was also evaluating the existing Cobra AH-1G loads
documents.
In conjunction with stress, the material system for each con-

cept was confirmed or modified from that shown on the prelim-
inary drawings, and a tentative adhesive and cure cycle plan
evolved.
Table IX lists the advanced composite materials evaluated to-

gether with some pertinent comments.
Figure 13 shows strength and modulus of type-A graphite com-

pared to other grade graphite and composite materials.
31
Also at this time an overall review of honeycomb cores was
made, and latest developments and fabricating techniques per-
taining to Nomex core were discussed with the suppliers.
These investigations subsequently confirmed Boeing's intention
to use Nomex honeycomb core in all tail section sandwich appli-
cations. The advantages of the Nomex core are as follows:
Nomex made in designation HRH10 is a high-temperature
nylon fiber/phenolic resin honeycomb; and being plastic
rather than metal, it is not subject to corrosion,
which is a serious problem with metal honeycomb core
systems.
Tail-boom shell and fin torque box and trailing-edge
shear loads are not particularly high, and Nomex
HRH10, despite its low shear modulus, is suitable for
this application.
Nomex is a more flexible material to handle and form
than metal honeycomb. By heating in an oven up to
600F, it may be readily draped into various straight-
line element configurations.
Nomex and graphite are compatible materials forming
a chemically inert system.
Nomex is readily bonded to graphite material using
tried and tested epoxy adhesive systems, affording
excellent bond strength and durability.
This core has demonstrated excellent capability to

provide greater tolerances, in that local yielding
occurs instead of core crippling as occurs in aluminum
core when tolerances are slightly oversize.
Nomex core demonstrated resilience to impact and does
not crush locally as does aluminum core when indented
by impact.
The basic objectives for all concepts are stated below:
Match Cobra stiffness requirements.
Do not exceed existing (metal) Cobra tail section

weight.
Match all existing Cobra interface points without
compromising composite structural efficiency.
32
(90,.*4&Oj,
SIMILAR (MATCHIWSj ftL/ILP
WP OF OOu&l.efiS AS A"6
AT CwTe 1K.(H
IMMED JOINT *>TRiP G**MiTe % PC
DETAIL D (PULL SOM.6)

0 ,Tta
- -""* *-''>
ALL BOWCD SPUC JOiwT
(LOWfR JONT *IMILA\
JOINT MEMftEfi* SCCONOARY

KONoeo TO JOIN TH6 TIVO
HALF 5MeLLS T0
HLL CAP WITH THt0
POAKt AOKSIVC
FM17- HM4
(TYPtCAt) '
OSlEuTATIOtJ
(%>,- 4$,OL
(MAY M MAOe ItJ TOW HALV-

_>0'T t < To* 4 **TTO*1-)
COVf ft GRfcPwiT (ft -45, ot
JOINT MtM6ft iMkiee

jO,NT PLAtE^ 4 PLY Cft*.OMiTe
(0UT6W (o4S-*<JoJT
4 PIT &/f
CORt HRH-IO-^-iO
T
SEC T-T
fULL *c*Lf
u*C OIIMTATIOW <ex *>s% n* PLY LATO
ALTERNATIVE ATTACH*
CORNER CORE JSERT- UPPER
CONCEPT UTILI2IK1G
HHH-lO-Jft-ki VERTKAl JOINT TOP ( fcoTTot-i
COMPOSITE FITTING
ste >eC'U-Q' i ifrfc SECT A-A Oi*c~) !W THIS &ULK-MEAO P AS Ol/TCQ SUBSEQUENTLY BONDED. AR0OW AX AOOCO,
il PlATc [I> DRILL HOLES, REMOVE PEEL PLY. APPLY EPOH 93-*
tin
ADHESIVE TO FAYING SURACES, ASSEMBLE USINS * *(l NOT ADDCD. "vtftv OM
SPECIFIED RIVETS, CURE ADHESIVE. flOW | lIMItAft,
S ORIENTATION OF LAMINATE PL/5
SE6 ?^ FOR 600M 4 * Jft FoC vtQliCAL. Piw
-i USE BALANCED LAMIHATE CONSTRUCTION
-vf- WMEREVER POSSIBLE; e. a.
0'J*45',~4S;~
' -* ----
LAY-UP
DOoSLER ONTO 5KIV:
;-4a7#v-*~* !** -
>*5.*0*. ~- iM'oon.'ViW)
M AiY 75 T* 5 CUer? LAMtWATt THICXMCSS
A&tu PLAT*
KOMOCO TO I PLY STYLE ti S CLASS wovt*0
Vu>MT MCMM I PLY SPJSO I S GLASS
NUT PLAT* liVtlNO , ptf RAPHiTE TfPe A
SfCT &Q- AQ (OOTMIO} j Ta MACILO PtAI
ie*t if
fPlCAL FOB *(.TH uPPsRT "IfMtetl
ITfM* iDfNfififO *a 'qBApMiTe' OM THIS Owe,
4 HOUS 7 MATCH AIL COMSAT Of TTPC G*>PHiT6 LAYuP
n y E*iTnJ$ Mivt 0* WITH PW7 tPOXY MATRlA
(TYPICAL MH TAP, M*k.OMO PULT*N* m)
ITfMS lONTlPlD A '' CLASS ON THIS DW
SMALL CONSIST Of SP3SO SSI CLASS Pfl( MCC
UNUtt oTMCftwt *Weo (ScoreNfi.Y-*'rt,J
IT^MS (OewTiPieOAS E' CLASS ON THIS PWC
IMAU. 6*M,tr P *PO CLASS pc Pec
(|Py AMtlt) SMTtMPLY l"l c
MUG AN&LE- GRAPHITE I

PULTQUSION - I? PlY
(O, t.Qt.I4S.O0T
PLY GAPHIT TtPFAMOCDlNC
Wt P4NP0ACIKIC CMANJN*L.
4 PIT CttAPHiTC *> ..-S.'
(iiEFa*iaNTATiou *Y '1
' OMiCNTATtOM KY
kowMOAfif ANCLC
^
JflM*>*M JPM> 5T
SANDWICH ULKHCAD - > PLY (<ACH

' / ACINOS CBAPMIT ('41,oj, '
SECT W-W / A (*t .w* iT^wi #%>
PANIK (M1ACH AL)
4 PlY V GLASS STYL* Ml
/ V"""- ' A.Y 0*>uf<.Ti*N *Y1
WUNOAAY ANGLi * PLY GPtI

(.I, O. *, O,), (MOLDIMG
MOM* e*m OK PUITUSIOM) . .
NOM6X CORE MPMIC V ;; MtMtO-|L-l K RIVfT4ftONOt JOtMT < 2 |
^s ItH #*uT*Ti-J fr i^l
3 PLY TYPP A ((ACM UM) MAA fAIPING
CRAPMITt/ePor ? PlY GOANIT MCH.D4NO
(e, AS, ***.o)T
UNI J
use PLY o*i*Mr*T<j WY
PLY (-oil NYiowCSii, SECT frS

lOMOfD TO
eT<oa p*e* ONLY
(oven wit MM)
l EXTeHtO
suRtAce covweo
6T N fa AL.Wrf SEC 2-2 "
Mf t*( (9oB*D) FtN TftAILlNC BOGS
foe LiGHTCMiMG BASIC fteCT'OM
(TRI nmrKTioM
-V- DOUBLER 5 PLY GRAPHITE (O i45)T
CORE(HRW-->4-6.0)OENSP1eD
BLER 3 PLY Gt
INSERT (6 PITS)
ROT WTO can
WITH BM35-20
ATTACH' BUK '

BOWD * RlVCT
7 PLY S' GLASS
ISK
Figure 10. Continued.
35
SURROUND
(7 PLY GRAPHITE]
PANEL SURROUND
MOtOiKtC (7 PLY WHITE) Access PANEL
PAiRiWC, 4Tl*Cri' AWGL'E i0' **5 Ho i O')
,7 PLY E c,L*bS (we
----- DOUBLE ftVGfWflWfTE
PANtL OUTOt 5KI 0 PiC GfVPHIT

COKE C-MTf Hftu-/o-}U-&t
ATTACH1 Mtst SECT L-L * '.

ROWD 4 IVCT
7 PLT 3' GLAVS
SHELF SUPPORT
7 PLV S &LAS=>
(0 tAh <tC. 14%. O)
CROSS BfAM 7 PLY ^ LA^S

(o t.w ;.0) SECT G-G *,
ST 90.46
ISK247lll"ll
Jy
Figure 10. Continued,
37
f '4 oi HUC* 6=1
Oe-0 iMSeBT f- .JtD
E L
.... r3 eêi TB
JOINT AWGtf
V GL*'-';
Figure 11. Concept 2 Thin Sandwich Shell

With Longerons and Frames.
39
' use PFH PLY ON ALL LAMi
TO Bfr S&S<j>Ut*JTl-y bCMO
2 PLY oRiewTA.TOw ~ O' r
AXIS OF &OON-1
* USe &ALAKJCED LAMlM^Tfi
^ ^
"-J IATe*'AJ C^-LL, OP
ITEMS iDEwTif leO AS CA
SHALL CONS'VT oE 7YP6 A' ii
WITH ftP9o7 ePo*T WAT'
<? ITEM* ICEMT iPiSO AS S
.SMALL COKiStST OF PRD*9'
VVITH 9Pfo) ePoxy M*TI
(. ITE^S tOe-JTsF'SO AS 'V CL
1~ , DF PZSc ^.li POE oatc.
-it -~
r f"
vTT,
- ^t,, sfc, G 0
isij|
TTfiCAL jPPfclJ iLOWtR
5i ' f!AiL L ^ %
V, ./
1 ;.-.., cc.. -o i J&-T ...-P
nrt tf-
L-i
TT |U (0,14* C0r
Pi"' 4 OOfc -- 074 IHKK
SHELL Noifx COQF;
SO Tlt ;.aft
SfCT c-<
GtNtRAL NCTtS
USe PftL PlY ON ALL
TO 6f Sb6Se<puefJTl-Y
PLY oRtewi
A* I! OP ftOM
use eALAWceo -Ttr AS WTATeD
B
LAYP
ITEMS lOewTlFlfO *,S COApHiTe "'- THIS Owe

Û i^14"*1, * TYPeA ÂPH,7* LAM.KiAW
WITH fePô7 PO*T ""AT. C<i/e = !*>'-i,t**V/>
newi* iPE-iTiCieo A5 eeo*q CM TH-S pvvc
**LL COMMIT OF PPC49-S LAMiMATrt
WITH PSOJ eP-T M*TIX
(TE-S iDWiF-e? fc%p .v CLASi iHAL(_ colJi,jT
*+3
*". -: ::.::.
\ >
JOINT MfMBt
PLY (O *4S.1o) SECT W-W s^.e^

IYP'CAU
LOWfO
*+b
FRA*-ê JOINT - UPPtU.
FOA^c JOIKJT AT -SIHIL>J?
R
JOINT McMiifC
.SfL* 4R-A
r
POTTED iWiSPl
ANGif s*Me
HAM66B *.TT*-CT *J ft &4 1*4 28

(*rt*CMT AT **#<>-<, HMUK)
HANCC PLMc
GRAPHITE MODlMt,
ft H.T
'%?
IUPPOCT
'i . EPO-;
<to' -as'c
1 SK 24712
41
CHAUNEL. SuPPoRT- APrt.ie
JOINT MtMftEC
WWT( MOLOlMt; e CfT AD AQ
r 1 ~e ^ ^
FRAME OMOfD '

TO SHELL-Nooiver
T
SEC Ae-
DETAIL L CFWC ACCESS P^KJCL) *C^
I S*C 24712 na]

-*f~ -
ON APOw. NJ
TO SHtLL MO Siyt'ts
. ' co oeiAiL TV"V \ >'c

j see se<f j.y(4 V\^<* V i
i -
SECT A6~
: |
.Y: \ ^^
I
1
1
" T "
1 """* *
1
I
_; i j
.

:
-: i ,
\i
t (
1
1
'"--VJ
>
1 1 /

_.U -
(
./ ...
A
wf ER" BT
_J=_ __ _ . ____ .. a. -
Ml
aiT-a- Mm rh THIN SANDWICH srtu rilSSES* ,
COMPOSITE TAILBOOM
MLl AH-16 CtR* HHICOPTf R
JF 1 SK 247 1 2
^ 1 J 1 '= 1
-P
'f' ^
- S25
REIMFORCIMC 3 PLY CHAPHITE MOID IM; (Oii) nJPPOST ME
Per ihj^fiT cosr 8 Pi_Y GAAPHP
CO.17 "t HRH-M- 5^-1.0
RIB- GRAPKITC bPLY MOL&.N6 . .,,, ,,. {
45'i
FOft PlY OBlfWTATiOKj fr
Tf cove WIMS SAWS AS

j R '*%
iee SCT -e a j^
uit "ir oifkJTT,(Mj t
toe F/S 4 c/s ;*r
CORE .20 TC H
u to*
VIEW OW ARROW F ^ ^
SMO^.MC UPPEP SVix RE^POPC.KJG LATUP
d*ioe F**e) OPR Sioe urpes, SIMILAR

MAJt- GRAPHITf H M
VIEW ON ARROW AX 1^ SIMILAR
(ilMILAO RCiupORCiiOC LAtoP-LOW0
43
'3
"Es
jffc HOLES <K.) EQ SPACED

mrcmm HOLES HI COVER
NASWMAS mnPLATEG*-)(F<-0+.r,*jcJirl.e Loejwioc\
M3WA03 RIVETGU) ' ^>
HOLES *J Eft 3fWCE0 THRU COVER
M3TW-J-0T aCREUCW (I0:<l\
ANMOOL UMSNCR06)
CM
i
CO
51
5^ -$& MONOCOQUE SANDWICH""
COMPOSITE TAILBOOM.
8GLL AN-K3, (COBRA) HEUCOPHSl c/I
VlFW ON AR'vOW R r Vs JplSK247T^ I 2|
w
Figure 12. Concept 3 Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell.
45
AL AU JOY, 1c CRIV-C SHAFTl F*10iwC; ANt.Lt
rr &L5b (sw oTf ?J 7 PLY ("or C ,-*. o)<
kATt sec i''i jo^fj CLJT
LO-ALL.1 AT DR'.'rftu* SOLT
use pfcL PLY ON *LI_ LAMINATE

TO bi *USUCNTLY owoeo
PLV OeitNTATlOM - Ust *fp"'

fc,e E/,<LH
PLY oSiÎkHuW <ec
UMr 6AL.ANCQ IAMINATS LAY
NOlMe" I" MATSJiAt, CAl-L-Uf
ITE'""* iOtftj|iPijo A* (yA^HiTir '
iK*U_ CO<.*T Of TTPe A A*Hi
WilM PVo-f etoT MATiX
ITMS lOewTlFidO *i V CLASS <

WAIL COMiT Of *PZSS Pe I
(HOTCH'LY M C-i TMiCKHISS Pffi Pl
(fPtHtf *>*>,* ifMt^
ITEM) lOtMfiFKD AS T CIA
SMAU. COMiiST O xr 2*0 i P
(WKr*lY 4M t*) TtMM Pf* Pl
<_r fto-JDfcD
. OP. - .1*
J( -C, ""'-' *> M .--'L.MEÎ
>e &A Lt^ CO l*w!NMe LAl^ P A-,
oi*-Tt J ' M* ^- *i_ c*ti. JP
c s >>t fJ e.r _J . (.f*^!- Tc O -J T>-^ Dw
1 Pf A -.^PHT L AM-Kj/k't-j
f"o-
W-"
HAH. C
.* rH,cfjf,s pfR PLY
TE**S 0(KJ D AS CCAbi OM Twi !>*,

*P ?SO W*E PR; TP
tH<rME4t rift n,y CuQCD-^
;)
REAR iPArt ATT

I-.RAPMITC MOLD
wee. eeiNPOBciMC CM*,wiNtgi_ -two

GPAPHITE 4 PLY /'O. :*s.to)
ORlfNTAl'OW KfY PO ALL I

ITEMS (iwc- fcowôB-Y T**)
PLY OOlfNTATlON -Wt6 Rfc(NiFO(..i

KEY fOP TAILftOOt."
SKIN 4 TAILCONf PfttDlNC
_- ?04 OiO-9*^.-1 e.i.oc< (step)
%' &l*^ 4 PLY 2a*- OJO 941-1
PAMfi ( OfTACHABlt)
4 PLY SlYLtr Igl s
WOvtW FA,6t*<C
80uktDAY STA.P (
SDNOtD P'VcT JO<
>/ CUA^mTf 1 PLY (0
SANDWICH BULK
11
CCAPH.TC It***"
FACIMC,$-C,RAPHIT'
(45'. O'rte'l EA(- fAfc
y
r SURFACE COVfPfD
6T N fc AL Wifif
MfSH fcONOtD
I TO H ;CM TEEING
PPOiecliON
set ? j/(5 foe
L.ATuP DlACCAM REAR FAiOIMCj
STI^FtMiEft PLY
VERTICAL FIM SK CRul NTATIOKI re:
f PLI CRltNTAT O
SK-IM /STRlNG6R(CLAMiHtl
COMPOSITE TAILBOCM.
BELL Ah-ICVCOBR HELICOPTER
Figure 12. Continued,
47
i
MOTC
./ !|
' ,1 L - - -
j,.
( ,x-/
-'
IMetf S:j
i
jRAPHtTE - 4P-
Mo MS,9^)
secT W-W,
CAL6 Ji
DPTAIL X, SECT AC-AC
13 1
a U* *
M
PAuL ATTACH
iff DETAIL 2,,,
SKIN STRINSER.(CIAMSHELL'
COMPOSITE TAILBOOM
BELL AH-IG 'COBRA' HELICOPTER
T~1SK247JT^
49
JOINT MfMt
'"iWoM To submit^ JPLI
Oi*4&qj'*04SO) I ^"^
SK247I31731
SKIN STRINGER fCUMSHeu)
COMPOSITE TAILOOM
8U AU IG C08RA HEUCOPTE
Jt"";fSK247l~
TABLE IX. ADVANCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS EVALUATED FOR
APPLICATION TO COBRA AH-1G COMPOSITE TAIL
SECTION
Material Comment
Graphite HT High strength and stiffness.

Boeing Vertol has considerable
experience with designing and
fabricating in this material.
Graphite HM High stiffness - relatively brittle.
Graphite Type-A Economical price. Medium modulus and

strength. Less susceptible to low-
velocity impact damage than graphite
HT or HM.
Boron High-cost material. Stiffest

material. Good data points available.
Handling and machining difficulties.
PRD 49 High modulus. High tensile strength.

Low compressive strength. Good impact
resistance. Low density. Lower
dialetric constant than E glass.
Easily handled - as fiberglass.
Recent breakthrough in cost on fabric
materials, approximately $27/lb as
compared to previous $50/lb.
S Glass High tensile stress but relatively

low modulus. Degraded by E glass.
Ends must be carefully sealed to
prevent ingress of fluid by capillary
action and subsequent corrosion of
fibers.
E Glass Lower strength and modulus than S glass,

Cheapest composite material.
51
<
o
CO
LU
a
<
_ CO rr
LU n
* ^ 1- (- h h CO CO w
rr <lltLO!o ooinin u LU u
Hi > Xco a)
CO LUUJUJ_=: Xr-fra--1-1-1-1 o _1
A
Li. JJJLLLLU.OOZ^^LULULULU
)L
cc O
Q.
H
LU
DDD<<<" "<2ZZZ2 (O fa
_i Q o
OCDCCCCCDCirtDOZQQoOOO _i < o en
T uiiuuJOOO^ÔOOlIII O in CO
H
a. XIIU-U-U-IXSS^Hh-h-H- cc CO 0_
o
< > n
L -CNCo<frLOcor.coa)0-c\ico'5i-LO CO r^ 1 o
UJ * 4-1

H
Xtu
o
- o
a)
LO
CO
o
H
n
(0
coo LO
CO >
o o * n
o
I m
I-
CO
LO, z rH
CO LU
CN
CC
O)
OCMCO O CO o
o o O CC
g
o or- CO LU
03
-o

rd
o 43
P
tn
O
o
CN
<D
H
+>
co
CO
LU
H ^_
I Z CO (T) n
a. U CO rt-
< CC < n O
CC o _l cc O CD
a CO e>
0. U
0
tn
O X --H
fa
a o o o O o o
00 r- CO LO * CO CM
ISIAJ - smnaotAi uaaid
52
Incorporate design features into structure which
specifically relate to leading parameter requirements
(e.g., ballistic tolerance, fail safety, etc.).
Develop concepts and techniques leading to the design
of a simple tail section which is practical to build,
is a low-risk concept, and is quantity production
orientated; at selected positions, introduce higher
risk unique items which could easily be replaced by
state-of-the-art items in the event of unforeseen de-
sign or manufacturing problems.
Design and analyze structure on all three concepts in
enough depth to obtain realistic weight, cost, surviv-
ability, and complexity factors.
The composite material selections for the Cobra tail-boom con-
cepts chosen are listed below:
1. Monocoque sandwich clamshell - honeycomb sandwich
construction. No frames or stringers.
Graphite type-A - primary structure
S-glass - secondary structure and outside protective
cover ply
Core material - Nomex
2. Thin sandwich shell with four longerons and frames -
thin honeycomb sandwich skins with frames and
longerons.
Cover material - PRD 49-3 over Nomex core
PRD 49-3 - secondary structure
Graphite type-A - frames and longerons
Vertical stabilizer - all graphite type-A
3. Integrally molded skin/stringer clamshell
Cover material - S-glass
Frames and stringers - (Primary structure) -
graphite type-A
Secondary structure - S-glass
Vertical stabilizer - all graphite type-A
USE OF EXISTING AH-1G HARDWARE
Existing AH-1G operational hardware will be fitted to the com-
posite tail boom in a manner similar to the existing metal
tail boom.
Mechanical items such as drive shafts and hanger fittings will
be mounted and aligned in the same way as the installation into
the metal tail section, using shims for vertical alignment and
accurate attachment hole positioning in the composite structure
for lateral and longitudinal alignment.
53
LIGHTNING PROTECTION
In general, the all-metal-skinned aircraft is safe because the
metal acts as a Faraday cage, and the current can be conducted
along the aircraft surface without affecting either the skin
or the internal components. However, the use of composite
structures and bonded joints introduces problems.
The component itself is more susceptible to damage, and the
lack of a complete Faraday cage increases the vulnerability of
the onboard electrical and electronic equipment to the tran-
sient voltages induced in the circuitry by the lightning flash.
When such structures with no lightning protection are subjected
to high-amperage strokes, corona discharge, and streamers, ex-
tensive structural damage could occur; and with current surges
occurring inside the tail boom, the wiring and electronic gear
could be damaged.
There are compelling reasons for protecting the composite tail
section, and two practical methods are available:
Total shielding of the tail section wetted area by

an aluminum alloy mesh or grid system, with adequate
grounding strips to the forward metal fuselage.
Aluminum film coating.

The aluminum flame spray system appears to be the simpler solu-
tion; however, there are doubts as to the efficiency and dura-
bility of this material and how thick the coating should be.
Therefore, it has been determined to proceed with a mesh or
grid system using information gathered from such current in-
vestigations as reported by McDonnell-Douglas.*
Figure 14 shows the protection afforded to boron/epoxy laminate
by various aluminum meshes and foils. For the total wetted
area of the tail section, approximately 97 square feet, it can
be seen that a 12 0-mesh aluminum weighing 4 pounds will pro-
tect in excess of limit load against a 200,000-amp strike.
It is considered that all three concept structures should be

protected using the mesh system with adequate integrated
earthing cables back to the metal fuselage structure. A
nominal weight of 5 pounds has been allowed in each estimate
for this arrangement.
*SEVENTH INTERIM REPORT, McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, Air

Force Contract F33615-71-C-1414.
54
100,000 AMPS 0
200,000 AMPS A
A I
100 A
X^ ^^^
80
\f i ^^
3
H" ^/ ^r
LL
^9
I /
X //
I 60
o
z
LU
DC
1-
C/3
_l
<
- 40 1 -1 i
Q
CO
^
Z)
5
LL
^
_)
5
LL
n ^
ii 13
LU Z 2
nr 2 S ^ Z
2 ID :> 3 3 2
3 Z 3 z z
_J _J
< ^ <f 2 ? _l
^
ALU
D <l
20 X - X'
1
CO CO X
LU III < < in
I LU
2 _i _l
o CN
CN 1
^f
i 6
<*
CN CD
0
1
1
C) 2 4 6 8 10
WEIG HT 3ER 100 sc1FT- LB
Figure 14. Residual Strength Versus Coating Weight for

Conductive Coatings Evaluated on Boron/
Epoxy Laminate.
55
COBRA TAIL SECTION WEIGHT
Actual weight of the Cobra tail section (metal) on loan to

Boeing Vertol is 185.6 pounds.
Weight includes:
Tail boom and vertical fin (primary structure)
Tail drive shaft hanger fittings (2)*
Upper fin drive box support fitting (1)*
Control brackets*
Weight does not include:
Avionics, avionics shelves, electrics and other loose

equipment
Tail drive shaft and drive shaft fairing
Fin leading-edge drive shaft and fairing
Angle box and angle box fairing
Tail rotor drive box, rotor blades and fairing
*For comparison purposes, subtract the estimated weight of such

mechanical parts common to metal and composite tail-boom
designs. Estimated total weight of the above items = 15.6 lb.
Actual tail-boom (metal) weight = 185.6 lb

Less asterisked items (total) = 15.6 lb
Tail-boom airframe weight
for comparison purposes 170.0 lb
25
Composite Concept 1 weight = 145 lb - saving = p^- = 15%
Composite Concept 2 weight = 154 lb - saving = p^ = 10%
Composite Concept 3 weight = 17 0 lb - saving =0=0%
56
WEIGHT OF THE THREE SELECTED CONCEPTS
The weight breakdowns for the selected concepts are shown in
Tables X, XI and XII. Weights were based on a stress sized
shell (as against a trend curve) with sizing of primary struc-
ture to preliminary design levels. Secondary structure was
directly estimated from the drawing only (not stress sized).
It is emphasized that these design concept drawings are not to
production standard and mainly cover primary structure, with
some representative secondary structure only to afford some
measure of complexity.
A lump estimate for the secondary structure not shown on each
concept drawing is contained under the Miscellaneous Brackets
and Fixtures entry.
TABLE X. MONOCOQUE SANDWICH CLAMSHELL
WEIGHT ESTIMATE
Lb
Tail-boom shell (includes all
reinforcings, access panels,
inserts, protective covers) 87.0
Fwd and rear bulkheads

(3 plus 2 respectively) 5.0
Tail-cone fairing 2.0
Miscellaneous internal brackets

and fixtures 8.0
Fwd main attach fittings (4) 4.0
Canted bulkhead 3.0
Shelf beams and brackets 4.0
Joint plate (canted bulkhead/
fin) and drag angles 2.0
Vertical stabilizer complete 25.0
Lightning strike mesh 5.0
Total 145.0
57
TABLE XI. THIN SANDWICH SHELL WITH LONGERONS
AND FRAMES - WEIGHT ESTIMATE
Lb
Tail-boom shell (includes all rein-
forcings, access panels, inserts) 91.0
Fwd and rear bulkheads
(3 plus 2 respectively) 5.0
Tail-cone fairing 3.0
Miscellaneous internal brackets
and fixtures 10.0
Fwd main attach fittings (4) 3.0
Canted bulkhead 3.0
Shelf beams and brackets 2.0
Joint plate (canted bulkhead/fin)
and drag angles 2.0
Vertical stabilizer complete 25.0
Lightning strike mesh 5.0
Ring frames (7) 5.0
Total 154.0
TABLE XII. INTEGRALLY MOLDED SKIN/STRINGER

CLAMSHELL - WEIGHT ESTIMATE
Lb
Tail-boom shell (includes all rein-
forcings, access panels, etc.) 109 .0
Fwd and rear bulkheads (2.5 plus 1.5) 4 .0
Tail-cone fairing 3 .5
Miscellaneous internal brackets and
fixtures 9 0
Fwd main attach fittings (4) 3 .0
Canted bulkhead 3. 0
Shelf beams and brackets 2. 5
Joint plate (canted bulkhead/fin)
and drag angles 2. 0
Vertical stabilizer complete 25. 0
Lightning strike mesh 5. 0
Intermediate frames (7) 4. 0
Total 170.0
58
TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
The basic technology objectives for the design of the compos-

ite tail section structure were as follows:
Selection, evaluation, and efficient application of

composite materials resulting in an optimum strength/
weight design.
Vertical and lateral bending stiffness of a composite

structure to match that of the Cobra tail boom.
Torsional stiffness of the composite structure also

to match that of the Cobra tail boom.
Selection of efficient load paths, especially suitable

to composite materials.
The critical external loads applied on the tail boom are bend-
ing combined with transverse and torsional shears. For a com-
posite structure, the most efficient lay-up is a fiber orien-
tation parallel (0) to the load direction for axial stresses,
and 45 fiber orientation with respect to shear load. There-
fore, for the honeycomb clamshell boom structure, Concept 1,
a minimum lay-up configuration of 0/+4 5 per facing was estab-
lished. This provided longitudinal (0O) laminates for the boom
bending stresses and stiffness, and crossplied (+45) laminates
for shear stresses and torsional stiffness. For the initial
design and material evaluation of the honeycomb clamshell con-
figuration, Concept 1, GR/EP (HT) was the first material se-
lected for the shell facings, and Hexcel Nomex HRH-10 for the
core, with a 3-pound-per-cubic-foot (pcf) density. Stress
analysis of the most critical boom panel loaded in combined
compression and shear showed that a sandwich using a three-ply
GR/EP (HT) facing material, 0/+45O lay-up, .018 in. thick,
with a .7 0-in. core thickness was required. The fin honeycomb
sandwich skin panels using the same facing materials and lay-
up required a core density of 2 pcf, and a thickness of .16 in.
and .29 in. for the forward and aft panels, respectively.
A quasi-isotropic facing laminate was also investigated using

a 0/+45/90 GR/EP (HT) material, .024 in. thick. The criti-
cal panel for this configuration required a core thickness of
approximately .60 in. However, a weight comparison indicated
a facing weight increase of .0966 pound per square foot (psf)
and a core weight decrease of only .0250 psf. This was con-
sidered to be undesirable from a weight standpoint.
The final material investigated for the clamshell design was

GR/EP (Type A), intermediate strength, since it has a rela-
tively greater resistance to impact. The boom and fin sandwich
facing considered was a three-ply 0/+45 lay-up. For the most
59
critically loaded boom panel, the resulting sandwich core
thickness was .74 in. - 5 percent greater than that required
for the HT facing. Similarly, the vertical fin skin panel
core thickness also increased, but a lesser average amount of
4 percent - .17 in. and .30 in. for the forward and aft panels,
respectively.
The tail-boom vertical and lateral bending stiffnesses, and
torsional stiffness determined for the clamshell design using
GR/EP (HT) and (Type A) facings showed good correlation with
the design requirement. However, the lateral bending stiff-
ness as calculated was somewhat less than that given in the
Cobra design requirement. Therefore, to improve this stiff-
ness, doublers of unidirectional GR/EP (HM) material and vary-
ing plies were added at selected circumferential and longitu-
dinal locations. The resulting bending stiffness computations
showed that the lateral bending stiffness now slightly exceeded
that requirement. Adjustments can be made to fine-tune the
structure by moving the doublers from their present locations
to more advantageous points along the circumference and by
adding or subtracting plies as desired to finally match the
basic curve.
A single ply of 181E glass cloth was added to the outer facing
lay-up to improve the overall damage tolerance. This design
feature is discussed in detail in the design section. The
resulting vertical and lateral bending stiffness curves for
the boom showing the effect of this additional one-ply cloth
are also included.
The second design evaluation, Concept 2, was selected to
be a hybrid structure using PRD 49-3 honeycomb skin panels
and GR/EP (Type A) longerons. Four longerons provide the pri-
mary boom bending strength. The primary purpose of the PRD
honeycomb skin is to react the applied shears. However, these
panels also partially react the bending moments, the stresses
being applied on the panels in proportion to the elastic moduli
of the two materials. After investigating several longeron
lay-up combinations, the configuration was finalized using 75
percent unidirectional and 2 5 percent of +4 5 plies, for a
total of sixteen plies, .096-in. thick. This resulted in ample
longeron compression strength as well as the elastic modulus
necessary to match the stiffness design requirement._ The
honeycomb skin panel configuration was +45 (four plies) of
PRD 49-3 facings, .024-in. thick each, with .33-in.-thick
Hexcel Nomex HRH-10 core of 3 pcf density.
The vertical and lateral bending stiffnesses as calculated for
Concept 2 showed that both stiffnesses very nearly match
the Cobra design requirement. If additional fine tuning is
desired, unidirectional plies of GR/EP may be added to the
longerons, or unidirectional plies of PRD may be added to the
60
skin panels as required. The torsional stiffness also closely
matched the design requirement.
The third concept is of a skin/stringer configuration, using

a total of twelve stringers and thin skin shear webs. This
was the optimum number of stringers for Concept No. 3, giving
good bending and stiffness material distribution and shear
panel size for adequate skin shear buckling allowables. The
material selected for the stringer was GR/EP (Type A); glass
epoxy was selected for the skins. Skin thickness requirements
to match the torsional stiffness of the existing boom were
determined considering +45 1002S-glass or +45 XP251S-glass
epoxy laminates. Comparison showed that the XP2 51S material
resulted in a lighter skin weight due to a greater modulus
of rigidity with respect to the 1002S-glass epoxy. The final
skin material selected was eight plies (+454) of XP251S-glass,
.060-in. thick (total). The basic stringer section estab-
lished was of a hat section configuration, using a GR/EP (Type
A) material with a 03/+45/03 lay-up, a distribution of 75
percent unidirectional, and 25 percent +4 5 plies, for a thick-
ness of .04 3 in. This resulted in an optimum combination of
stringer area, compression strength, and elastic modulus simi-
lar to Concept 2. In the region of high compression stresses,
laminated doublers (five- and ten-ply, .030-in. and .060-in.
thick respectively) were added to the hat section flanges to
increase both the stringer section area and the crippling al-
lowable. The skin panels were designed to be shear resistant,
nonbuckling, at limit loads.
The vertical and lateral bending stiffnesses for Concept 3 were

determined using only the GR/EP (Type A) stringers for boom
cross-section bending material. The XP2 51S-glass skin was con-
sidered to be ineffective in bending. In this design, due to
the discontinuity of the lower stringers in the region of the
cutouts, laminated doublers were also added to the stringer
flanges at selected locations to match the Cobra vertical
bending stiffness. The resulting calculations showed that
both the vertical and lateral bending stiffnesses closely
matched the design requirement. The torsional stiffness also
showed good correlation with this requirement.
61
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA
The tail-boom shell and vertical fin structures for Concepts

1, 2, and 3 meet the following design criteria:
Structural strength to react the applied loads taken

from Reference (1)
Tail-boom bending and torsional stiffness require-

ment for adequate dynamic response
Factors of safety:
Limit Factor of Safety = 1.0
Ultimate Factor of Safety = 1.5
Honeycomb panels and shell failure criteria:

No compression and shear buckling at ultimate
loads
No local instability failures at ultimate loads
Thin skin, composite lay-up failure criteria:
No buckling at limit shear loads
No failure at ultimate shear loads
62
LOADS
Shears, axial loads, and bending and torsional moments applied

at the AH-1G (Cobra) tail-boom reference axis are determined
from data given in Reference 1, Section 4, for the most highly
loaded flight conditions. These critical conditions are:
Condition VB Yaw, +15 Recover
Condition VB Yaw, -15o Recover
Condition XIV, Tail-Down Landing
The sign convention for loads, moments, and coordinates used

herein is shown in Figure 15.
The geometry and station location of the tail boom and vertical
fin are shown in Figure 16.
Vertical and lateral shears and bending moments, torsional

moments, and axial loads for these critical conditions are
shown in Figures 17 and 18, and these are the limit unless
otherwise noted.
The critical tail boom to fuselage attachment fitting loads as

determined in Reference 1 are included in Table XIII and Fig-
ure 19.
Limit vertical fin loads are given in Reference 1, Section 5.

The critical limit fin spanwise shear, spanwise, chordwise,
and torsional moment diagrams are shown in Figures 2 0 and 21.
TAIL BOOM
REF AXIS, BL 0.0
M,
Figure 15. Sign Convention.
63
CD
d
(N
in
CO
c
rd
E
O
O
ffl
(0
EH
C
O
H
P
(0

O
o
H
p
(0
-p
(0 fa
>if-H
-P o
g -P
O M
Q) Q)
O >
V>
cu
u
H
fa
64
VERTICAL SHEAR
COND VB YAW, + 15 REC

COND VB YAW, -15 REC
COND XIV TAIL DOWN LANDING
COND XIV TAIL DOWN LANDING,
RESERVE ENERGY, ULTIMATE
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

BOOM STATION-IN.
Figure 17. Tail-Boom Structural Strength.
65
r
3 COND VB YAW, +15 REC *j&M* COND XIV TAIL DOWN LANDING
ttW
iCOND VB YAW, -15 REC COND XIV TAIL DOWN LANDING,
M RESERVE ENERGY, ULTIMATE
VB YAW,+15 REC
VB YAW, -15 REC
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

BOOM STATION-IN.
Figure 18. Tail-Boom Bending and Stiffness.
66
TABLE-.XIII. ATTACHMENT FITTING AXIAL LOADS, ULTIMATE*
Tension Compression
Load Load
Fitting (lb) Condition (lb) Condition
Upper VB Yaw, VB Yaw,
Right 15687 -15 Recover -11802 +15 Recover
Lower VB Yaw, VB Yaw,
Right 10086 -ISO Recover -26278 +15 Recover
Upper VB Yaw, VB Yaw,
Left 21824 +15 Recover -5735 -15 Recover
Lower VB Yaw, VB Yaw,
Left 16122 +150 Recover -20171 -15 Recover
Reference (1), Page 4.136.
*Limit Load x 1.5 = Ultimate Load

Factor of Safety =1.5
UPPER LEFT UPPER RIGHT
LOWER LEFT ^ LOWER RIGHT
VIEW LOOKING FORWARD
Figure 19. Attachment Fittings Designation,
67
30 40
SPAN - IN.
Figure 20. Vertical Fin Spanwise Shear and Bending Moment,
68
VIEW LOOKING FWD
30 40
SPAN - IN.
Figure 21. Vertical Fin Chordwise Bending and Torsional
Moments.
69
DYNAMICS
Due to the amplification of the dynamic loads on the tail boom
and fuselage, it is essential that the vibratory mode of the
boom remain the same. Thus, consistent mass distribution and
bending and torsional stiffnesses are required to maintain cur-
rent natural frequencies. Therefore, the stiffnesses shown in
Figure 22 form part of the design requirement. This stiff-
ness data is taken from Reference (1). The lateral and verti-
cal bending stiffness properties presented in Reference (1)
are the effective properties corresponding to limit load
conditions.
CO
CO
HI 4000
CO
f%
O CD
2000
Z ->
i
< o
cr <-
X
< _~
-I LLI
CO
CO
6000
LU
CO
C3CM 4000
S3
i
_ip 2000
LU _T^
> UJ
CO
CO
LU 4000
1- on
CO -I
2000
%
O O
DC X
o ->
H C3
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
BOOM STATION - IN.
Figure 22. Lateral, Vertical, and Torsional Stiffnesses of

Bell Structure.
70
MATERIAL ALLOWABLES
The allowable mechanical properties of the materials used in
the design of Concepts 1, 2, and 3 are given in Tables XIV
through XIX.
H rf~
(0 H';
to fi CM 1 o
~ 0 ^H in o CM
H S o H o o o o o o O r- vo CO O
3BID P 0) CM
-d U u o f o o ffl o in H o o o
o o a) fi H H o CM H CM
S ft H 0) H rH
1 fa II H n cu
\ O <L> H
&>ft M-l H MH 43
H U > fi <D (0
EC CD ft EH
^^
CM
*"-^
0) o
u is <tf >* VD l> 00 a\ w rH CM CM
w fi CO co co n CO co co "31 "* *r
w 10 0) 0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hi Q) rl u CM CM CM CM CM 1 CM CM CM CM CM
-P
1
O <^-s
(0

H
0) P
m &>
0) -H
ft fa
CM
H

CM
H

CM
H

CM
H
CM
H

1
CM
i-l
CM
rH
CM
H
CM
H
CM
iH
H! < g
IH 10
< 0> HI cn
ft m in W 00
H >i -a fi t-~ CM o o o o o o CM ^ 1^5 M1 o
EH EH 
>H u SH m r CO cn H
X .fi o u O co v> O O O O o o co "* CM IX) co
O p i
ft Cn II rl 0 0 o\ in o CTl ^ CO t^ CO co o o
w fi a> o in VD CM r~ ro CO H
\ o> m ,Q a
w n > H +1
EH p fa
Hi w
a iH %>\
ft a; (0 ^n x-
-P
3o (d
H
0
H
CM 1 "
îH
in H
H
CM
-O P u rl 0) VO VX> CM H r-l rH
H a) H U 0) H H
X P CD H
H MH XI
fa H ft EH
EH ^^ ^-N *-* ^^ ^.^ ^^ ^-v ^^ ^-s
H H H H H H H H H
W w W
W .fi W W W W co U
S K K K
' "* *' "'
+)
tn
M
^^ M
^-^ ^-* s
S ^-' g m
c
fi fi H
O 0) ^^ 0) g
H y-V *-^, *-^. <v H * *-*. ,s EH *-* ^^ fi (0
-P Hi EH Hi H P * * Hi H Hi Hi rd rH
*" "w' "*-' *"
EH
ft CO rH M
H ft 0)
SH u P (0 1 -p
U X > X! >i ( cn H fi c
W P (U fa fa >I >I X H H
0) P P u X >i X X >i * *
Q fa fa fa fa w fa m o a. *
'*
71
TABLE XV. PDR 49-III/BP907 LAMINATE ALLOWABLES
Fiber Orientation
o Vf
0V +45 90' (%)
(KSI) 160.0 (c,e) 17.6 (d) 2.1 (c) 58

tu
(KSI) 32.0 (e) 17.6 (d) 15.5 (f) 58
cu
Shear Strength
F (KSI) 6.0 (c) 6.0 (c) 6.0 (c) 58
su (a)
F. (b) (KSI) 5.5 (c) 20.0 (g) 5.5 (c) 58
1SU
E (MSI) 12.6 (c,e) 1.0 (d) 0.766 (c) 58
G (MSI) 0.4 (c) 2.8 (e) 0.4 (c) 58
0.325(c) 0.8 (h) 0.03 (h)
(a) In-Plane
(b) Interlaminar
(c) Data taken from Reference (3).
(d) Data taken from Reference (4).
(e) Data taken from Boeing Vertol Co. preliminary design
allowables data sheet.
(f) Calculated from DuPont Co. test data, M-3 Allowable,
Vf = 50%.
(g) Calculated from DuPont Co. test data, same as (f), but
for PRD-49-III with SP-306 ("Scotchply SP-306 PRD
49-111 Tape"); allowable for Cy = 8%, Vf = 60%.
(h) Estimated values.
TABLE XVI. +4 5 XP2 51S FIBERGLASS

LAMINATE ALLOWABLES*
(KSI) 22.6
tu
Shear Strength
(In-Plane) (KSI) 42, 2

su
(Interlaminar) (KSI) 9, 0
xsu
E (MSI) 2, 40
G (MSI) 2, 21
0.63
*Reference (5)
72
TABLE XVII. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF HEXCEL HRH-10
NYLON FIBER/PHENOLIC RESIN HONEYCOMB*
Compressive Plate Shear
L Direction W Direction
Modu- Modu- Modu-

Strength lus Strength lus Strength lus
Hexcel (PSI) (KSI) (PSI) (KSI) (PSI) (KSI)
Honeycomb
Designation Min. Typ. Min. Typ. Min. Typ.
HRH-10-3/16-2.0 105 11 72 4.2 40 2.2
HRH-10-3/16-3.0 I 270 20 135 7.0 67 3.5
*Ref. (6)
TABLE XVIII. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STRUCTURAL ADHESIVES
Supplier Lap Shear Strength

Product Designation Supplier (PSI)
AF-126 3M Company 3000*
EA9 34 Hysol, 2500**

Div. Dexter Corp.
*Ref. (7)
**Ref. (8)
TABLE XIX. E-720E/778KECDE-1/0-550) CLOTH ALLOWABLES*
Warp Direction: 0 Fill Direction: 90
*tu (KSI) 60.4 49.0

F (KSI) 64.8 50.2
cu
E (MSI) 3.12 2.82
G (MSI) 0.75 0.75
*Ref. (11)
73
FABRICATION CONCEPTS
Concept 1 was selected as a base-line design for the fabrica-
tion cost trade-off study. Detailed fabrication sequences were
conceived, specific component tools were designed, and all as-
sembly operations were detailed. Tooling and fabrication costs
were then estimated using current techniques and the above op-
erations analysis. Standard learning curves were then applied
to arrive at the production cost figures used in the Math
Model. Operations common to all three concepts upon which de-
sign changes had no impact, such as lightning protection,
painting, gearboxes and drive shaft installations, were not in-
cluded in the trade-off study.
The tooling and fabrication planning developed for Concept
1 was then modified as required on a detail basis to complete
the cost estimates for Concepts 2 and 3. A summary of the
factors which controlled the fabrication and tooling costs is
shown in Table XX, followed by a detail fabrication and tool-
ing description for Concept 1.
MANUFACTURING APPROACH
Concept 1, monocoque sandwich clamshell, was selected as the
base-line design for a detailed manufacturing cost producibil-
ity study. Concept 1 represented the structural configuration
which required the fewest component parts, tools and fabrica-
tion and assembly operations. Type-A graphite was recommended
since, in addition to its high strength and stiffness charac-
teristics, it currently has the largest share of the current
graphite market, the lowest current cost, and the most favor-
able projected future cost trend.
A core of DuPont Nomex was selected as a result of design im-
pact considerations, relative insensitivity to shop handling
damage and contamination, even though its initial cost is
higher and its fabrication forming operations are more diffi-
cult than those for aluminum core.
TOOLING CONCEPTS
Female right- and left-hand tooling was selected to form the
basic airframe structural components which were to be sub-
sequently joined by two longitudinal splices (Figure 23).
74
U
rH aj
o 5
tn
g
S3 rl
u
-P H -P a) m (N n ro m ro n
CO
a) to CO
ri
>H tn H
P o a) M
!=> u -P CO
EH
CO H
EH
CO
O
U
O CM
S3 o
H H
o
o S3
o
EH +> m CN n CN CN CN CM CM <N
aco
S3
o
H
EH
1 >1
-P P
g r) -H
O a) X X
o o ,
1
a) en
CQ S3 & H rH
I
-P
O-H . a, a
i-q
H & e(0 o o
a)
EH i-H
CO U tn tn
W o
EH u 0 o
H -H -rl
CO P P
O CO CO
to rl n
-p CD Q)
O -P
U 1 On >i
o , -p CO >1 -P H
H a) -H T3 CD -p H
+1 H CO X 0) tn cO rl rH
X CO 1 e O <D en -p m DJ tn -H -H
CO o o H en fi CD
u EH ft H H ro
75
CO
CD
>
CO
iH
U
o
4-1
<
0)
Xi
CO

f
H
U
H
O
m
rH
o
g

o
o
CQ
I
rH
H
CO
E-i
<N
CD
U
CJi
H
fa
76
Thin-gauge low-carbon steel was selected for the tooling mate-
rial, and autoclave curing techniques were selected such that
rapid heat-up and cool-down rates could be achieved, with
multiple tools stacked in the autoclave to match increased pro-
duction rates. This concept results in the lowest unit tooling
cost, because it makes maximum use of currently available auto-
clave systems widely available in the industry.
In contrast, self-contained internally heated and cooled pres-
surized tooling is far more expensive than thin-shell autoclave
tools, and the addition of increased rate tools is also more
costly.
CORE CONFIGURATION
Due to the small radii of the aft tail-boom area, preforming
of the Nomex core is required. This is a difficult operation
requiring close control of time and temperature, and consider-
able area shrinkage of the core occurs during this process.
For this reason, the raw core blanks would be formed first and
subsequently trimmed and spliced. Square edges would be used
whenever possible in the design to maintain tool and core
machining simplicity.
MATERIALS, RESINS, ADHESIVES
The materials selected for construction of the fuselage compo-
nents have been utilized in other Boeing Vertol programs, and
no new processes or fabrication techniques would be required.
The fibers would be impregnated with an epoxy novalac resin
system supplied by American Cyanamid, and coded BP9 07. This
resin has been selected from among the many available candi-
dates for the following reasons:
Previously used in high-modulus rotor blade flight
evaluation programs.
Demonstrated good impact resistance due to high
elongation and toughness.
Amenable to precast film or solvent dispersed fiber
prepregging processes.
Excellent structural properties over the required ser-
vice temperature range.
Demonstrated long-term field service history.
Good tack and drape characteristics.
Excellent work life and storage stability.
77
Demonstrated compatibility with co-cure concepts and
single-stage sandwich structure bonding processes
developed by Boeing Vertol.
Has moderate curing temperatures, can endure multiple
cure cycles, and requires no post cure.
Moderate cost and industry-wide availability.
ADHESIVE SYSTEMS
Two adhesive systems were selected for use in the airframe
structural fabrication. Both of these systems have been used
in flight-tested composite structures for the fabrication of
sandwich panels and bonded structural joints. The sealing ma-
terial selected has demonstrated its suitability for use by
many years of service in commercial and military aircraft.
The basic adhesive film used to bond the graphite face sheets
to the honeycomb is a moderate-temperature-curing epoxy film
adhesive fully qualified to military bonding specifications;
also, it has demonstrated its ability to form a tough peel-
resistant bond to honeycomb when co-cured with BP907 graphite
prepreg.
The second stage and final assembly component joints should use
ambient-temperature-curing epoxy-based mastic adhesive systems.
These adhesive systems are in production use within the Boeing
Vertol Company and have been used extensively in the construc-
tion of composite structures.
One such system has a relatively high modulus, making it com-
patible with graphite structures. It has excellent property_
retention over the temperature range expected, and the capabil-
ity to retain good structural properties at temperatures well
above 250F. This high-temperature strength retention is es-
sential in case elevated-temperature-cured repair techniques
are required during the evaluation or as a result of in-service
damage.
The sealing requirements are limited for the design selected;
however, a maximum structural panel environmental seal require-
ment can be maintained throughout component design, fabrication
and assembly to prevent panel altitude breathing and subsequent
moisture entry and panel degradation. Assembly joints, fastener
areas and panel edges are to be sealed with a polysulfide elas-
tomeric material fully qualified to Boeing specifications and
military specification MIL-S-8802.
A single-stage sandwich bonding process in which structural
sandwich composite laminates are cured and simultaneously
adhesively bonded to a honeycomb core was selected from the
78
basic panel fabrication. The use of this "co-cure" system
allows the completion of an entire one-half of the fuselage
structure with a single process cure cycle. This results in a
minimum fabrication cost for a composite component because of
the reduced number of autoclave cycles, and service performance
has shown increased structural reliability and environmental
resistances over multi-stage assembly systems.
STRUCTURAL SHELL ASSEMBLY
The main structural shell of the tail boom is fabricated in

steel sheet metal female molds (Figure 2 3). Each half is fab-
ricated in a single cure cycle in its own mold and then joined
in an assembly jig (Figure 24), using ambient temperature mastic
adhesives and precured splice plates. Strap clamps are to be
used to pull the boom halves together in the assembly jig. Air
bags between a collapsible mandrel and the splice joint are to
pressure the bond area. A separate but similar mandrel should
be used between the fin front spar fuselage web and the rear
bulkhead, which can be removed through the gap in the spar web.
The structural joint concept developed allows the installation

of the few required bulkheads at the same time that the two
shell halves are joined. The various detail internal components
such as control system fair leads, bell crank brackets, and sup-
porting structure for the electronics shelves would be installed
in the shell halves before assembly bonding. This concept,
again, keeps assembly tooling costs to a minimum.
The front and rear bulkheads are to be made on simple flat-plate

type tooling by the co-cure process and can include bonding of
any angle attachments simultaneously.
The various fittings, angles, channels, etc., should be made on

simple male or female tools by hand lay-up. Many of these could
be made in production by a pultrusion process.
The side hatch cover is to be made in the proper half of the

clamshell mold the same as the boom shell to assure a close
matchup. The bottom hatch covers will require separate,
simple tools.
VERTICAL FIN
Fabrication of the vertical fin starts with the front and rear
spars, which are made on simple flat plates with side guides
(Figure 25). The assembly is bagged and autoclave cured. Front
spar angles can be attached simultaneously with the spar molding.
79
eo
o
ffl
H
(d
EH
O
m
cu
n
-P
X
-H
fa
>i
a)
u
H
fa
80
V)
u
a,
4-1
fi
o
u
fa
c
H
CM
(0

-H
P
0)
>
m
o
c
o
H
-P
(0
u
-H
(
fa
IT)
CM
<D
Gi
H
fa
81
The torque box sides are made in the.female shell mold with
suitable inserts, as are the removable inspection plates, and
all are made by the co-cure process.
The torque box is assembled with the corner angles, adhesive,

pressure bag and inspection plates in place and positioned in
the female mold, with inserts as shown in Figure 26. Moderate
pressure is applied to the internal bag to assure proper match-
ing of the torque box to the mold. After adhesive cure, the
box is removed from the mold, leaving the bag temporarily in
place.
The aft trailing-edge section of the fin can be made two ways.
Assuming a fully machined honeycomb core, the raw skin laminate
and a layer of sheet adhesive can be placed in the lower mold
half; the honeycomb and a leading-edge spacer block are next
positioned along with the trailing-edge wedge as a means of
anchoring the trailing edge of the honeycomb. The top layer of
adhesive and skins is finally laid up on the honeycomb. A top
caul plate is added, and the assembly is bagged and autoclave
cured in one shot. An alternate approach is to use unmachined
honeycomb, but of a uniform wedge shape, and to bag this down
to the first skins and adhesive, cure, and then machine the op-
posite side of the honeycomb. The final skin is added and
cured in the lower mold with a caul plate. The latter method
simplifies honeycomb machining but adds an extra autoclave
operation. Both methods have been used at Boeing Vertol.
The trailing-edge section of the fin would be joined to the

torque box with adhesive, positioned in the lower half of the
mold, a caul plate added, and the assembly bagged. Cold cure
can be under vacuum pressure with the torque box internal bag
balancing the external pressure. Hot bonding of this joint is
also feasible.
After removal of the torque box bag, the ribs can be bonded
in and the outboard fitting and other details added.
BOOM AND FIN ASSEMBLY
The tail boom and the fin would be positioned in a suitable

alignment fixture (Figure 27). After alignment, the necessary
holes are to be drilled, the fin removed and all prebonding
cleaning carried out.
After applying adhesive, the fin is to be repositioned in the

jig. Secondary fasteners will apply pressure to the joints
and the primary fasteners added at the trailing-edge spar
fitting. The tail cone is to be bonded in place along with
secondary fasteners.
82
TOP HALF
REMOVABLE
INSERT
REMOVABLE
INSERT
STEEL SHELL
MOLD
BOTTOM HALF
Figure 26. Fabrication of Vertical Fin Torque Box,
83
>1
H
I
CD
W
W
<
eo
o
CQ
I
rH
H
(
EH
u
rH
CD
84
STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF CONCEPT 1,
MONOCOQUE SANDWICH CLAMSHELL
TAIL SECTION
The tail section comprising the tail-boom shell, with inte-
grated vertical fin and tail-cone fairing, is shown in Figure
10 and is the same envelope as the existing Cobra AH-1G tail
section. It is a functional, damage-resistant, structurally
efficient design using advanced concepts and composite materi-
als throughout. The proposed arrangement is exceptionally-
simple, affording minimum parts count with low cost, and is
oriented toward quantity production fabrication processes.
The design logic pertaining to this particular concept is based

on the following:
Placed first in the parametric trade-off study out of
a possible eight configurations
Simplest design to make, with the least number of

parts, and facilitates mass production techniques
Lightest weight of all the concepts; pure monocoque,

all-bending and shear loads taken by shell, no stabil-
izing frames required
Utilizes predominantly graphite type-A material
1. Readily available in production quantity
2. State-of-the-art material and numerous data points

and test samples available
3. Low priced
4. Excellent strength and stiffness characteristics
5. Superior fatigue qualities compared to most

metals
Problem of susceptibility of graphite to low-velocity
damage overcome by the use of woven glass ply dis-
cretely placed in shell cover lay-up and a thin outer
scuff ply. Samples have survived a 2-inch-diameter
1-pound ball drop from approximately 30 feet.
TAIL BOOM
The primary structure is designed as a semimonocoque composite
sandwich concept with minimal bulkheads situated at the forward
85
and rear ends of the shell, with a third bulkhead canted to
line up with the vertical stabilizer front spar. The tail boom
is a straight-line element configuration and consists of graph-
ite type-A inner and outer skins sandwiching a Nomex core. A
unique feature of the proposed design is the fine-tuning capa-
bility, whereby critical bending stiffness modes can be ac-
curately tailored to satisfy dynamic response requirements by
the discrete placement of graphite HM reinforcing doublers
longitudinally at four quadrants on the inner skin. At the
forward end of the shell, a lay-up of predominately 90-degree
and +45-degree ply circumferential doublers on the inner and
outer skins performs the dual role of shear-diffusing concen-
trated loads from the four main fuselage attachments into the
shell, and boosting shell peripheral bending stiffness to suit-
ably react the moment generated due to the unavoidable offset
of the fitting bolt center from the sandwich shell centroid.
(See Figure 28.)
The tail-boom structure incorporates three large access panels
of identical size, located in the same positions as on the ori-
ginal metal version. The panels are fastened with bolts and
anchor nuts and are constructed in sandwich form similar to the
basic shell. These panels are considered to be load-carrying,
but in order to ensure against local stress concentrations in
the skins surrounding the panel, a system of "doily" configura-
tion reinforcing mats with multi-oriented layups is built into
the surrounding area, being interposed between the shell skin
plies during initial lay-up. (See Figure 29.)
The forward and rear bulkheads are of sandwich construction
with graphite type-A covers over Nomex core. The canted bulk-
head, in order to satisfy interface requirements with fin front
spar and tail bumper anchorage, is designed in graphite type-A
as a conventional web-and-flange bulkhead but is split in two
halves to enable a half segment to be easily and accurately
assembled in each clamshell prior to joining the halves. The
forward bulkhead has a large access hole in its center which
matches the existing Cobra AH-1G bulkhead. At the four main
bolt attachment positions, the honeycomb bulkhead is recessed
locally to allow the attachment fitting forward end to nest up
to the bulkhead web.
FUSELAGE/TAIL-BOOM ATTACHMENT
The tail boom will be structurally attached to the fuselage at

the four existing bolt positions on the rear fuselage frame of
the Cobra AH-1G.
The two types of attachments (see Figure 10) are a metal insert
and an integral loop-wound composite.
86
FORWARD C RCUMFERENTIAL
BULKHEAD DOUBLERS
(SHOWN IN PHANTOM
LINE)
1
VARYING PLY AND SHAPE
GRAPHITE H.M.
UNI LAY-UP ON INSIDE FACE
OF INNER COVER ONLY
(TUNING PLIES SIMILAR IN
4 PLACES)
Figure 28. Structural Tuning System and

Circumferential Doublers.
NOMEXCORE FIBERGLASS PLY
^777,
SIMILAR REINFORCING MAT
SYSTEM IN INNER COVER LIGHTNING
LAY-UP STRIKE MESH
LON OUTER COVER
GRAPHITE COVER PLY

3-PLY SURROUND" GRAPHITE
REINFORCING MAT COVER PLY
I
GRAPHITE COVER PLY
3-PLY SURROUND
REINFORCING MAT
REDUCED SIDE VIEW ; ,/ PAN EL ATTACH ME NT SCR EWS
OF SURROUND f' '/ [ "' V '. ACCESS PANEL ASSEMBLY
REINFORCING MAT
Figure 29. Access Panel Surrounding Reinforcement.
87
1. Metal Insert
This is designed as a titanium machined fitting con-
sisting, at its forward end, of a block bored to take
a barrel nut with, to the rearward, two flat grown-out
legs that locate against the inner and outer cover re-
inforcings. The Nomex core, which is increased in
thickness over the general area of the attachment, is
removed locally in way of the fitting. Primary attach-
ment of the fitting is by bonding at inner and outer
reinforcings and at the bulkhead, but mechanical at-
tachments are also added for fail-safe designs to carry
up to limit load in the event of major bond failure.
However, the fitting is integral with the sandwich shell
and cannot be removed once assembled.
2. Integral Loop-Wound Composite
This is a more advanced design (see Figure 30) which

is lighter than the metal/fiberglass arrangement and
promises to be a less fatigue-prone joint. This fit-
ting, like the metal insert, cannot be removed once
assembled.
Each loop fitting is integrated into the shell at a
locally thickened segment with tapered fiberglass
channels bonded onto each side of the fitting to
transfer loads into the graphite skins of the shell,
again via the more forgiving medium of a fiberglass
member.
The actual loop fitting is made up of a number of uni-
directional tapes bonded together in an elongated
horseshoe configuration that loops over and bonds to a
titanium bush fitting, which accommodates a barrel nut.
This fitting locates at the loop end of the lay-up with
a bush protruding through the composite material for
the main bolt attachment. The fitting is flat at its
rear end so as to bear against a bonded inner block of
composite material of varying orientation, which is
capable of reacting compression loads from the fitting.
A titanium bearing pad at the front of the loop com-
pletes what is considered to be a primary bonded
subassembly.
After bonded installation of the loop fittings for
fail-safe purposes, a system of blind rivet attachments
is incorporated through the sandwich skins into the
channel flanges on each side capable of carrying up to
the limit load in the event of major bond failure.
88
UNILOOP MATERIAL
TITANIUM
BUSH FITTING
TAPERED FIBERGLASS
CHANNEL
FORWARD I
BULKHEAD SHELL CORE THICKENED LOCALLY
TITANIUM CAP IN AREA OF FITTING IN WEDGE
CONFIGURATION. (REMOVED IN
WAY OF CHANNEL AND LOOP
HOLE FOR MAIN FITTING)
ATTACHMENT BOLT I
COMPRESSION BLOCK
TO FUSELAGE
J
Figure 30. Main Attachment Fitting, Composite Integral Loop-

Wound Concept.
89
The secondary structure proposed in the tail boom comprises
the following:
1. Avionics shelf support structure, BS80 to BS122, con-
sisting of longitudinal members bonded to the shell on
each side and cross-beam channels, all of fiberglass
construction (SP250 SF 1 system). (See Figure 31.)
2. Avionics support structure, BS41-32 - BS67 (for mount-
ing of transponder, etc.). It is proposed to utilize
the existing metal support structure and to modify the
beam ends to make suitable bonded and mechanically
fastened connections to the shell inner surface.
3. Elevator control rod support brackets. Independent
rigidized brackets in S-Glass SP2 50 SF 1 material
bonded to the inner shell simulating existing brackets
grown from the frame are proposed. These are located
at four positions on the left side of the shell, with
two holes accurately located for fitting the existing
bolt on guide fittings. (See Figure 32.)
4. Tail rotor control rod support brackets. Brackets
similar to those described in 3 are located in three
positions and again have two holes located for mount-
ing the existing guide fittings.
5. Elevator support structure. The honeycomb core is in-
creased in thickness locally, and a slotted hole is
introduced in the shell similar to the existing metal
arrangement. The periphery of the hole is consolidated
with pot filler, and a graphite doubler system is added
to the exterior surface and also the inside face of the
inner cover. Delron inserts are let into the shell and
set in position with pot filler at six places to match
the elevator support assembly bracket. Existing eleva-
tor support brackets then bond directly on to the shell
via Delron inserts. (See Figure 33.)
6. Drive shaft hanger attachment. Anchorage for the four
attachment screws locating the lower section of the
hanger fitting is made by locating Delron inserts into
hardpoints built into the shell by pot filler disks,
replacing honeycomb core in way of the attachment hole.
Existing hanger fittings and shim blocks are used but
longer attachment screws are required. (See Figure 34.)
7. Intermediate gearbox mounting. Delron inserts in pot
filler similar to the hanger attachment are located at
four places matching the gearbox attachments. Fiber-
glass backing members bonded to the inside surface of
90
EXISTING
AVIONICS SHELF
FIBERGLASS LONGITUDINAL
SUPPORT MEMBER
CROSSBEAM FIBERGLASS
CHANNEL AND END BRACKETS
I
Figure 31. Avionics Shelf Support Structure.
S-GLASS/EPOXY
MOLDED BRACKET
EXISTING METAL
GUIDE FITTING
BONDED AND BLIND
SCREW ATTACHMENT
RON BLIND INSERT

4 PLACES
POTTED INTO NOMEX CORE
Figure 32. Elevator and Tail Rotor Control Rod

Support Bracket (Typical).
91
BASICSHELL
COVER PLIES
I
OUTER DOUBLER
GRAPHITE TYPE A
ELEVATOR SUPPORT
ASSEMBLY BRACKET DELRON INSERTS
LOCATED IN
INNER DOUBLER LLER
GRAPHITE TYPE A
NOMEXCORE
THICKENED LOCALLY ANNULUSOF
IN AREA OF POT FILLER
ELEVATOR ATTACHMENT
Figure 33. Elevator Support Structure,
EXISTING HANGER
FITTING
EXISTING
SHIM BLOCK
DELRON INSERT
'POT FILLER
SHELL NOMEX
ATTACHMENT THROUGH CORE
COMPOSITE FAIRING
LOCKNUT
SUPPORT ANGLE
Figure 34. Drive Shaft Hanger Attachment.
92
the shell pick up gearbox bolt holes and consolidate
the mounting. (See Figure 35.)
8. Handling tube assembly. Existing tube assembly will be
mounted to the tail-boom shell in a manner similar to
the drive shaft hanger attachment. Four bolthole at-
tachments are provided in the shell using the Delron
insert and pot filler by the method described in item
6 above.
9. Tail rotor control quadrant mounting member. This as-
sembly is proposed as an S-glass molding stiffened at
selected positions by the addition of graphite type-A
unilaminates. The attachment to the shell will be
similar to the drive shaft hanger with attachment holes
provided in the shell, using Delron insert and pot
filler by the method as described in item 6 above.
10. Access in tail-boom rear bay. A load-carrying access
panel is provided in the side of the tail-boom at the
rear end, midway between the canted bulkhead and end
bulkhead, for access to skid attachment fittings and
general inspection in the bay. The panel construction
in sandwich form will be the same as the other three
main access panels in the tail boom and will be at-
tached in a similar manner using screws and nutplates.
A system of reinforcing mats will be introduced in the
local skin surrounding the access hole similar to the
other skin edge reinforcements previously described.
SCUFF AND EROSION PROTECTION
As shown in Figure 36, a one-ply nylon or other suitable mate-
rial cover is bonded over the exterior tail boom and vertical
fin composite areas to fulfill the following functions:
Form a tough, durable exterior surface to absorb local

scuffing and lacerations.
Produce a smooth surface over the lightning strike mesh
and protect the mesh from damage and corrosion.
Protect the primary structural graphite and prevent
erosion.
93
1
EXISTING
ATTACHMENT THROUGH INTERMEDIATE
COMPOSITE FAIRING GEARBOX
SUPPORT ANGLE I
TAILSKID
ACCESS COVER
ELRON INSERT
SHELL NOMEX
CORE l
HANDLING
TUBE ASSEMBLY PLATE NUT
FIBERGLASS
BACKING MEMBER
Figure 35. Intermediate Gearbox Mounting.
94
1-PLY FIBERGLASS WOVEN
FABRIC INTERPOSED BE-
NOMEXCORE TWEEN GRAPHITE PLIES IN
3 LB/CU FT OUTER COVER ONLY.
0.75 IN. THICK (IMPACT RESISTANCE)
TYPE-A 3-PLY TYPE-A 3-PLY
GRAPHITE/EPOXY GRAPHITE/EPOXY
COVER COVER
WIRE MESH
(LIGHTNING
PROTECTION)
NYLON OUTER COVER

(SCUFF AND EROSION
PROTECTION)
Figure 36. Basic Shell Construction.
95
TAIL-CONE FAIRING
Since this component is of compound curvature, it is designed

as a single-skin graphite type-A molding stabilized by a system
of ripple stiffeners. The fairing is bonded to the tail boom
and fin structure and is load-carrying. Vertical and torsional
loads are reacted from the fin and diffused into the tail boom
at the rear bulkhead.
Access is provided at the lower forward edge of the fairing for
removal of the tail bumper, and another panel centrally posi-
tioned allows access for inspection and minor repairs.
VERTICAL FIN
The fin arrangement is a straight-line element concept compris-

ing a primary structural torque box and trailing-edge assembly.
The fin attaches to the tail boom via a front spar splice chan-
nel and a rear spar fitting, also at its lower sides, left and
right,by bonded shear angles.
The primary structure is a front and rear sandwich spar with
interconnecting side panels,\also of sandwich construction
which make up the primary fin torque box. The spar caps are
graphite type-A molded 'L' section comprising primarily uni-
directional laminations running spanwise down the length of the
fin spar. Further graphite type-A molded angles are nested
progressively in the locality of the front spar root end.
The sandwich arrangement of both spars and side skins consists

of inner and outer graphite type-A skins over Nomex core. At
the front spar the web flanges are facing back, and a doubler
strap of graphite type-A extends over both the flanges of the
spar cap and the web angle on each side, which augments the cap,
and forms a rigid land for the side-panel connections to the
rear of the spar; it also forms an extension skin forward of
the spar on the left-hand side for the location of fastener re-
ceptacles for the nose fairing attachment and on the right-hand
side for fastening the fairing hinge.
The skin in the rear spar locality is set back to allow the
trailing-edge assembly to fit flush, comprising graphite type-
A side skins bonded to a full-depth Nomex core which tapers
down chordwise to nest into a trailing-edge graphite member.
At tip and root ribs, graphite moldings seal off the Nomex core,
top and bottom, and distribute the torque loads.
Superior structural efficiency is achieved with the integrated

torque box arrangement which allows a greater portion of useful
skins to work in compression, thus relieving the bending loads
in both spars.
96
The front and rear spar cap sectional area is increased pro-
gressively down to the root of the spar by increasing the
width of the cap legs. This serves the twofold purpose of
meeting the maximum bending moment condition occurring at the
fin root, and also facilitating diffusion of bending loads
from the side panels of the torque box into the front and
rear spars over the lower few inches, since the tail-boom shell
at the interface with the fin has no backup structure capable
of taking vertical loads between bulkheads.
Lateral bending loads from the fin front spar are carried
across the tail-boom/fin joint by a splice channel with
tapering-thickness walls which are at maximum thickness at
the termination of the four fin cap members.
The bonded joint channel, in turn, distributes loads into the
canted bulkhead webs, where it is sheared into the shell skins
via the bonded bulkhead flanges. (See Figure 37.)
Access into the torque box on the left side is afforded by
two spanwise load-carrying doors attached in a manner similar
to that of the tail-boom panels.
VERTICAL FIN ATTACHMENT TO TAIL BOOM
An arrangement which allows an integral-type fin-to-tail-boom
joint is designed with the advantage that the complete stabi-
lizer structure may be fabricated as an independent assembly
to ease manufacturing problems and to facilitate production
before assembly onto the tail boom. The fin front spar is
joined to the tail boom by means of a separate graphite joint
channel which locates simultaneously on the forward face of
the spar web and forward face of the tail-boom canted bulkhead,
forming a simple splice joint. (See Figure 37.) At the rear
spar a three-pronged fitting in metal or, alternatively,
graphite forms the joining medium between the rear spar web
and the aft bulkhead of the tail boom. The third leg of the
fitting attaches to the fin root rib. (See Figure 38.)
Longitudinal drag loads from the fin are transferred into the
tail-boom structure via a shear angle bonded around the fin
lower contour, on each side, onto the skin. (See Figure 37.)
The described fin-to-tail-boom joints at the front and rear
spars are primarily bonded with a fail-safe mechanical fastener
system to carry up to the limit load in the event of subsequent
bond failure.
A graphite type-A molded joint angle comprising unidirectional
and cross-plied laminations is secondary bonded to the tail-
boom shell and joint channel on assembly of spar. This member
reinforces the skin around the cutout for the front spar joint
angle and also effectively seals off the hole.
97
UNDERSIDE MOLDED
GRAPHITE TYPE-A TO FIT OVER SPAR CAPS
JOINT ANGLE
(SECONDARY BONDED)
FIN FRONT
SPAR WEB
GRAPHITE TYPE-A
JOINT CHANNEL
GRAPHITE TYPE-A
SHEAR ANGLE
(SECONDARY BONDED)
TAIL-BOOM
SPLIT CANTED
BULKHEAD
Figure 37. Front Spar-to-Tail-Boom Splice Joint.
98
FIN REAR SPAR
FITTING ATTACHMENT BONDED AND

TO ROOT RIB ONLY MECHANICALLY FASTENED
(NOT TAIL-BOOM SHELL) TO FIN AND TAIL-BOOM
STRUCTURE
BULKHEAD REINFORCING ALUMINUM ALLOY

ATTACHMENT FITTING
REAR BULKHEAD
Figure 38. Rear Spar/Tail-Boom Bulkhead Attachment Fitting.
99
TAIL ROTOR SUPPORT
The tail rotor drive box is supported by the existing metal
support fitting, which is cantilevered from the front spar and
is mechanically attached to the composite structure in a
manner similar to its metal counterpart.
A graphite torque box rib located in line with the top of
the support fitting connects to the front spar via an aluminum
alloy fitting and carries in-plane torque loads into the box.
The main support fitting also redistributes the rotor torque
and thrust loads into the fin structure through mechanical
attachments at the front spar. (See Figure 39.)
An aluminum alloy fitting is used at the rib/spar intersection
because of the magnitude of the combined loading felt by the
fitting flange and the possibility of peeling problems if using
a composite molded fitting.
Secondary Structure - Existing metal parts will be used for
the upper fin leading-edge skin and fin tip fairings.
Control Attachment Points - Upper and lower pulley bracket
assemblies for the tail rotor controls will be attached to
the vertical fin front spar by bolting, similar to the exist-
ing arrangement, through the spar. SP250 SF 1 fiberglass
angles are bonded on the rear face of the spar in line with
these attachments, and the core is consolidated around the bolt
holes by insertion of pot filler.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR TAIL SECTION
The proposed design is considered to be virtually invulnerable
to nonexploding rounds up to and including 2 3mm. Vulnerability
reduction is enhanced by the use of fiberglass in the matrix
with the graphite. Such a mixture tends to isolate original
ballistic damage to approximately the area removed. It also
helps to prevent rapid propagation of damage due to high
elongation to failure. Vulnerability to the large nonexplosive
rounds may be expected only in small localized areas such as
the fuselage attachment points, and even these can be improved
by judicious detail design.
DAMAGE TOLERANCE
A recognized detraction to the use of relatively thin graphite
skins for the basic tail boom and vertical fin covers is the
poor resistance of the material to low-velocity impact.
Whereas a projectile impacting at high velocity punches a
clean hole through a graphite/epoxy skin supported by a
100
GRAPHITE TYPE-A
EXISTING METAL BUILT-IN FRONT
TAIL ROTOR DRIVE BOX GRAPHITE TYPE-A SPAR CAPS
SUPPORT FITTING NESTED ANGLE (REAR SPAR SIMILAR)
I
TORQUE BOX SIDE PANEL
GRAPHITE TYPE-A COVERS
NOMEX HONEYCOMB CORE
I
GRAPHITE TYPE-A
DOUBLER
GRAPHITE TYPE-A
TRAILING-EDGE RIB
FRONT SPAR WEB GRAPHITE TYPE-A
GRAPHITE TYPE-A TRAILING-EDGE
COVERS AND NOMEX MEMBER
HONEYCOMB CORE
(REAR SPAR SIMILAR)
ALUMINUM ALLOY GRAPHITE TYPE-A FULL DEPTH NOMEX

JOINT FITTING TORQUE BOX RIB HONEYCOMB CORE
(MECHANICAL ATTACHMENT) THROUGHOUT TRAILING-
EDGE SEGMENT
Figure 39. Upper Torque Box and Trailing-Edge

Rib Installation.
101
honeycomb core, a tool dropping from a few feet, or a care-
lessly handled rifle butt, could inflict damage such as _
cracked or punctured skins and dented honeycomb core. This
vulnerability to low-energy impact is unacceptable for Army
combat airframes.
Boeing Vertol has conducted research and tests on various
materials and hybrid combinations to develop suitable sandwich
floor and fuselage shell panels; Boeing Vertol has also con-
ducted a wider-ranging investigation where other variables
such as improved adhesive systems and special ply orientation
have also been considered.
The proposed approach to solving this problem on the composite
tail boom and vertical fin is as follows:
- Selection of a type-A graphite which is more damage-
resistant than the HT and HM grades.
- Placement of one ply of Style 181 S-glass woven fabric
interposed within the existing graphite outer skin.
- Selection of an adhesive compatible with the existing
graphite matrix epoxy which gives improved impact
qualities.
An 18-x-16-inch test panel representative of the tail-boom
sandwich structure was made with graphite type-A covers sand-
wiching a 7/16-inch-thick Nomex core, 3 pounds per cubic boot
density, 3/16 inch cell size. There were three graphite plies
per cover, oriented 0, -45, and +45 (0 ply nearest to core).
The panel was supported around its periphery to simulate
built-in conditions, and a 1-pound ball was dropped on the
approximate center of the cover. When the ball was dropped
from a height of 8 feet, visible damage was noted in the form
of a crack about 1 inch long across the orientation of the
outer crossply, with a pronounced denting of the core below
the crack.
An identical panel was then tested except that one ply of
Style 181 S-glass woven fabric was interposed between the 0
and -45 plies during lay-up on the outer cover of the panel
only.
The same 1-pound ball was dropped on the outer cover of this
panel from 30 feet with no visible sign of damage to either
the skins or the core.
102
This preliminary panel test indicates that considerable improve-
ments in low-velocity impact resistance of graphite skins are
possible with the discrete addition of fiberglass laminates.
Charpy impact energy tests performed by R.H. Toland* have
demonstrated considerable improvement in the energy required
to fail a hybrid mixture of HTS graphite and S-glass, three-
fold in the case of such a laminate with 25 percent S-glass,
as shown in Figure 40.
30
s
00
20 /
/
LU
/
or
LU /
z
LU
>
a. /
or
<
o 10
HTS-GRAPHITE AND S-GLASS
j_ _L
20 40 60 80 100
S-GLASS-%
Figure 40. Charpy Impact Energy Relationship for a
Hybrid Composite of Varied Proportions.
*Toland, R.H., FAILURE MODES IN IMPACT-LOADED COMPOSITE MATERI-

ALS, AIME Symposium on Failure Modes in Composites, May 1972.
103
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The tail-boom shell is analyzed for bending and shear loading,
with compressive bending combined with transverse and torsional
shear being the most critical case. Preliminary analysis has
shown the sides to be the most highly loaded. Due to the
shallow curvature of the tail-boom sides, and to a lesser ex-
tent of the top and bottom, the compression and shear buckling
allowable of the sides are determined considering the left and
right sides to be flat panels simply supported at points Da
and Ha, and Db and Hb, respectively (see Figure 41). Applied
stresses and structural allowables are determined herein for a
honeycomb shell with .018 in. GR/EP (Type A) facings; see
Figure 42. The one-ply 181E-glass cloth added for damage
tolerance decreases the laminate stress and increases the
panel allowable and is, therefore, conservatively neglected in
this analysis.
SIDE PANEL - COMPRESSION BUCKLING

The allowable compression buckling load per unit width of a
sandwich panel as given in Reference (9), page 5-2, is
N cr = K7T2D/b2 (1)
The allowable compression buckling stress for an orthotropic
panel with facings of equal thickness from equation (1) is
2
N KTT D
? = _ = (2)
cr 2t 2tb2
The bending stiffness is defined in Reference (9), page 1-5,

and is given by the formula
0 = 2^ (3)
where:
1
E' = JE
v
a E* b (4)
X = (5)
^"ab "ba
The additional parameters required to determine the buckling
coefficient are stated in Reference (9), page 5-3.
U = Gch (6)
104
0/45 GR/EP (TYPE A), HEXCEL
FACING, t=.018 / HRH-10-3/16-3.0
____ ^
NOMEXCORE
+Z, UP
C_SYM
+Y, OUTB'D +X, AFT
+z
< JO
4, (1a) [1b)-
<> (7a)
Fb
Fa
+ +y
(8b) o
CENTROIDOF
SECTION ELEMENT (TYP)
VIEW LOOKING FORWARD
Figure 41. Concept 1 - Section Through Tail Boom.
105
V = (7)
b2U
CORE RIBBON DIRECTION

CANTED
BLKHD
BS 41.32 BS 194.3 BS 227.0
Figure 42. Side-Panel Geometry.
The facing material is 0/+45 GR/EP (Type A), .018 in. thick,
with a lay-up distribution of 0:33%, and 45:67% (see Fig-
ure 41). A section through the honeycomb shell is shown in
Figure 43. The material properties are given in Table XIV.
6 H . = H = .74
E
'a = Ex = (7 4) (10)
* *ab xy
E'b = Ey = (3.4) (10) ba M
yx
.31
t = .018
h = .758
i+i
tc = .74 d = .776
i i
Figure 43. Honeycomb Panel Section.
106
The material properties for HRH-10-3/16-3.0 Nomex core are
taken from Table XVII.
G = G = 7 000 psi
c TL '
When substituting these material properties into equations (3),

(4), (5), (6), and (7), the parameters are
E' = (4.98) (10)6 X = .786
D = 32790 U = 5310
The average width of the side panel as shown in Figure 42 is
b = 23.6 in.
The side-panel aspect ratio is determined in Equation (8)
a " 164!98 " *143 (8)
V = .1093
Referring to Reference (9), Figure 5-10, for orthotropic
facings, the compression buckling coefficient is found to be
KMc = 2.50
When the values for D, K , b, and t are substituted into

equation (2), the compression buckling allowable is
F = 40 300
cr ' Psi
Preliminary analysis has shown local intra-cell buckling and

wrinkling of facing not to be critical.
SIDE PANEL - SHEAR BUCKLING
The expression for the allowable shear buckling load per unit
width of a sandwich panel is the same as that for a compression
panel as stated in equation (1), with the exception of the
shear buckling coefficient. The allowable shear buckling
stress is
K 2D
Ms
ms *
F = ~
2 (9)
scr 2tb
107
The basic parameters for the facing and core materials are the
same as those determined for the compression panel. Referring
to Reference (9), Figure 6-8, the shear buckling coefficient
for orthotropic facing is found to be (Ref. Eq. (7))
V = .1093
KM
Ms =2.79
When the values for D, KMs, b, and t are substituted into
equation (9), the shear buckling allowable is
F scr = 44970 psi
The ultimate shear strength of the GR/EP facing material as

stated in Table XIV is Fgu = 36,000 psi.
Therefore, ultimate shear strength is used for cutoff valve.

SIDE PANEL - APPLIED STRESSES
Bending and shear stresses are determined at BS 41.32, 90.49,
129.25, 143.28, and 194.30.
Maximum compression bending stre sses due to combined vertical
and lateral bending moments (see Figures 20 and 21) are
applied on the right side panel in Condition VB Yaw, +15
Recover (Rec). These bending s tresses are circumferentially
maximum at Fb and Gb, Figure 44, and vary only slightly between
BS 90 and 19 4. The maximum bend ing stress is conservatively
considered to be applied across the total panel width. A
plot of side panel compression s tress vs. boom station is
shown in Figure 45. Db
Eb
Fb
Gb
JJ Hb
Figure 44. Side Panel.
108
COMPRESSION STRESS
SIDE PANEL COMPRESSION BUCKLING ALLOWABLE

CO
-40
CO
CO
-30
CO
z -20 COMBINED BENDING STRESS (ULT)
o COND VB YAW, +15 REC
CO
CO -10
LU
QC
Q.
5 0 ~T 1 1 1 r~
O
200
40 80 120 160
BOOM STATION-IN.
SHEAR STRESS
CO
40
SIDE PANEL SHEAR BUCKLING ALLOWABLE
I 30-h
CO
CO
111
cr 20 SHEAR STRESS (ULT)
h-
co COND VB YAW,+15 REC
cr 10 +
<
LU
X
CO
0 ,
L , , , ( ( j , ,_
40 80 120 160 200

BOOM STATION-IN.
Honeycomb Panel: GR/EP (Type A) Facing, 0/45/

.018 in. Thick
Hexcel Nomex HRH-10-3/16-3.0 Core,
.74 in. Thick
Figure 45. Panel Stresses.
109
fc -34,130 psi
MAX
fc
R = MAX
c (10)
cr
R = 34130 = .845
40300
Shear flows applied on the tail boom in this condition are low-
est at BS 41.32 and increase going aft. This is due to the
decrease of section depth and inclosed box area going aft. The
maximum shear stress calculated at BS 194.30 is conservative-
ly considered to be applied on the side panel. A plot of
side panel shear stress versus boom station is shown in Figure
45.
fs MAX = 12,720 psi
fs
MAX
R
s =
Fscr (ID
R = 12220 = >354
s
36000
The interaction formula for a panel loaded in compression and
shear is given in Reference (9), equation 8:3:
R + R = 1.0 (12)
c s
Referring to Reference (10), page 1-24, the margin of safety
is given by
MS = -1 (13)
2 2
R + ^R + 4R
c s
Substituting values from equations (10) and (11) into equa-

tion (13), the margin of safety is calculated to be
MS = .020
VERTICAL FIN
The vertical fin is of a two-cell torque box structural
design, using honeycomb panels for the skins and spar webs.
The vertical fin geometry is shown in Figure 46. The fin
structure is analyzed for spanwise and chordwise bending
moments, and torsion. Compression bending combined with
torsional shear is the most critical case.
110
..UP
FWD
*-
FS 46.95
FS 26.00
Figure 46. Vertical Fin Geometry.
Forward Panel
A section through the forward panel is shown in Figure 47,
I t=.018
h= 1.88
rn
tc == .17 d = .206
L t
Figure 47. Forward Honeycomb Panel Section.
The allowable compression and shear buckling stresses are

stated in equations (2) and (9). The facing material is
the same as that used for the tail-boom shell, that is,
GR/EP (Type A), .018 in. thick. The material properties
are stated in the shell stress analysis.
E' = (4.98)(10) X = .786
111
The core is Nomex HRH-10-3/16-2.0, and the material properties
are taken from Table XVII.
G = G = 4 200 psi
c TL '
From equation (3), the parameter D is
D = 2013 0
The average panel width b = 7.0 in.
(Figure 48).

a = .190
A
450< '45
a = 36.9
Substituting the material properties

and parameters into equations (6) |*b = 7.0J
and (7)
U = 790
Figure 48. Forward Panel.
V = .512
The compression and shear buckling coefficients are
taken from Reference (9)/ Figures 5-10 and 6-8, for
orthotropic panels:
K K = .95
Mc = 1.46 Ms
Substituting into equations (2) and (9),
F cr = 16,450 psi
r
'
F scr = 10,700
' psi
^
Aft Panel
The aft panel facing and core material is the same as that
used for the forward panel, with the exception of the core
depth.
.30 in. b = .318 in.
The average panel width b = 17.5 in.; length is 39.5 in,

Panel curvature is conservatively neglected.

a = .443
112
The panel parameters are calculated using the same method
of analysis as that shown in the forward panel.
D = 5,766 U = 1,336 V = .139
From Reference (9), Figures 5-10 and 6-8, for orthotropic
panels,
K

Mc =2.3 K
Ms =2.6
Substituting into equations (2) and (9),
F er = 11,800 cpsi
Fscr = 13 380
' Psi
Applied Stresses
Bending and shear stresses are determined at Fin Station (FS)
2 6.0, and are considered to be the average stresses applied
on the fin skin panels. Maximum compression bending stresses
due to combined spanwise and chordwise bending moments are
applied on right side panels in Condition VB Yaw, +15 Rec.
The applied loads on the fin section are shown in Figure 49.
FWDPANELv ,,+Y AFT PANEL

1 2 \3 4
Mx = 48,992 IN.-LB j t ,
FWD 13 12 11 101 9 8
My =18,950 IIIN.-LB 1 VIEW LOOKING DOWN
Figure 49. Applied Limit Fin Section Loads, FS 26.0.
113
The applied compression and shear stresses on the forward
panel are
f = 15,100 psi f s = 1,720 psi

' ^
Substituting into equations (10) and (11), and solving,
R = .918 R = .161
c s
The interaction formula is stated in equation (12), and the

margin of safety is given in equation (13). Substituting
into equation (13), the margin of safety is calculated to be
M s = .05
The aft panel stress distribution is shown in Figure 50.
The average compression stress shown in Figure 50 is considered

to be applied on the panel. The maximum shear stress is
f = 3,920 psi
Substituting into equations (10), (11), and (13), and solving,
M s = .02
co
CO
CO
LU
QC
I-
co
o
z
Q
z
tu
CO
DISTANCE AFT OF REAR SPAR, X - IN.
Figure 50. Aft Fin Panel Stress Distribution,

Right Side.
114
BENDING AND TORSIONAL STIFFNESSES
Vertical and lateral bending and torsional stiffnesses for

the honeycomb shell are determined at BS 41.32, 90.49, 129.25,
143.28, 194.30. The tail-boom lateral bending stiffness as
calculated for the shell using the 0/45 GR/EP (Type A)
facings, .036 inch total thickness, indicated good correlation,
but was slightly less than that given in the design requirement
curve, Figure 22. Therefore, doublers of unidirectional
GR/EP (high-modulus (HM)) material and varying plies are added
at selective locations, as shown in Figure 51. The resulting
bending stiffness calculations show that the lateral bending
stiffness closely matches the design requirement, and the
vertical bending stiffness now slightly exceeds that require-
ment. Adjustment can be made by moving the doublers from the
corners to a point closer to the mid-point of the sides and
by adding or subtracting plies as desired to finally match
the basic curve. The elastic moduli used in these calculations
are given in Table XIV.
0/45 GR/EP (Type A) Ex = (7.3)(10)

SYM
0 GR/EP (HM): Ex = (25.0) (10)
The lateral and vertical bending stiff-

nesses for Concept 1 are shown in
Figures 521- The design requirement
curves given in Figure 2 2 are also DOUBLER
shown therein for comparison. CORE
In addition, the bending stiffnesses for
the shell including one ply of 181E
glass cloth is also shown. The modulus
of elasticity for the 181E glass cloth is
given in Table XIX.
FACING
Ex = (3.12)(10)
Figure 51. Doublers.
The torsional stiffness GJ is calculated by using the equation
4A 2
J = (14)
2s/t
The modulus of rigidity is given in Table XIV.

G = (3.23)(10)6
The torsional stiffness is plotted in Figure 52, and the

design requirement curve given in Figure 2 2 is included there-
in for comparison.
115
LATERAL BENDING STIFFNESS
FACING: GR/EP (TYPE A), (0/45), .018 IN. THICK,

WITH UNI (0) GR/EP (HM) DOUBLERS
CORE: HEXCEL NOMEX HRH-10-3/16-3.0, .74 IN. THICK
STIFFNESS CURVES WITH ADDITION OF ONE
>
PLY OF IBIE GLASS CLOTH, .010 IN. THICK
Figure 52. Concept 1 Stiffnesses.
116
THIN SANDWICH SHELL WITH FRAMES AND LONGERONS
TAIL SECTION
The tail section comprising the tail-boom shell with inte-
grated vertical fin and tail-cone fairing is the same envelope
as the existing AH-1G Cobra. (See Figure'11.)
This structure concept differs from Concept 1 in that the tail
boom, in addition to having a sandwich shell construction
(albeit a little thinner), also has a longeron/frame system
which takes 85 percent of the bending loads. This arrangement
confers improved fail safety and ballistic tolerance, in that
skin panels are segmented by longeron and frames to reduce
crack propagation and afford alternate load paths.
The design logic applicable to this concept is based on the
following:
- Placed second in the parametric trade-off study out of
a possible eight configurations.
- PRD 49-3/sandwich covers with Nomex core tail-boom
shell covering appears to be as good from the
ballistic tolerance aspect and superior with regard
to low-velocity impact as the graphite used on Con-
cept 1.
- PRD 49-3 material used is easy to handle and fabricate
and exhibits exceptional adhesive qualities with
Nomex core.
- Improved fail-safe construction over Concept 1.
1. With utilization of frames and longerons, the
skins are divided into bays which would contain
any serious crack propagation in the covers.
2. Some bending load in addition to torsional shear
is taken by the skin, thus affording dual load
paths for primary vertical and lateral bending
modes.
- PRD 49-3 material price steadily dropping. Price
expected to be reduced to $15 per pound shortly, com-
pared with the present $35 per pound.
117
TAIL BOOM
The primary structure comprises a thin sandwich shell with
inner and outer PRD 49-3 covers over a Nomex core. There are
three bulkheads: one forward, one aft, and one canted to match
the front spar web as in Concept 1. The forward and aft bulk-
heads are of honeycomb construction with graphite type-A
covers sandwiching Nomex core. The canted bulkhead is a con-
ventional flanged web configuration for the same reasons as
outlined in Concept 1. Seven ring frames of flanged web
arrangement in graphite type-A material are located between
bulkheads and are notched to clear longerons. Four pultruded
graphite type-A longerons extend from the forward to rear bulk-
head and are located on straight-line elements in positions
similar to the existing AH-1G.
The shell is designed to be made in two halves with an upper
and lower longitudinal, all-bonded splice joint to facilitate
easy assembly of all secondary structure items to each shell
half prior to main assembly.
At the forward end of the tail boom, substantial PRD 49-3
fingerplate reinforcings located inside the shell extend cir-
cumferentially to afford skin-to-fitting shear diffusion capa-
bility and to consolidate the four main attachment fittings
located on the shell at the finger reinforcing positions.
There are alternative designs shown for these fittings. One
arrangement (Figure 11, sheet 1, view X) indicates a long
flanged Al Aly 7075 fitting bolt attached to the graphite
longeron. At each bolt position, a thick graphite pad bonded
to the longeron relieves stress concentrations at attachment
hole edges. (See Figure 11, Sheet 1, Sect. D-D.) The longeron
is mechanically fastened to the shell in the way of the fitting
as well as bonded to prevent any possibility of peeling and
for fail safety. The honeycomb core in areas of fasteners has
potted inserts, and at the fitting shear connection into the
sandwich bulkhead, there are also potted inserts.
The alternative attachment fitting (Figure 11, Sheet 1, view H)
is again an Al Aly 7075 fitting but more symmetrically disposed
by terminating the longeron some inches from the bulkhead and
interposing the attachment fitting. A splice joint is made on
each side between longeron and fitting by the introduction of
molded S-glass angle members which pick up base and web attach-
ments in fitting and longeron. Fiberglass was selected for_
this application so as to obtain a compliant joint without in-
curring the loss of any appreciable strength or stiffness in
the overall joint. In this attachment arrangement, a solid
pad insert of E-glass or PRD is inserted between_covers, re-
placing the Nomex core over the extent of the joint.
118
TAIL-iCONE FAIRING '
This compound curvature member has to transfer loads of a
relatively low order from fin into tail boom and is made of
PRD 49-3 in a molded lay-up.
Tail-Boom Access Panels
There are three large load-carrying access panels in the tail
boom of the same size and located in the same position as in
the existing AH-1G Cobra. The panels are fastened with screws
and nut plates and are constructed in sandwich form similar to
the basic shell.
At access panel positions, the surrounding structure is rein-
forced with doily configuration mats as on Concept 1 but made
in PRD 49-3. The inner surround molding and also the panel
surround molding are molded in a one-piece "picture frame"
configuration in PRD 49-3 material.
Avionics Support Structure
The avionics shelf support beams and rails, which are con-
sidered as secondary structure, are made in PRD 49-3. Other
more highly loaded support structures, such as elevator mount-
ing members and drive shaft gearbox mounting structures are
designed in graphite type-A, due mainly to poor compressive
load capability of PRD 49.
Vertical Fin
The vertical fin is designed exactly as Concept 1 using
graphite type-A. Fin covers were initially considered in
PRD 49-3; but again, due to the low compressive and marginal
shear strength which drove up the required cover thicknesses,
it was opted to change material to graphite type-A as there
was concern that the increased weight so far back might move
aircraft e.g. aft, which was not acceptable.
DYNAMIC RESPONSE
Fine tuning of the tail boom is afforded by the bonded place-
ment of graphite type-A straps in calculated positions to
control critical bending stiffness modes.
119
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The structural configuration of Concept 2 is shown in Figure

53. A typical cross-section through the boom, Section A-A,
is shown in Figure 54. Concept 2 is of a hybrid design, using
GR/EP (Type-A) longerons and PRD-49-III honeycomb skin panels.
The four longerons react the applied vertical and lateral
bending moments. The primary purpose of the honeycomb skin
panels is to react the applied vertical, lateral, and tor-
sional shears. However, the skin panels also partially react
the bending moments, and the bending stresses are applied on
the panels in proportion to the elastic moduli of the two
materials.
Preliminary analysis has shown the longerons to be most highly
loaded in compression, and are analyzed as columns supported
at the frames shown in Figure 53. The side panels are critical
in combined compressive bending and shear, and are considered
to be flat panels simply supported at the longerons. The
method of analysis used to determine the panel compression
and shear buckling allowables is the same as that described
in Concept 1.
CORE RIBBON DIRECTION LONGERONS 1 & 4
LONGERONS 2 & 3
-20.95 -k 20.95 -H
I I 185.15
BS 41.32 59.52 80.44 101.38 122.33 143.28 164.23 194.30
Figure 53. Longerons and Frame Spacing Geometry

BS 41.32 - 194.30.
120
(452) PRD-49-III -~7 /"HEXCEL
FACING, t = .024 ^< / HRH-10-3/16-3.0
/ ^sL NOMEXCORE
-- CENTROID OF HONEYCOMB
SHELL SECTION ELEMENT (TYP)
Ga
SECTION A-A, VIEW LOOKING FORWARD
121
LONGERON - COLUMN BUCKLING ALLOWABLE
The longeron section is shown in Figure 55. The section
properties calculated for the longeron are:
A = .322 in.
I
x-x= -121 in
'
=
Px_x -612 in
'
The longeron material is (03, 45, 03) GR/EP

(Type A), .096 in. thick, with a lay-up distribution of 0:75%,
and 45:25%; see Figure 55. The material properties are
given in Table XIV.
.048 i
(0, 0, 0, 45 0, 0, 0) =&-*-
Figure 55. Longeron Section,
122
The longerons supported at the frame locations shown in
Figure 53 are short columns. The allowable buckling stress is
calculated from the equation
F = F (1 Fcu (L /P)
c cu " ' ) (15)
2
4TT E
The material properties are taken from Table XIV.
E = (13.2)(10)6
Fcu = F
cux = 128 000
' Psi
Assume the column end fixity coefficient c = 1.5. For the
longeron between BS 41.32-59.52, the length L = 18.2 in., and
P = .612 in.
L' L (16)
P Vc~
1/
= 24.3
P
The column buckling allowable is calculated from Equation (15)
Fc = 109,400 psi
SIDE PANELS - COMPRESSION AND SHEAR BUCKLING

The allowable compression and shear buckling stresses are
stated in equations (2) and (9).
The facing material is (+45,) PRD-49-III, .024 in. thick; see

Figure 54. A section through the honeycomb side panel is
shown in Figure 56. The material properties are given in
Table XV,
E; = E- = (i.o) (io)6 ,ab = ,ba= .so
From equations (3), (4), and (5), the parameter D is

D = 4,170
123
t=.024
Figure 56. Honeycomb Panel Section.
Due to the core ribbon direction and panel size, the geometry
designation for the compression and shear panels as specified
in Reference (9) is shown in Figure 57.
^
*~l
5Gc = G
TW
.5GC = 3500'
bI = 21.7 a = 21.7
G =G
c TL 2.0GC=GTL
Gc = 7000 2.0 Gc = 7000
a = 20.94 *
COMPRESSION PANEL SHEAR PANEL
Figure 57. Side-Panel Geometry BS 80.44-101.38.
Compression Panel
The material properties for HRH-10-3/16-3.0 Core are taken

from Table XVII.
G = G = 7 000 psi
c TL '
124
The parameters U and V are calculated using equations (6) and
(7).
f = .965
U = 2480
V = .0755
Referring to Reference (9)/ Figure 5-10, for orthotropic
facings, the compression buckling coefficient is found to be
K
Mc =2.95
Substituting into equation (2),
F cr = 5,320
' psi
*
Shear Panel
From the data shown in Figure 57 and Table XVII for the
core material,
G = G = 3 500 psi
c TW '
4=
cl -965
U = 1240
V = .0755
Referring to Reference (9), Figure 6-9, for orthotropic
facings, the shear buckling coefficient is found to be
KMD
Ms = 5.95
F scr = 11,600
' psi
*
125
CO
LONGERON COLUMN BUCKLING ALLOWABLE

CO
CO
LU 120
cc
I-
co
2 80
O
CO
CO
LU
40 LONGERON COMBINED
cc
Q. BENDING STRESS (ULT), COND. VB YAW, +15 REC.
0 T T T T T T
o
40 80 120 160 200

BOOM STATION-IN.
Figure 58. Compression Stress - Longeron (D.
126
APPLIED STRESSES
As stated in the Method of Analysis, both the GR/EP (Type A)

longerons and the PRD-49-III honeycomb skin panels react the
applied bending moments. The bending stresses at any boom
station are calculated using an effective bending section,
where the PRD skin panel material is included in terms of
effective GR/EP for the determination of section moment of
inertia. Maximum longeron and skin panel stresses are applied
in Condition VB Yaw, +15 Rec.
Bending and shear stresses are determined at BS 41.32, 90.49,

129.25, 143.28, and 194.30.
Longeron
Maximum compression bending stresses due to combined vertical

and lateral bending moments (see Figure 18) are applied on
Longeron^Nin Bay BS 41.32-59.52. Tension is not critical.
f = -73,100 psi
c ^
The margin of safety for the longeron is calculated to be

F
c
Ms = -1 (17)
f
c
1094Q0
M = -1 = .49
s
73100
A plot of compression stress vs. boom station for Longeron (3)

is shown in Figure 58.
Side Panel
The right side panel in Bay 80.44-101.38 is the most highly

loaded in combined compression and shear. The effective side
panel is shown in Figure 59. The compression bending stresses
in this panel increase from Longeron @ to a maximum at points
Fb and Gb and decrease going toward Longeron (V) . The maxi-
mum bending stress is conservatively considered to be applied
across the total panel width.
fc =
MAX -4'170 Psi
127
4 Eb
i Fb
Gb

Figure 59.
1Side Panel.
Substituting into equation (10) and solving,
4170 = .784
R
c 5320
A plot of right side panel compression stress vs. boom station

is shown in Figure 60.
The applied vertical shear is reacted by the side skin panels
between the upper and lwer Longerons, (l) -\2J , \3J-\4) , and
the lateral by the upper and lower skin panels between
Longerons\l)-{4) and (2)-{3) respectively, Figure 54. The
torsional moment is reacted by all four skin panels, circum-
ferentially.
f = 3,960 psi
Substituting into equation (11) and solving,
3960 = .341
R
s 11600
A plot of right side panel shear stress vs. boom station is

shown in Figure 60.
The interaction formula is stated in equation (12), and the
margin of safety is given in equation (13). Substituting
the values calculated for R and R into equation (13), the
margin of safety is calculated to be
M s = .10
128
COMPRESSION STRESS
CO
-16 PANEL COMPRESSION
I BUCKLING ALLOWABLE
CO
CO
111 -12
cc
\-
co
-8
CO
CO -4
LU
DC COMBINED BENDING
a. STRESS, (ULT), COND VB, +15 REC.
s 0
o
o T T T T T
SHEAR STRESS
16 PANEL SHEAR BUCKLING

CO
12
ALLOWABLE
_r \T
CO
CO
LU
CC 8
h-
co
cc 4
<
LU SHEAR STRESS (ULT)
I
CO
0 COND VB YAW,+15 REC.
~T~ r-
40 80 120 160 200
BOOM STATION-IN.
Honeycomb Panel: PRD^49-III Facing, (+45 2)

.024 in. Thick
Hexcel Nomex HRH-10-3/16-3.0 Core
.33 in. Thick
Figure 60. Right Side-Panel Stresses.
129

Concept 2 are determined at BS 41.32, 90.49, 129.25, 143.28,
and 194.30. The moments of inertia about the two axes at any
boom station are calculated for the GR/EP longeron areas con-
centrated at their centroids, and for the PRD honeycomb skin
circumferentially divided into area elements concentrated at
their centroids as shown in Figure 54. The bending stiff-
nesses are determined by multiplying these cross-section
moments of inertia for each material by the applicable modulus
of elasticity as stated in equation (18).
El (SECTION) = E(GR/EP)I(LONG.) + E(PRD)I(SKIN) (18)
The moduli for GR/EP (Type A) and PRD-49-III are taken from
Tables XIV and XV respectively.
GR/EP (Type A) Longeron,

0:75%, 45: 25%: E = (13.2)(10)b
PRD-49-III Honeycomb Skin, fi

(45 ): Ev = (1.0)(10)
The resulting calculations show that both the vertical and

lateral bending stiffness curves very nearly match the design
requirement. The lateral and vertical bending stiffnesses are
shown in Figure 61. The design requirement curves given in
Figure 2 2 are also shown therein for comparison.
The torsional stiffness GJ of the PRD honeycomb skin is

calculated from equation (14). The modulus of rigidity is
given in Table XV .
G = (2.8) (10)6
The torsional stiffness is plotted in Figure 61f and the design
requirement curve given in Figure 22 is included for compari-
son.
130
LONGERON: GR/EP (TYPE A); UNI (0) 75%, (45): 25%

FACING: PRD-49-III, (452), .024 IN. THICK
CORE: HEXCEL NOMEX HRH-10-3/16 - 3.0, .33 IN. THICK
Figure 61. Concept 2 Stiffnesses,
131
INTEGRALLY MOLDED SKIN/STRINGER CLAMSHELL
TAIL SECTION
The tail section comprising the tail-boom shell with inte-
grated vertical fin and tail-cone fairing is the same envelope
as the existing AH-1G Cobra. (See Figure 12.)
This structural arrangement differs considerably from the
semimonocoque sandwich construction of Concept 1 and the
sandwich shell with frame longeron system of Concept 2 and
is essentially the application of composite materials to a
conventional skin/stringer/frame design.
The design logic applicable to Concept 3 is based on the

following .-
- Placed third in parametric trade-off study out of a
possible eight configurations.
- S-glass thick skin cover - no honeycomb core. Appears
to be slightly better from the ballistic tolerance
aspect and superior with regard to low-velocity impact
compared to Concepts 1 and 2.
- S-glass material is easy to handle and fabricate, and
more experience has been accrued with fiberglass than
any other composite. Its main detraction, however,
is high density and low modulus compared to graphite
and PRD 49.
- Improved fail-safe construction over Concepts 1 and 2.
1. Stringers and frames divide skins into relatively

small bays which would contain any serious crack
propagation in the covers.
2. Multiple stringer arrangement affords alternative
load paths for the primary bending structure.
- Price of S-glass laminates is low - $12 per pound.

TAIL BOOM
The primary structure shell comprises a system of graphite
stringers, frames, and bulkheads supporting an 8-ply S-glass
skin. The hat section molded graphite type-A stringers extend
from the forward to the rear bulkhead.
132
There are three bulkheads of flanged web construction posi-
tioned forward, aft, and canted in line with front spar web
similar to Concept 1. Seven flanged web type ring frames are
spaced between bulkheads. Frames and bulkheads are of graphite
Type-A. The canted bulkhead and frames are notched to allow
stringers to pass through. The shell is fabricated in two
halves with vertical longitudinal splice joints as on Concepts
1 and 2. Each side shell has six hat stringers running in
straight-line elements.
There are three large load-carrying access panels in the tail
boom of same size and located in same position as in the exist-
ing AH-1G Cobra. The panels are fastened with screws and nut
plates and are constructed in sandwich form similar to Concept
1 panels.
The access panel surround structure is reinforced by an S-glass
flanged surround doubler which extends under adjacent stringers,
The left-hand side panel surround doubler extends forward and
rearward also to pick up ends of stringer which are discontin-
uous across the hole.
At the forward end of the tail boom, segmented S-glass finger
plate reinforcings bonded to the inside of the skin extend
circumferentially to afford skin to fitting shear diffusion
capability and consolidate the four main attachment fittings
mounted on the doubler fingers.
There are two types of attachment fittings shown, one being
an alternative arrangement. The preferred fitting is shown
at view on arrow L on Figure 12, Sheet 1. This fitting is
Al Aly 7075T73, which is grown out at the forward end to
accommodate a barrel nut and is then reduced to a long solid
finger so as to lay inside the stringer end, which has been
reinforced to increase side walls substantially. The cap of
the hat section is cut away locally in order for the fitting
to be detachable by removing bolt attachments passing through
stringer side walls and fitting.
TAIL-CONE FAIRING
This compound curvature member is designed as a one-piece
molding in S-glass and is stiffened in order to transfer loads
from the fin trailing-edge section into the tail boom by an
internal system of simple ripple S-glass stiffeners.
DYNAMIC RESPONSE
Fine tuning of the tail boom is afforded by the combined
addition of nested doublers in selected stringers at the
133
forward end and bonded doubler strips in selected hat section
flanges in other positions shown.
VERTICAL FIN
The vertical fin is fabricated in graphite type-A material

for the same reasons as outlined in Concept 2. However, the
basic construction is different from that described for Con-
cepts 1 and 2. It should be noted that this method is suitable
for all three concepts and is the preferred design.
The fin arrangement is a straight-line-element concept com-
prising a primary structural torque box and trailing-edge
assembly. The fin attaches to the tail boom via a front spar
splice channel and a rear spar fitting and at its lower sides,
left and right, by bonded shear angles.
Primary Structure - Front and rear sandwich spars with inter-
connecting side panels, also of sandwich form, make up the
torque box, with the spar material, primarily unidirectional,
being configured into angle sections and built in at each
corner to form simple, efficient lapjoint lands for the skins.
The sandwich arrangement in both spars and side skins consists
of graphite type-A skins, inner and outer, enclosing Nomex
core.
An extension of the side skins forward of the front spar com-
bines with nested angles on each side to form a rigid land
for the attachment of the nose fairing hinge on the right side
and for affixing of quick-release fasteners on the left side.
The skin in the rear spar locality is set back to allow the
trailing-edge assembly to fit flush, comprising graphite
type-A side skins bonded to a full-depth Nomex core which
tapers down chordwise to nest into a trailing-edge graphite
member. At tip and root ribs, graphite moldings seal off
the Nomex core top and bottom and distribute the torque loads.
Superior structural efficiency is achieved with the integrated
torque box arrangement, which allows a greater portion of use-
ful skins to work in compression, thus relieving the bending
loads in both spars.
The front and rear spar cap sectional area is increased
progressively down to the root of the spar by increasing the
width of the cap legs. This serves the twofold purpose of
meeting the maximum bending moment condition occurring at
the fin root, and also facilitating diffusion of bending loads
from the side panels of the torque box into the front and rear
134
spars over the lower few inches, since the tail-boom shell at
the interface with the fin has no backup structure capable of
taking vertical loads between bulkheads.
Lateral bending loads from the fin front spar are carried
across the tail-boom/fin joint by a splice channel with
tapering-thickness walls, which are at maximum thickness at
the termination of the four fin cap members.
The bonded-joint channel in turn distributes loads into the
canted bulkhead webs, where it is sheared into the shell skins
via the bonded bulkhead flanges.
Access into the torque box on the left side is afforded by two
spanwise load-carrying doors attached in a manner similar to
that of the tail-boom panels.
Secondary Structure - Existing metal parts will be used for
the upper fin leading-edge skin and fin tip fairings.
CONTROL ATTACHMENT POINTS
Upper and lower pulley bracket assemblies for the tail rotor
controls will be attached to the vertical fin front spar by
bolting, similar to the existing arrangement, through the spar.
SP250 SF 1 fiberglass angles are bonded to the rear face of
the spar in way of these attachments, and the core is con-
solidated around the bolt holes by insertion of pot filler.
135
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The structural configuration of Concept 3 is of a skin-stringer

design using a total of twelve stringers, six per side, and
thin skin shear webs. The frame locations for this concept
are the same as those shown in Figure 53 for Concept 2. A
typical cross section through the boom is shown in Figure 62.
The stringers react the vertical and lateral bending moments,
and the skin reacts the vertical, lateral, and torsional
shears.
The basic stringer is of a hat section design using GR/EP
(Type A) material with a (03, 45,03) lay-up, a distribution
of 0:75%, 45:25% laminates. This results in an optimum
combination of stringer area, compression strength, and
elastic modulus. The skin material is XP251S glass with a
(454) lay-up, .060 in. thick. This is the minimum thickness
required to meet the torsional stiffness criteria.
Stringer bending stresses and skin shear flows are calculated

at the desired boom station locations using the Boeing Vertol
Company S-2 5 Computer Program, Reference (12).
The analysis has shown the stringers to be most highly loaded
in compression, and they are analyzed as columns simply sup-
ported at the frames, shown in Figure 53. In the region where
high compression loads are applied, laminated doublers are
added to the basic hat section stringer at the flanges, adja-
cent to the skin, to increase both the stringer section area
and crippling allowable. In the area of the tail-boom_cutouts,
the terminated stringers are considered to be ineffective in
the bays immediately adjacent to the cutouts. In the forward
bay at the fuselage interface, BS 41.32-59.52, only the four
attachment stringers are considered to be effective.
All skin panels are considered to be flat panels, simply sup-
ported at the frames and stringers. The minimum thickness of
the skin panels is .060 in. as previously stated, and they are
designed to be shear resistant, nonbuckling at limit load. In
regions of high local shear stresses, 45 laminate doublers
are added to meet the nonbuckling requirement.
STRINGERS
Section Properties
The basic stringer section is shown in Figure 63. The doublers
added to the flanges, as stated in the Method of Analysis, are
136
+z, UP (454)XP251SSKIN,
+y, OUTB'D
SECTION A-At VIEW LOOKING FORWARD
137
also shown therein. These doublers are five ply and ten ply,
.030 in. and .060 in. thick, respectively.
The stringer configuration in the interface bay, BS 41.32-59.52,
includes a nested doubler with the same section area as the
basic stringer section.
The section properties of the tail-boom stringer sections used
in the Concept 3 design are tabulated in Table XXI.
TABLE XXI. STRINGER SECTION PROPERTIES
Designation A I P
Basic Section .197 .0254 .359

Mod. A .242 .0295 .349
Mod. B .288 .0316 .331
Nested Doubler .394 .0507 .359
Crippling Allowables
To calculate the stringer crippling allowable, which is based
on the theory of buckling of flat plates, assume the effective
modulus to be defined as stated in equation (4). The stringer
modulus orientation is shown in Figure 64. For the basic
stringer section, with the lay-up shown in Figure 63, 0:75%,
45:25%, the material properties are given in Table XIV.
E" = (5.63)(10)6
The crippling allowables for the stringer elements are deter-
mined from Reference (13), Figure 11.2.1-1.
TABLE XXII. CRIPPLING ALLOWABLE OF BASIC STRINGER SECTION
F
cc
Item b t b/t F cc A
V cuE*
F cc
1 .76 .048 15.8 .036 30500 .0365 1133
2 .76 .048 15.8 .036 30500 .0365 1133
3 .84 .048 17.5** .066 55900 .0403 2255
4 .84 .048 17.5** .066 55900 .0403 2255
5 .90 .048 18.8** .062 52500 .0432 2270
V fc-
r .1968 9046
2-i
F E
* V cu = (8 .48) (lOp
**No edge free
F _ 9046 _ 46,000 psi
CC
.1968
138
.048
1
i 3:
MOD. A: .030 (TYP) -

MOD. B: .060 (TYP) -J
Figure 63. Basic Stringer Section and Flange Doublers,

.006-Inch Ply Thickness.
Figure 64. Modulus Orientation,
139
Similarly, for the additional stringer configurations itemized
in Table XXI, the crippling allowables are calculated to be:
Basic Stringer, Mod. A: F = 50,800 psi
Basic Stringer, Mod. B: Fcc = 57,300 psi
Basic Stringer, Nested: F = 81,800 psi
Column Allowable
The stringers supported at the frame locations shown in
Figure 53 are short columns. The allowable column buckling
stress for a section with a maximum compression allowable of
F is calculated from the equation
cc
2
i__Fcc(LV)
F c = F cc (19)
2
4TT E
The modulus of elasticity is taken from Table XIV.

E = (13.2) (10)6
Assume the column end fixity coefficient, c = 1.5. For the
basic stringer section from Tables XXI and XXII,
P = .359 in. F = 46,000 psi
For the stringer between BS 80.44-101.38, the length L = 20.94

in. Substituting into equations (16) and (19), the column
buckling allowable for the basic stringer is calculated to be
i-' = 47.6
P
F = 36,800 psi
c
SKIN PANELS - SHEAR BUCKLING
The allowable shear buckling load for a simply supported
composite panel of width b and thickness t is given in Refer-
ence (14), Table 4.3.2.1.
N
xy'cr=()2 V22 (D
12 + 2D
66}
i 11.7 + .5320 + .93802 > , -|- = (20)
140
where
VD11 D22
e = <l (21)
D
12 + 2D66
The allowable shear buckling stress is calculated from

equation (20):
F = XY/Cr
scr Psi 22>
The stiffness parameters are defined in Reference (14), page

4.3.4.
1
D1^ = (23)
12{1 u
~ xYyx)
D1 = yt
22
"^xyjuyx* (24)
3
Dl
T
= _EJc^yx t (25)
12(1-Mxy/uyx')
i G .3
<e - -Si- (26,
The skin material is (454) XP251S-glass, t = .060 in.,

.0075 in. thick per ply; see Figure 62. The material pro-
perties are given in Table XVI.
Ex = E = (2.4) (10)6 = =
c U xy n yx
6
Gxy = G = (2.21) (10)
When substituting these material properties and the thickness

into equations (21), (23) to (26), the parameters are
D1 = D1 = 71 6 D1 = 45 1
11 22 ' 12 - "
1
D 66 = 39.8 e = .574
141
When the values for the D parameters and 0 are substituted into
equations (20) and (22) , the shear buckling allowable is
4650
N = ^ lb/in. (27)
xy,cr b2
77500
Fscr = 2 Psi (28)
b:
For the skin panel between Stringers (TO) - (TD and BS 80.44-
101.38, the average panel width b = 4.96 in. Substituting
into equations (27) and (28) , the shear buckling allowable is
calculated to be
N = 189 lb/in.
xy,cr
F scr = 3150 psi

^
APPLIED STRESSES
As stated in the Method of Analysis, the stringers react the
applied bending moments, and the skin panels react the applied
shears and torsional moment. Maximum stringer stresses and
skin shear flows are applied in Condition VB Yaw, +15 Rec.
Bending stresses and skin shear flows for this condition are
determined at BS 41.32, 90.49, 129.25, 143.28, 194.30, using
the Boeing Vertol S-25 computer program, Reference (12).
Stringer
Maximum compression bending stresses due to combined vertical
and lateral bending moments (see Figure 18) are applied on
Stringer () in Bay BS 80.44-101.38. Tension is not critical.
fc = -36700 psi
The stringer is of the basic section configuration; see Table
XXI. The formula for margin of safety is given in equation
(17).
36800
MS = -1 = .01
36700
A plot of stringer compression stress vs. boom station for
Stringers (s) and (9) is shown in Figure 65.
142
Skin Panel
The skin panel between Stringers (TO) - (11) in Bay 80.44-
101.38 is the most highly loaded in shear. The skin panel is
analyzed for no buckling at limit loads. The limit shear
stress is
fs = 2520 psi.
The margin of safety based on buckling at limit load is
calculated to be
F
MS = - 1 (29)
fs
3150 -1 = .25
MS =
2520
A plot of the panel shear stress vs. boom station is shown
in Figure 66.
Concept 3 are determined at BS 41.32, 90.49, 129.25, 143.28,
and 194.30. The moments of inertia about the two axes at any
boom station are calculated for the GR/EP stringer areas
concentrated at their centroids shown in Figure 62. The glass
skin is considered to be ineffective in bending. The elastic
modulus for the stringer material is given in Table XIV.
GR/EP (Type A) Stringer, 0:75%, 45:25%: Ex = (13.2) (10)6
The resulting calculations show that both the vertical and
lateral bending stiffness curves closely match the design
requirement. The lateral and vertical bending stiffnesses
are shown in Figure 67. The design requirement curves given
in Figure 22 are also shown therein for comparison.
The torsional stiffness GJ of the XP2 51S glass skin is cal-
culated from equation (14). The modulus of rigidity is taken
from Table XVI.
XP2 51S Skin, (454): G= (2.21)(10)6
Calculation of the torsional stiffness shows good correlation

with the design requirement. The torsional stiffness is
plotted in Figure 67, and the design requirement curve given
in Figure 20 is included therein for comparison.
143
STRINGER 9
CO
V.
STRINGER 8
I
to STRINGER COLUMN
CO
111 BUCKLING ALLOWABLE
CE 60
H
co
z 40 -
O
CO
CO
111 20
oc COMBINED BENDING STRESS (ULT)
Q.
5 COND VBYAW,+15REC
O
O
i 1 1 1 1 1 i r~
40 80 120 160 200
BOOM STATION - IN.
Figure 65. Compression Stress - Stringers () and (9)
16 --
CO SKIN PANEL SHEAR
BUCKLING ALLOWABLE
12 --
CO
CO
111
I-
co
<
LU
X
CO
SKIN SHEAR STRESS (LIMIT)
COND VBYAW,+15REC.
40 80 120 160 200
BOOM STATION - IN.
Figure 66. Shear Stress - Panel, Stringers (10) and (11,
144
STRINGERS: GR/EP (TYPE A); UNI (0): 75%, (45): 25%

SKIN: XP251S FIBERGLASS, (454), .060 IN. THICK
Figure 67. Concept 3 Stiffnesses.
145
MATH MODEL
PURPOSE
The purpose of the math model was to rank the candidate tail-
section concepts from the viewpoint of life-cycle cost
effectiveness.
METHOD
The model determined the discounted life-cycle cost of the
component plus the effect of the component on the full air-
craft system, measured in dollars.
Life-cycle costs are:
Research and Development and Initial Investment Non-
recurring Costs
Engineering design
Tooling
Prototypes
Fatigue test article
Static test article
Systems management
Initial Investment Recurring Costs
Flyaway aircraft
Initial spares
Initial training
Initial fuel stocks
Aircraft ground support equipment
Nonaircraft supplies
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Crew pay and allowances
Crew training
Maintenance personnel pay and allowances
Maintenance personnel training
Support personnel pay and allowances
Support personnel training
Medical and Army-wide expenses
Petroleum, oil and lubricants
Consumed spare parts
146
The effects of the component on the aircraft which were
evaluated were:
Availability
Maintenance float quantity was adjusted to retain
constant availability of the operational fleet for
all concepts. (This capability was included in the
math model but was not required because no differences
in maintenance time between the concepts were
identified.)
Useful Load
The operational fleet size was adjusted to retain
constant simultaneous lift capability for all con-
cepts. Useful load at constant takeoff gross weight
is affected by component weight.
Vulnerability
The attrition aircraft buy was adjusted to retain a
constant operational fleet size throughout the
operational life of each concept. Attrition rates
resulting from HEI hostile action were assessed to
vary with design concept of the tail section. No
changes in operational (nonhostile) attrition rates
were attributed to design concept.
A detailed description of the math model logic and the input
values for the various design concepts and production quanti-
ties are found in the appendix.
ASSUMPTIONS
General
Costs are in CY 1972 dollars.
A new design program, as opposed to a retrofit
program, is assumed.
Protype aircraft quantity 5
Program production quantity
(primary) 1000
(alternate) 500
Avionics cost per production aircraft $20000
Weapons cost per production aircraft $80000
Program operational life 10 yrs
Wartime during operational life 3 yrs
147
Operational
Basic maintenance float ratio 0.1
Peacetime flying rate 40 hr/mo
Wartime flying rate 100 hr/mo
Base case attrition rate 10%/yr
Discount
Discount rate 0.10
R&D years 1 thru 4
Production years 5 thru 9
Operation years 10 yrs
including
year acft
was
produced.
RESULTS
The results of the math model analysis are presented in
Figures XXIII and XXIV for production quantities of 1000 and
500. The discounted costs are for the life cycle of the tail
section, including the effect of the tail section on the com-
plete aircraft system. Concept 1 has the lowest discounted
cost and therefore ranks first. Concepts 2 and 3 rank second
and third, in that order.
The ratios to Concept 1 are presented for convenience only.
They do not represent the ratios by which Concept 1 is "better"
than the other two, since the method of analysis eliminated the
large constant costs for the aircraft system (other than tail
section). Inclusion of these large constant costs would
greatly reduce the ratios.
The last seven lines of data in each table give the significant
input or calculated values for each concept.
Results of several sensitivity runs are shown in Table XXV.
No change in rankings resulted from the assumed changes.
148
TABLE XXIII. LIFE-CYCLE COST EFFECTIVENESS
QUANTITY 1000
($ MILLIONS)
BV CONCEPT 1 BV CONCEPT 2 BV CONCEPT 3

DESIGN 0.157892 0.248913 0.208867
TOOLING 0.544251 0.896040 0.859892
PROTOTYPES 0.360106 0.532685 0.538443
FATIGUE ARTICLE 0.095947 0.139559 0.140797
STATIC ARTICLE 0.095947 0.139559 0.140797
SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT 0.100331 0.156540 0.151104
TOTAL NONRECURRING 1.354473 2.113296 2.039899
FLYAWAY COSTS 22.900980 33.417170 36.550760
INITIAL SPARES 0.370448 0.786899 1.389375
INITIAL TRAINING 0.000000 0.210632 0.588023
INITIAL FUEL STOCKS 0.000000 0.002944 0.008219
GROUND SUPT. EQPT. 0.688374 0.799601 0.999148
NON ACFT SUPPLIES 0.000000 0.184463 0.514967
TOTAL INIT. INVEST. 23.959770 35.401680 40.050440
CREW PAY 0.000000 0.699411 1.952547
CREW TRAINING 0.000000 0.226721 0.632937
MAINT. PAY 0.000000 1.602640 4.474099
MAINT. TRAINING 0.000000 0.174573 0.487355
SUPPORT PAY 0.000000 4.752948 13.268810
SUPPORT TRAINING 0.000000 0.630487 1.760131
MEDICAL & ARMY WIDE 0.000000 2.913041 8.132351
P.O.L. 0.000000 0.131772 0.367868
CONSUMED SPARES 19.622800 21.569440 24.685340
TOTAL O&M 19.622800 32.701030 55.761420
TOTAL COST 44.937050 70.216010 97.851760
DISCOUNTED COST 21.365990 33.024960 43.966350
RATIO TO CONCEPT 1 1.000000 1.545678 2.057772
USEFUL LOAD - LB 3279.0000000 3270.0000000 3254.0000000
AVAILABILITY - % 0.7934505 0.7934505 0.7934505
HOSTILE ATTRIT. RATE 0.0000116 0.0000115 0.0000109
AIRCRAFT QUANTITIES
PRODUCTION 1000.0000000 1002.5320000 1006.1350000
OPERATIONAL 609.4624000 611.1396000 614.1447000
MAINT. FLOAT 60.9462400 61.1136700 61.4141800
ATTRITION 329.5913000 330.2790000 330.5766000
149
TABLE XXIV. LIFE-CYCLE COST EFFECTIVENESS
QUANTITY 500
($ MILLIONS)
BV CONCEPT 1 BV CONCEPT 2 BV CONCEPT 3
DESIGN 0.157892 0.248913 0.208867

TOOLING 0.544251 0.896040 0.859892
PROTOTYPES 0.360106 0.532685 0.538443
FATIGUE ARTICLE 0.095947 0.139559 0.140797
STATIC ARTICLE 0.095947 0.139559 0.140797
SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT 0.100331 0.156540 0.151104
TOTAL NONRECURRING 1.354473 2.113296 2.039899
FLYAWAY COSTS 12.850490 19.137020 20.895210

INITIAL SPARES 0.198556 0.444914 0.799161
INITIAL TRAINING 0.000000 0.105316 0.293996
INITIAL FUEL STOCKS 0.000000 0.001472 0.004109
GROUND SUPT. EQPT. 0.688502 0.752474 0.867096
NON ACFT SUPPLIES 0.000000 0.092232 0.257470
TOTAL INIT. INVEST. 13.737550 20.533400 23.117000
CREW PAY 0.000000 0.349706 0.976223

CREW TRAINING 0.000000 0.113360 0.316452
MAINT. PAY 0.000000 0.801321 2.236933
MAINT. TRAINING 0.000000 0.087286 0.243665
SUPPORT PAY 0.000000 2.376472 6.634064
SUPPORT TRAINING 0.000000 0.315243 0.880020
MEDICAL & ARMY WIDE 0.000000 1.456520 4.065963
P.O.L. 0.000000 0.065886 0.183924
CONSUMED SPARES 9.868677 10.899570 12.457960
TOTAL O&M 9.868677 16.465360 27.996190
TOTAL COST 24.960690 39.112060 53.152080
DISCOUNTED COST 12.223280 18.973990 24.554970
RATIO TO CONCEPT 1 1.000000 1.552283 2.008869
USEFUL LOAD - LB 3279.0010000 3270.0010000 3254.0010000

AVAILABILITY - % 0.7934505 0.7934505 0.7934505
HOSTILE ATTRIT. RATE 0.0000116 0.0000115 0.0000109
AIRCRAFT QUANTITIES
PRODUCTION 500.0000000 501.2658000 503.0673000
OPERATIONAL 304.7312000 305.5698000 307.0722000
MAINT. FLOAT 30.4731100 30.5567000 30.7069500
ATTRITION 164.7956000 165.1396000 165.2883000
1
150
TABLE XXV. SENSITIVITY STUDY RANKINGS
Concept
1 2 3
Base case
1000 Production Aircraft 1 2 3
500 Production Aircraft 1 2 3
Discount rate = 0.06 1 2 3
Discount rate = 0.00 1 2 3
Component maintenance man-hours 1 2 3

per flight hour and inactive
maintenance time halved
All operations in peacetime 1 2 3
Hostile action attrition rate 1 2 3
increased 6 times
Takeoff gross weight = 8500 lb 1 2 3
151
DESIGN AND MATH MODEL RESULTS
CONCEPTS IN WINNING ORDER FROM MATH MODEL EVALUATION
FIRST - CONCEPT NO. 1 1.00 RATIO
(Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell)
SECOND - CONCEPT NO. 2 1.55 RATIO
(Thin Sandwich Shell with Longerons)
THIRD - CONCEPT NO. 3 2.06 RATIO
(Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell)
It is stressed that the above results evolve strictly

from math model runs. No other factors influenced the
selection.
CONCEPTS IN WINNING ORDER FROM PRELIMINARY DESIGN SELECTION
(PARAMETER RATINGS)
TOTAL POINTS
FIRST - CONCEPT NO. 1 91-1/2
(Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell)
SECOND - CONCEPT NO. 2 73-1/2
(Thin Sandwich Shell with Longerons)
THIRD - CONCEPT NO. 3 72
(Integrally Molded Skin/Stringer Clamshell)
152
CONCLUSIONS
Results of both the parameter rating studies and math model
analysis indicate that a semimonocoque clamshell is the
superior arrangement for constructing the AH-1G Cobra tail
section in advanced composite materials. Graphite type-A
is the recommended primary structure composite material mainly
due to its high strength/weight ratio, relatively economical
price, and good stiffness characteristics.
Technical risk is minimized by the selection of epoxy matrix
and adhesive systems which have been extensively used in
numerous structural applications under varying environmental
conditions.
The utilization of well tried and tested sandwich construction
methods for the tail-boom and fin covers and main bulkheads
and spars eliminates many parts, thereby reducing numerous
joints and attachments with their potential fatigue damage
problems, thus minimizing airframe cost.
The susceptibility of thin graphite skins to low-velocity
impact damage is considerably lessened by the unique method
of discrete fiberglass insertion proposed by Boeing Vertol,
which simultaneously increases ballistic tolerance of the
skin.
Design and fabrication of the tail boom in split clamshell
arrangement affords many manufacturing advantages which
facilitate rapid production, allow low-risk lay-up and cure
systems to be utilized, and permit comprehensive inspection
in the critical subassembly stages.
153
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A program should be initiated which will result in the

design, fabrication, static and dynamic test, and
finally a flight test of a composite tail section by
replacement of an existing metal, AH-1G tail section
with a composite version. This should be a semi-
monocoque clamshell design using construction and
materials as outlined in Concept 1 (Figure 10).
2. Programs should be conducted to develop concentrated
load fittings in various composite materials with
consideration given to hybrid or mixed systems. There
are numerous types of simple tension, compression,
shear, and torsional joints which have been fabricated,
tested and the results analyzed. However, there are
few complete fitting designs which have been developed,
especially with regard to the larger, more complex
fitting which may be required to carry moderate to
high out-of-plane loads or to react combinations of
loads from several directions.
3. More investigation should be conducted into the
factors governing the design of composite fittings
which will possess fatigue resistant characteristics
to meet the increasing demands of safe-life philosophy.
4. Realistic cost effective fabrication concepts and
techniques must be developed, as the few concepts
explored in the past have used metals in the primary
load path, with attendant cost of machining, pro-
cessing, and adhesively bonding them into the struc-
ture. Combinations of compression molded materials
combined with continuous fibers and hybrid fiber
systems is believed to be a potentially feasible
approach. In addition, metal matrix systems using
compatible fibers such as boron, silicon carbide, or
aluminum oxide, with their high interlaminar shear
characteristics, high matrix modulus, and potential
ductility are another avenue worthy of investigation.
5. Vacuum infiltration of complex dry fiber configurations
should be evaluated.
6. Further investigation should be made into the ballistic
tolerance of composite airframe structures. Surviva-
bility evaluation of sandwich construction versus skin/
stringer and other structural configurations, when sub-
ject to varying gunfire levels up to 32mm HEI delayed
action rounds, can only be realistically appraised by
the fabrication of reasonably complete sections of
structure in various composite materials which should
be gunfire tested under simulated load conditions.
154
LITERATURE CITED
1. Ambrose, E., Clarke, D., TAILBOOM, VERTICAL FIN

AND HORIZONTAL STABILIZER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS,
MODEL 209 (AH-1G), Bell Helicopter Company, Technical
Report 209-099-056, January 23, 1967.
2. ADVANCED COMPOSITES DESIGN GUIDE, VOLUME I, DESIGN,

Advanced Composites Division, Air Force Materials
Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, November 1971.
3. Durchlaub, E., DESIGN ALLOWABLE PROPERTIES FOR

PRD 49/EPOXY, Boeing Vertol Company, IOM 8-7451-5-112,
November 19, 1971.
4. Jacobs, R., Freeman, R., VERTOL'S 1969 PRD 49-1 TEST

RESULTS, Boeing Vertol Company, IOM 8-7482-1-370,
March 26, 1970.
5. Spitko, R. J., REINFORCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS ALLOWABLE

DOCUMENT, Boeing Vertol Company, Report SRR 7, Revision
Vol. IIC, December 22, 1972.
6. HRH-10 NYLON FIBER/PHENOLIC RESIN HONEYCOMB, Hexcel

Aerospace, Data Sheet, DS 4000, March 1, 1971.
7. MODERATE TEMPERATURE CURING STRUCTURAL ADHESIVE SYSTEM,

Boeing Vertol Company, Boeing Material Specification
BMS 5-51C, Revised 5-1-69.
8. VERTOL PROCESS SPECIFICATION, Boeing Vertol Company,

Process Specification D8-0224.
9. STRUCTURAL SANDWICH COMPOSITES, Department of Defense,

MIL-HDBK-2 3A, December 30, 1968.
10. MILITARY STANDARDIZATION HANDBOOK, METALLIC MATERIALS

AND ELEMENTS FOR AEROSPACE VEHICLE STRUCTURES, VOLUME I,
Department of Defense, MIL-HDBK-5A, September 1, 1971.
11. PLASTICS FOR AEROSPACE VEHICLES, PART 1, REINFORCED

PLASTICS, Department of Defense, MIL-HDBK-17A,
January 1971.
155
12. Robinson, John, PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF ARBITRARY SECTION
SEMI-MONOCOQUE STRUCTURES, Boeing Vertol Company,
Program S-25, October 10, 1963.
13. STRESS MANUAL D6-22695, COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP,

The Boeing Company, January 1972.
14. STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDE FOR ADVANCED COMPOSITE APPLICATIONS,

VOLUME II, ANALYTICAL METHODS, SECOND EDITION, Advanced
Composites Division, Air Force Materials Laboratory,
Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, January 1971.
156
APPENDIX
MATH MODEL LOGIC AND INPUT VALUES
The math model logic flows, codes for variables, and values
used are given herein.
OPERATING COSTS PER YEAR

FOR BASE CONFIGURATION
C0SBMM*FMA*12.*(YPL-1.)/YPL*QOB
FOR ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS THE FOLLOWING ARE
ADDED
NO. OF DIRECT PERSONNEL = HDS = NCO*RCO+NCE*RCE+RMP
FMA = (YP*FMP+YW*FMW)/YPL
CREW PAY = NCO*RCO*COPCO+NCE*RCE*COPCE
CREW TRAINING = NCO*RCO*CTCO*RTO+NCE*RCE*CTCE*RTE
MAINT PAY = RMP*COPM
MAINT TRAINING = RMP*CTM*RTE
NO. OF SUPPORT PERSONNEL = HDSS = HDS*RISP
SUPPORT PAY = HDSS*(RISO*COPSO+(l.-RISO)*COPSE)
SUPPORT TRAINING = HDSS*(RISO*RTO*CTSO+(1.-RISO)*
RTE*CTSE)
MEDICAL & ARMY WIDE = (HDS+HDSS)*CAW
P.O.L. COST = (1.2+CF*FC)*(FMP*YP+FMW*YW)*12./YPL
SPARES CONSUMPTION = ((COSAFM+COSBMM)*FMA*12.+
(COSEFM*FMA*12.)+COSVFM+COSRFM)*(YPL-1.)/YPL*
(QO-QOB)
**TOTAL OPERATING COSTS ARE THE SUM OF ABOVE TIMES

OPERATIONAL YEARS PER AIRCRAFT
**LIFE-CYCLE COST EFFECTIVENESS IS THE SUM OF ABOVE

NONRECURRING, INITIAL INVESTMENT AND TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS
DISCOUNTING
NONRECURRING COSTS ARE SPREAD EQUALLY OVER THE FIRST
FOUR YEARS
INITIAL INVESTMENT COSTS ARE SPREAD EQUALLY OVER THE FIFTH
THROUGH NINTH YEARS
OPERATING COSTS ARE SPREAD EQUALLY OVER TEN YEAR PERIODS
STARTING WITH THE YEAR THE INITIAL INVESTMENT WAS MADE
TOTAL COST FOR EACH YEAR IS DISCOUNTED AT THE AVERAGE OF THE
DISCOUNTING FACTORS FOR YEAR START AND YEAR END
DISCOUNTED LIFE-CYCLE COST EFFECTIVENESS VALUE IS THE

SUM OF THE ANNUAL DISCOUNTED COSTS FOR THE FULL PROGRAM
LIFE
THE CONCEPT HAVING THE LOWEST DISCOUNTED LIFE-CYCLE COST

RANKS HIGHEST
157
**OPERATIONAL FACTORS
YP=YPL-YW
WE=WS+WB+WY
EU=WG-WE-WL-WM
QO-QP/(1.+RMF+AP*FMP*12.*YP+(AWO+AWH)*FMW*12.*YW)
QM-QO*RMF
QA=QP-QO-QM
AVAILABILITY = 1 - DOWNTIME / TOTAL TIME
AV=((1.-((MP+MCAP+MCBP)*FMP/RPH+ETP*FMP)/7 30.)*YP+
(1.-((MP+MCAW+MCBW)*FMW/RPH+ETW*FMW)/730.)*YW)/YPL
QPS=QP
QOB=QO
QMB=QM
AVB=AV
ULB=EU
FOR ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS

RMFA=(QMB+(QOB*AVB/AV-QOB))/QOB
QO=QOB*ULB/EU
QM=QO*RMFA
QA=QO*(AP*FMP*12.*YP+(AWO+AWH)*FMW*12.*YW)
QP=QO+QM+QA
**NONRECURRING COSTS
(CNEB+CNTB+CNPB+CNFB+CNAF)*(l.+CNMF)
**INITIAL INVESTMENT COSTS
CIFB*QPS+CISBF*CIFB*QOB+CIGFB*CIFB*QOB
FOR ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS THE FOLLOWING ARE
ADDED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF THE COMPONENT ON
THE AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
(CIFA+CIFB+CIFE+CIFV+CIFR)*(QP-QPS)
(CISAF*CIFA+CISBF*CIFB+CISEF*CIFE+CISVF*CIFV+CISRF
*CIFR)*(QO-QOB)
(NCO*RCO*CTCO+NCE*RCE*CTCE+RMP*CTM)*(QO-QOB)
(FSF*CF*FC*FMA*12.)*(QO-QOB)
(CIGF*(CIFA+CIFB+CIFE+CIFV+CIFR))*(QO-QOB)
(CINF*(NCO*RCO+NCE*RCE+RMP)*(QO-QOB)
158
*
W tn tn tP tn tn tn
u G G G G
H H H H H H
D CD CD ( CD CD CD
O 0 0 0 0 0 0
co CQ CQ CQ m CQ CQ
CO
EH
H
53
ID
v> </> </> w- C/J-
'
W CN cn j> HON VD IT) m r- <j\ r r^ CTI r- CN 0\ 00 H r- oo

!= Old) IT) * 0> OOO^f ^ in CTI ^< in <TI ro in r-> ffiHCO
i-q 00 CTi 00 CN O 00 HVD^f <n m r-- cri in r- cn m ^r f CN O
r- oo co "** VD CTl O CN 00 m CTI o m <j\ o rr rn n 00 \D U3
?
> in ^ o T C\ If) v^> n ro mrof en n ^r o o o O O O
rH CN (N IT) 00 00 cn in in rH rH rH rH
> 52 A
CQ O W H CN cn Hcsjn rH CN cn rH CN fO rH CN ro rH CN cn rH CN n
U U
<
EH
Q Q
Q >H
o
o
o
o
EH o in
EH ft O H
ft
CD
H H CD
U U rH
^ tn 0 -H U H
w H H 4-4 P H O
Q CO 0 SH P IH
O cu m P rO rl
S ' CD co rl
P O P 0
EC l CO u CO -p P
EH c 0 CD CO U
H
S CU tn
0)
ft
>1
P
CD
CD
-P
CO
4-1
CD G p 3 U P
a
W
C +>
H C
H
H
0
p
&>+>
H fi
H P CO
P G 0
EH Cn CD 0 0 P CD (0 CD
H G G 0 S-t cd G P G
0) 0 -P ft 4-1 0 CO 0 w
& ft ft U)
&1 g tn C7> C7> g &> g o
G o G G G O G 0
H H H H H p
u M -P U P H H C P
u u rl G H G rl rl rl rl CD C
3 0 3 cu 3 CD 3 0 3 0 g CD
M-l u G 0 G U 4-1 u m P C
Q) CD 0 CD 0 CD CD CO 0
H P u ft U ft rl P U P CD ft
G CO a g G g G CO G co > g
0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 0
53 53 U 53 53 U 53 O H
H CQ
Q CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ Pn
O W EH ft pH << O
U 53 53 53 53 3 H
U U U U U u
U o rH CN n sf in
O H rH rH H rH H
^
159
*
w tn tn Cn tn t" tn tn
o c S3 $3 C S3 S3 $3
tf H -H H H H H H
ID ( (U (D 0) 0) CD (
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w PQ CQ PQ CQ CQ CQ PQ
CO
EH EC EC EC EC
H EC fa fa fa fa
S3 fa \ \ \ \
ID \ 43 3 3 P4 Pi
</> </> J s EC EC
H CTi O H ^ <Ti ton i x> r~- in <* o CXi <Ti r- r-

O 00 00 OfO H CN CN rH CN CN <J in > U3 VO t*- r-
W o> r- ^ r- ro H r- r- o o
ID CN H CM in ko r- in in in in in in in m ro ro
r3 CM ro ro CN ro ro o o CN CM
<: 4
>
1 EH
> S3 04
MOW HNC1 H CM ro H CN rO rH CN rO rH CN CO
U U
Q o o O O
O X o o O O
PJ EH o m o m
CH a r-t H
P -p 1 ,
43 43
H tn CD Cn 0) Q)
(0 H g -H u
H rH -H rH 0) h S3 U S3
u U IH 4-1 m g 0 to 0 tO
0 CD CD H UH S3 m $3
44 4-> r4 U M 4-> (U Q)
<0 CD to 0) U rJ 4-> H 4->
-P g ft 0) ft to E3 C d S3
CQ ft & 0 -H 0 -H
0 a) CO to 43 (0 43 tO
u u ^ M 1 M 1 g g
S3 3 +J 3 3 4-1 4-1
a
w
>1
(0
(
S3
0
43
S3
CD
0 4-1
si a
0 +J
43 $3
43 0)
tn >
43 CD
CT> >
EH Q) S3 1 CD 1 CD H -iH H -H
H (3 4-1 -p 0 c S3 S3 rH 4-1 H P
>i S3 43 Q>
e
to 0
g ft
(0 0 m m U
H H Cn g & \ to \ (0
m (0 -H 0 g g 0) Q) S3
H U a> 0 0) 0 e-H g-H
-P m U 0 u u H H
S3 4-1 P m a S3 4-> P P 4J
0 S3 n 0 (0 H (0 M S3
g Q) a) CD aQ) MHo (3 0 - a) ^ CD
-P C S3 ft 4-1 Q) 4H Q) c dJ S3
to 0 0 X! -P +J co o a) CO 0
 g 6 w H H 3 H 3 to g to tO g U
S3 0 0 0 CD 10 0 (0 0 rH O Q) rH 0 tO
H U & a 43 a 43 W O ft fa &
| CM
CQ PQ
fa
Q CQ CQ U U
o fa CO a a CH &
u H O PQ EH FH EH EH
u u S * W fa
u vo r- 00 CTi o H CM
o rH rH rH rH CM CM CN
r3
160
tn
* g g g g g g g fi
w Cn rd rd rd rd rd rd rd Cn H
u C rH rH SH U U U SH C M g
tf H tn C7< en ty fji tP &i H U 0
ID CD 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 CD i
CO OQ ft CH ft ft ft ft ft ffl ft J
-P
CO
EH CD
H 1 O 1 I
a U
D X! CD
</> {/> i/> vy J ft </> w>
v> m <TI o o o
I | f 1 t. ,J o o o
H H H H o o o
!=> O O O VD H in
1-3 O O O '' * 00
< O O O 00 n in
> O O

O o

1 EH
> 13 ft
mow H CN ro
u u
Q o o
O X o o
EH o in
ft a H
CD
C
p 1 H
SH 1 g g C u tn
3 rH CD U CD CD H C
0 -H t7> P 0 -P g rd CD
X! rd c CO M-l CO CD
-P H >1 >i tn MH MH
-P U 0 rH U CO P CO rd 0 0
Xi 0 C H 0 CO C
CJIMH 3 M-l C 0 C rd -p p
-H . U 0 u 0 CD g CO CO
-H C P cu P -P 0 0
MH 0 CO H TS CO -P g -P rd CO CJ +>
H o C CD 0 CJ o3 CJ U g
g U -P CJ O -P CD O CD CD >i CD >1
w 0) O C C M-l M-l -p rd rd
EH (^ (0 CD 3 P M-l CD M-l 0 CO & 0 &
H i-l -P 0 C CD rH CD H >1 rd ft rd
CD CD CJ C 9) CJ -P CO >ig >i
-P rH >i CD CO g Ti ^n H H 0 H
rd -H g O -H P C o c >i H l MH MH
H -P CD 1 0 13 co rd rd T) -P -P c
to H-> CD - O, CD CD rd H -P H -P CO p
0 CO M-l CD g -p > -p MH -P 0 rH rd rH C CO c
0 >i -H -P 0 0 C C H C H H rl CD CD CD
H CO H u c rH CD t-i CD X! CD 3 g^ g
-P 0 3 C H rd H CJ rH -P -P
H+J-P H O rH * H 0 rH 0 3 r-i H CD O CO CD CO
rH M-l rd o rd -P rd Ch rd (h MH rH -P U -P CD g CD
P CD (0 -P CO -P CO -P g P g CD rd CO fi CJ > rd >
-p d n 0 -H 0 o O 0 O 0 CO > O O rd G SH s
<: ' o EH" EH CJ En EH tD < X 13 MH H MH H
w
Q fij < w
O so (X fiH Cu
CJ s 13 H O D < EH 13 H H
<: CJ u U CJ W H W u U U
U ro *tf in vo r- 00 Oi o H CN ro
O CN CN CN CN CN CN CN ro m m ro
A
161
* *
H o 0> o en O 0> 0> Cn dn tn Oi o
U CM C CN C C C C C fi C c CM
PS 1 -rH 1 -H H H -H H H rH H 1
ID H d) H 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) Q) CD rH
o o 0 o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
CO H m H PQ PQ m m PQ PQ pq m H
to
EH
H I i 1 i 1 i ffi
s fo
CD
</> </> c/> c/>
O o r- inr^H CN r> a\ r- r~ in o o ^5
O o oo H H CN CN 00 H CN CM o H o O
W o o ^ O CN in o vo o H
CD o o in in oo oo in oo W5
i-q CN 00 v oo ro in CN <N
<! CM CN CN CN CN CN
> o o o o o o
1 En
> S 0)
mow H(Nm rH CN 00
u u
p o O
O >H o O
PS EH o in
ft o rH
<D
1
>i
rd
C
H
P
H
5H cn 0 -P
H rd c & r) CO
fd >i 0) 04 >1 0 0
IH "4-1 H 3 fd p u
0 0 M 4H r) M u M CO &
0 0 0 0 0 fd fd CQ
-p p IH <A m m MH m Ti >i m CD
CO CO C H U
0 0 H M ~ u H w d MH to fd
u 0 -P 0 >i 0 0 o 0 CD a.
-P C P CO -p P >1 p >i rl 0\ H IQ
g >i >1 U d) CJ u CJ c o m &.-- H
w rd (0 rd G rd to CO rd & (d ^ a. T3
EH & 5 m o 4H >i HH MH r in cd Ti ^ a. CD
H ( m Ol rH >i >i CD 0 3 b
>1 >i 0} g CO MH CO CO rH CD H P -P CO ^~. d 3
rH H CD 0 (U 0) d) 4H Q) HH fd O c CO 0
4-1 IH H CJ rH o\o JH 5H M r-i fd P cd C
CO rd ' m ^ rd o\o rd o\o CD IH m g O
+J -P ex to (X a. >i a. cu-- >H rd CJ -P
CO CO CO 4J CO (0 CO co -p ^ ^ !
(U to 0) -P (U fi S CQ p -P c O CD CD Oi
g g c H rH rH CJJ i-H rd rH CJ
(d -rl
H
fd CD
in
fd
CD
g
rH Ol
H
g -H
fd rH
-P -H P 0) fd rd rd >i
tO to g H 0) rH 0 rH rH H G H g u a. fd P SH IH
CD O 0> (0 -p g -P 0. -P m -P 0 -P fd U -H 1 CO IH
> -H > g H fO H g H H -H H g U 3 c o VH M
C > S u M c o C P > fi M H 01 0 -H CD
H (0 H (0 H 4H H H * H td H fd <! CD S-- < a.
g
W fa fa fa
Q > PS OP fa E5CO g fc
o
fe
z
o fa PH CO CO CO CO CO
CJ H H H H H H H H H o
U u u u u o CJ u u u
u tf in \D r^ CO CT\ o H CM 00
O oo oo 00 00 oo 00 ^< >* ^r ^
v-}
162
tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn
*
w tJ> o o H tn H &i H tn H tn H tn H H H
y

H
oi
l
CN
1

-H

fi-rl

-H

-H

-H
o 0) rH H td (U (d cu <d cu rd tu rd tu rd rd rd
o o O O H O H 0 rH 0 rH 0 H 0 rH H H
CO CQ rH H P4 pq ft CQ ft CQ ft CQ ft CQ ft ft ft
to
H m
fe
Pi Pi ^
X
Pi Pi Pi Pi
55 >H X >H >H X >H
D \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
</> </> </> {/> </> </> { </> vy w- </>
o rH 00 o o o o o 00 ^r CN
CO CN o o o o o in in 00
H n o o rH ^r o rr CO 00 m
D CM "* -3< 00 CO eg CD "31 n CN
1-3 m rH H n
<!
>
>2ft
OH
u u
p
O X
tf EH
CM a
CQ
M CQ CU i M
CU CU U l 1 & U tu
04 P P U & & 0 tu ft -P
CO CO (d 0 0 H ft to
P 0 0 (d rH H rH P 0
CO u U & 0 r-{ rH rd p to 0
0 0 H cd rd CO 0
0 CO CQ r-i rH T3 0 0 &>
CD CU r-i (d - T3
CO u u (d rd tn H
CU (0 r) rd U rd fd tn
M ft <d ft rd TJ >i H H
rd CO CU to cu (d >i >i rd H rd
a & >1 >i rd id rd ft H H
W 10 TJ -O >i ft ft -H rd p
EH CU u (U 5H >i (d T) rd U
H g cu g cu (d ft U tu !H P
CU 3 ft 3 ft ft fd u CU M P U P rd
g CO to S g fd O rd to rd &
3 P -P & cu tu H tU H i m >, H >, CU U CU
s U fd O (0 u U o MH rJ O
0 0 n H H 0 r) tu SH
U Xi CO O P U n 13 U rd tu tu tu TJ rd
U M M rj (d cu m ft p ft p ft rJ tu
CU p H -H CU-H cu cu -P cu tu u u tu P CU rd
Xi rd g (0 U >i CQ >i P to o w 0 to 0 CO -P S
H ty 0 (d H H cu ft cu ft cu H H
tn-H H H g M IH r) H H H t) ft 0 ft H H H M
rH > cu u cu 4H CU <U fd 3 3 UH rd rd rd CU
w m < ft <! ft O ft W ft S rd CO rd CO rd O g H S S ft
a a a
p o
& & u u a to CO o W
o CO CO CO ft ft Cu ft ft u U a
o o o o o o o O o EH EH EH
u u u u u u u U u U U
u <* in vo r- 00 CTi o H CN ro <=J<

o >* rr ^r "tf tf "* in m in in in
A
163
tr> tr tn
*
w H H H o
u CN
H H H
Pi
(0 H
H
H rH H
rH
H &
g
>1
g
E?
g &
g &
g
D (0 ( H
o H H H O CU CD CU CU CU M 5H SH >H SH
co PH PH PH H CQ CQ pq CQ < < < <! <
EH
0 0
H VH (0 g g
>H
\ XI XI X! XI XI X SH
w- {/> </> <0- J J J a rH CD fe >H
N 00 H 3 o 00 rH a cn in o o o o o
W <T\ a\ CO O o O O ^r o rH
P a\ en o> H in CN C^ CO in o in rH
in H
a> >T> n CM CTi vo
<n
O
"tf
<*
"3<
"5J'
CM
1 EH
> 8 PH
mow
u u
Q o o
o o
9 ^
EH o in
r-{
PM a
-P SH CU P
4J co i Oi 0 0 a
s SH P 2: U -p P g g
W +J 3 CU CO T! -P 0 l+H CO
EH T3 >1 p >1 ( p 0 SH M SH
H S-i Q) g U 0 CO 0 (U 0 Q) CU (0
Q) P >H 3 J rH g 5H >1 a. a. a)
O CO <c n g H CU a, -p >i
H H S-I H P P o H rH H H CO CO
m H T) ( CU X! CO o (0 d 3 <4H -P SH u H
m <D 3 tn MH tJ1 0 C 3 $ as
o CU ( >i 4-1 H MHtn m CU CU (0 0 0
0) O 0 CO >ip d P XJ si 0
-p -P H SH M-l H 3 c -P IH tJllH -H
SH (t5 SH (0 ( 0) O 4J T5 p 0 -H t td P -p -p
0 g 0 g u a CO X! 3 Xi TS H P !H U M X! XI (0
& Cu H -P CO tPH tn CU CO U H U en l M
cu u QA U 'O CO O H U -H X CO (0 SH CO U H r( CU
d a) d cu CU (0 O 5-1 Q) X (U H H 3-H tO -rt rH rH a
CO OJ CO & g g u O !2 CU 5 P4 S a to CQ ( h fo o
W
Q o w
O
u
co
EH
CJ
CO
EH
O
o fn
u
O
&
CO
&
>H
&
hH
!S
g
S
EH
a
Pn
a
g
fe
1
PM
PM
>H
o in VD r- 00 CTi o rH CM ro 'T in <X) r- 00

O in in in in in x> CO ^D W) VD D \o >X) IX)
J
164
* w *> ^ *.
w tn tn o tn o tn tn tn o ty 0 tji tn
u CM CM CM CM
>1 H H 1 -H 1 -H H H 1 -H 1 -H H
!D g u C\
>H l 1 1 g J i 1 1
n H CM rH o r- r- CM o ro ro rH
W VD VD cr> CTi
D H H
Hi VD VD ^ ^
< H H
>
>gft
mow
uu
Q
o
et; EH
ft a
CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO
H n U CD M CD
cd 3 3 H 3 H CD CD >H
0 0 O 0 U U 0
0 H 43 X! P 43 P P
H P i i m 1 4H 0 cd cd
-P Cd P cd cd O H cd
cd H IW CO cd n cd U H P <i) CD m
M f P g g e +J cd P CD P
a) P >i u 4-1 H M cd U H
a (0 P o (0 CD CD -H CD -rH M iH cd H H cd
0 0 -H M H u u cd u cd tn rd CD cd cd
H -P H O Cn g & g St 0
tn w t u cd cd n cd u H H
g (d H 0 0 H P 1 P l P
w -H a) 3 U to CD CD iw CD CD m 0 0 cd
EH H O1 CD -p P u P cd Q4P ftp U
H 3 & M >H du id H M cd g CD M-t CD IH CD
Tl (0 rH Q) H d H d CD H 3 cd g Q cd P cd ft
cd 0) ft cd o cd o ft cd 0 & 15 U u 0
rH a> M S g 43 g43 S CD *u * 0
(0 P 0 CD CO 1 l CD M 3 rH W M CD
-H 4-1 43 > 43 4J > 43 4J cd cd
M-l (0 (0 IW H H fji H tn H 0>fi -a *h ^ cd
O g n m Xi -P-H p -H CD -P --H CD U CD CO M cn u
a) 0 O H U H H p a CD Q CD CD
CO u ft CD 4H CD m o CD IW 0 o CO Ck ft -P
U CD
(0 "4-1
H 0
01
sa) &
CD
>
CD H
n
M
a.
n g
U
U U g
Q, H
m
H
iH
*
W
*.
W

H
CD-H cd 0 n M M CD O 0) o 0 CD 0 m O CD O CD cd
H M -p u u ft a U ft O u au o w EH g EH g g
ft s
w < < PH
Q
o w ^ u o w g
0
H
i %
O ft
U
S 1
&
u o
u e^ s
U a\ o H CM CO *# in vo r~ 00 CTi O
o vo r^ r^ f~ r~ r r^ r~- r^ r*- r~ 00
J
165
rH
*
g g g g g tn o -p
U o o o o o c CN u
uu O o u u u H 1 0
ID CO CO CO w CO CO CU H ft
o > > > o > > 0 o CU
CO < < < EH < < m H PH
CO rH
EH ffi
H 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \ 1
2 u rH
ID cu\ tO
g < o
CM CM CN * LO r- LD r- t-~
W H 00 H CN CN a\ H
ID CM CM H r-
i-q CN o
< o
> o
o

1 EH
> S ft
ffl O W
U U
Q
O >H
tf EH
ft a
u
u tO
10 CU
CO CU >1
rH a >1
(0 \-0 u
-p en u CU
0 u to CU ft
0 0 -p o ft CU
-p -p CU dp n H p
0 e A o tO tO
0 0 p rH tO 0 -p Cn U CU
H H SH o H u
-P p 0 rH M-f rH p tO CU fi tO
(0 (0 H (U rH p tO MH -p 0 -P u o u P u
CD C CU fi cu m > 0 CO (0 H d +J 3
0 U 0 u o ft 0 a CU -P 0 tO 0
CO (0 CO *-l -H W -p c u H >i ftx: x:
SH cu M to m JH CU HH u 3
-p
CU ed -P
H
(0 -P
CU ft CU MH CU U tO 3 3 -P c
a
1
a
1
O ft u
(0 u
p
-o
m co
JH
co x!
tn O Cn
+) -p -p -p C rH u CU H -H O-H -H -rH
H -P U -P M U CU -H 0) CU -p tO MH U rH -P H
0 o u O 0 P tO c U CO H MH to m
ft a) ft CU ft ft -H H H +J IW rH SH
& M ft n ft ft d n &1 m rH H 0 CU rH CU rH
d -H d -H 3 3 tO CU m c G d cu ft CU
CO T) co T3 co co g ft CU o w H *> fe ft O ft
W
Q ft & o
O CO CO CO ffi o H fe
u H H H EH EH CO u
Pi tf P4 g Pi PS CM fo ^
u rH CM n ^ in vo r^ 00 <n
O 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00
J
166
rH
*
w -P tP cn i tn
u M n c
O rH -H H H -H
CD Q, 1 (U CD CD CD
o CU r O 0 O O
co tf n pq m ffl m
CO
EH
H 1 l I 1 i 1
V

r- H H -tf m o\

o
o
o
o

> 53 ft
mow
u u
Q
O >H
EH
ft O
tF
<u c
p H tn
fd H tn
VH H H
3 H en
H u H
0 f0 CD 3 H -H
H U o 3 U
S p d) O ^
W H 1 0 n CU 3
EH U c u o
H P H 0 CD
P 0 H c M ^
cd 0 CU 0 o
x: P 4-1 CO M CO m M
H cd CU o -P CD P U -P CU CD M i-H cd -H >ig cd g
-P H 3 Tl CD Tl P CU -P
(0 m 0 -P >i P CO >i CO
M M CD 0) U Q) CU
J CD M co cd a T5 & (0 > t3 >
(h CD H P X X! P
O & Q CO CD W CD CO -H H -H
Q ffi CO W CO w
O O CO Q Q CO CO
U H rtj
% Q 2 > >
CJ o FH CN ro "* in
O CT\ <TI (Xl <^ <7i c^
167
SOURCES
Army - USAAMRDL
Boeing - Values are estimated by the appropriate

functional group or groups in the Boeing
Vertol organization
PLACE - Boeing Vertol Parametric Life-Cycle Army

Cost Estimator
101-20 - FM 101-20-1, Field Manual, United States

Army Aviation Planning Manual
570-2 - AR 570-2 Headquarters, Dept. of the Army,

Manpower and Equipment Control, Organization
and Equipment Authorization Tables - Personnel
37-13 - AR 37-13 Headquarters, Dept. of the Army,

Financial Administration, Economic Analysis
of Proposed Army Investments
Planning Dept. of the Army,

Army Force Planning Cost Handbook
AVSCOM - Headquarters, U.S. Army Aviation Systems

Command Letter AMSAV-EET dated 3 Nov. 1972,
CH-47A and B Modernization Program
TOE - TOE 17-111H, Attack Helicopter Company
Report 1 - Boeing Report D210-10267-1 to U.S. Naval

Air Development Center, Helicopter Escape
and Personnel Survival Accident Data Study,
Contract No. N62269-70-C-0094
Bell - Bell Helicopter Co. Report No. 209-099-143

dated 14 Jan. 196 8, Actual Weight and Balance
Report, Detail Type, for the Last FY '66
Model AH-1G Helicopter, S/N 66-15357
168
DISTRIBUTION
Director of Defense Research 5 Engineering 2

Assistant Secretary of the Army (R&D) 1
Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development, DA 3
Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, DA 1
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, DA 1
Third United States Army 2
Sixth United States Army 2
United States Army, Pacific 1
Chief of Research Development, DA 2
Army Materiel Command 8
Army Aviation Systems Command 12
Systems Research Integration Office, AMRDL 1
Hq, Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory 2
Ames Directorate, Army Air Mobility RD Laboratory 1
Eustis Directorate, Army Air Mobility RD Laboratory 28
Langley Directorate, Army Air Mobility RD Laboratory 2
Lewis Directorate, Army Air Mobility RD Laboratory 2
Army Aviation Systems Test Activity 2
Army R&D Group (Europe) 2
Army Scientific and Technical Information Team (Europe) 1
Army Advanced Materiel Concepts Agency 2
Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory 3
Army Coating Chemical Laboratory 1
Army Land Warfare Laboratory 1
Army Human Engineering Laboratories 2
Army Natick Laboratories 2
Army Ballistic Research Laboratories 1
Army Fuels Lubricants Laboratory 1
Army Research Office 1
Army Mobility Equipment RD Center 1
Army Materials Mechanics Research Center 6
Army Plastics Technical Evaluation Center 1
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1
Army Test 5 Evaluation Command 1
Army Materiel Systems Analysis Agency 1
Army Electronics Command 4
Army Electronic Warfare Laboratory 2
Army Missile Command 2
USACDC Experimentation Command 1
USACDC Aviation Agency 3
Army Medical R&D Command 1
Army Tank-Automotive Command 2
Picatinny Arsenal 2
Edgewood Arsenal 1
Frankford Arsenal 1
Army Command and General Staff College 1
Army Transportation School 1
Army Aviation School 1
169
Army Aviation Test Board 2
Army Arctic Test Center 1
Army Transportation Engineering Agency 1
Army Aviation Human Research Unit 1
Army Agency for Aviation Safety 2
Army Field Office, AFSC 1
Air Force Office of Scientific Research 1
HQ, USAF 2
Air Force Flight Test Center 2
Air Force Armament Development Test Center 2
San Antonio Air Materiel Area 1
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory 2
Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine 1
Air Force Institute of Technology 1
Air Force Aero Propulsion Laboratory 1
European Office of Aerospace Research 1
Air Force Materials Laboratory 4
Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory 5
Aeronautical Systems Division, AFSC 4
Naval Air Systems Command 19
Chief of Naval Research 5
Naval Research Laboratory 2
Naval Safety Center 1
Naval Air Rework Facility 1
Naval Air Test Center 1
Naval Air Development Center 10
Naval Air Propulsion Test Center 2
Naval Air Station, Lakehurst 1
Naval Weapons Laboratory 2
Naval Ship Research Development Center 3
Bureau of Medicine Surgery, DN 1
Commandant of the Marine Corps 1
Marine Corps Development Education Command 2
Marine Corps Liaison Officer, Army Transportation School 1
U. S. Coast Guard 1
Transportation Systems Center 2
NASA Headquarters 1
Ames Research Center, NASA 5
Langley Research Center, NASA 2
Lewis Research Center, NASA 2
Manned Spacecraft Center, NASA 1
Scientific Technical Information Facility, NASA 2
National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, FAA 4
Department of Transportation Library 1
Eastern Region Library, FAA 1
Federal Aviation Administration, Washington 5
170
Civil Aeromedical Institute, FAA 3
Bureau of Aviation Safety, National Transportation Safety Board 3
The Surgeon General
Patent Office
Government Printing Office
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
National Bureau of Standards
Defense Documentation Center 12
171
Unclassified
Security Classification
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA .R&D
(Security claeelllcatlon ol till, body ol abstract and Indexing annotation must be entered when the overall report la claieltled)
I. ORIGINATING ACTrviTY (Corporate author) 2. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
The Boeing Vertol Company Unclassified

Box 16858 2b. GROUP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
3. REPORT TITLE
STUDY OF ADVANCED STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS FOR FUSELAGE
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type ol report end Inclusive datea)

Final Report
S. AUTHOR(S) (First name, middle Initial, taet name)
Sidney C. Swatton
. REPORT DATE 7a. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES 7b. NO. OF REFS
October 1973 186 14

a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. M. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUM1BERI)
DAAJ02-72-C-0056
b. PROJECT NO.
USAAMRDL Technical Report 73-69
Task 1F162208A17001 9b. OTHER REPORT NO(S) (Any other numbtra thrnt mmy be meetgned
thl* report)
D210-10683
10. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY
Eustis Directorate
U. S. Army Air Mobility RljD Laboratory
Fort Eustis, Va.
13. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a study conducted to develop advanced structural
concepts and the application of fiber-reinforced composite materials for the Cobra
AH-1G helicopter tail section.
This study comprised the following tasks: (1) analysis of existing AH-1G metal tail
section to determine areas having highest potential structural improvement, (2)
development and preliminary design studies of various advanced structural concepts
and selection of three concepts for prelmiinary design trade-off study, (3) deter-
mination of parameters affecting cost effectiveness and performance of composite
fuselage structure, (4) sensitivity analysis for reducing tail-section life-cycle
costs, and (5) development of a math model for life-cycle costs and performance of
composite fuselage, and utilization of model to recommend the optimum design.
The following structural concepts were selected for preliminary design study:
(1) monocoque sandwich clamshell, (2) thin sandwich shell with longerons and frames,
and (3) integrally molded skin/stringer clamshell.
The study results recommend the monocoque sandwich clamshell as the optimum design
concept.
RkBRk Ptttm AMTS PLACES DO FORM 147. I JAN S4. WHICH IS

DD , NOV..! 473 O.WLET FOR ARMY US. Unclassified
Unclassified
KEY WORDS
Clamshell, sandwich, monocoque

Clamshell, stringer
Composite structures
Cost effectiveness, composite structures
Fiberglass-reinforced
Fuselage, AH-1G, Cobra
Math model, life-cycle costs
Shell, sandwich, thin
Skin, integrally molded
Tail boom, helicopter
Tail section, AH-1G, Cobra
Unclassified
Security Classification 10724-73

Study of Advanced Structural Concepts For Fuselage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Study of Advanced Structural Concepts For Fuselage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USAAMRDL TECHNICAL REPORT 73-69

STUDY OF ADVANCED STRUCTURAL

19960418 097 October 1973

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official

Trade names cited in this report do not constitute an official endorse-

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the

This report was prepared by the Boeing Company, Vertol Division,

The information contained in this report is a result of research

This effort is one of two parallel studies to investigate advanced

Numerous design approaches, material selections, and fabrication

This program was conducted under the technical management of

STUDY OF ADVANCED STRUCTURAL

The Boeing Vertol Company

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

This report presents the results of a study conducted to de-

This study comprised the following tasks:

1. The review and analysis of the AH-1G existing metal

2. Development and preliminary design studies of various

3. Determination of significant design parameters affect-

4. Generation of a sensitivity analysis for reducing

5. Development of a math model for the overall life-cycle

The following structural concepts were selected for preliminary

1. Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell

2. Thin Sandwich Shell with Longerons and Frames

The study results recommend the Monocoque Sandwich Clamshell

LIST OF TABLES xiii

PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS - REVISIONS 28

FINAL SCREENING SELECTION 29

CONCLUSIONS OF PARAMETRIC STUDY 30

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES 31

STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA 62

STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF CONCEPT 1, MONOCOQUE

STRESS ANALYSIS - CONCEPT 1 104

STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF CONCEPT 2 THIN SANDWICH

17 Tail-Boom Structural Strength 55

22 Lateral, Vertical, and Torsional Stiffnesses

23 Tail-Boom Mold for Clamshell Autoclaves .... 76

24 Assembly Fixture for Tail Boom 80

25 Fabrication of Vertical Fin Front Spar .... 81

26 Fabrication of Vertical Fin Torque Box .... 83

30 Main Attachment Fitting, Composite Integral

31 Avionics Shelf Support Structure 91

32 Elevator and Tail Rotor Control Rod Support

38 Rear Spar/Tail-Boom Bulkhead Attachment

40 Charpy Impact Energy Relationship for a Hybrid

41 Concept 1 - Section Through Tail Boom .... 105

43 Honeycomb Panel Section 10 6

44 Side Panel 108

45 Panel Stresses 109

46 Vertical Fin Geometry Ill

47 Forward Honeycomb Panel Section Ill

48 Forward Panel 112

49 Applied Limit Fin Section Loads, FS 26.0 ... 113

50 Aft Fin Panel Stress Distribution, Right Side . 114

52 Concept 1 Stiffnesses 116

53 Longerons and Frame Spacing Geometry

54 Concept 2 - Section Through Tail Boom 121

55 Longeron Section 122

56 Honeycomb Panel Section 12 4

57 Side-Panel Geometry BS 80.44-101.38 124

58 Compression Stress - Longeron 3 126

59 Side Panel 128

60 Right Side-Panel Stresses 129