CGT-150 & CHT-150 Specifications & Performance
General Specifications
- 106 ft long
- 43 ft high
- 150 ft diameter rotor & wingspan
- Twin P&W F135 engines - 28,000 hp & 18,000 lbs thrust per engine
Features:
- Reversing props can work as air brakes
- Stabilator and ailerons rotate downward as collective is increased to reduce downwash in hover.
- By using a combination of thrust and moment due to rotor tilt, the aircraft can remain level in hover over a wide CG range.
- Telescoping refueling boom.
Gyroplane Variant, CGT-150
| Wingspan (ft) |
150 |
| Rotor Diameter (ft) |
150 |
| Engines |
2 x 29,000 hp & 18,000 lbs thrust P&W F135 (JSF) |
| Empty Weight (lbs) |
138,134 |
| Takeoffs/Landings |
VTOL
4k ft DA |
STOVL
1000 ft roll |
| Takeoff Gross Weight (lbs) |
230,000 |
330,000 |
| Cruise Altitude (ft) |
35,000 |
31,000 |
| Cruise Speed (mph, true) |
510 |
480 |
Heliplane Variant, CHT-150
| Wingspan (ft) |
150 |
| Rotor Diameter (ft) |
150 |
| Engines |
2 x 29,000 hp & 18,000 lbs thrust P&W F135 (JSF) |
| Empty Weight (lbs) |
161,156 |
| Takeoffs/Landings |
VTOL/SSTOVL |
| Takeoff Gross Weight (lbs) |
330,000 |
| Cruise Altitude (ft) |
31,000 |
| Cruise Speed (mph, true) |
510 |
Flapping Summary
| Altitude (ft) |
V (kts) |
Flapping @ 2g turn (60º bank) |
Flapping @ 1.16g turn (30º bank) |
Max Roll Rate @ 12º Flapping |
| 45 rpm |
22.5 rpm |
45 rpm |
22.5 rpm |
45 rpm |
22.5 rpm |
| sea level |
220 |
-3.58 |
-7.16 |
-0.69 |
-1.37 |
25 |
12.5 |
| 10,000 |
256 |
-4.18 |
-8.36 |
-0.8 |
-1.6 |
18.5 |
9.23 |
| 25,000 |
328 |
-5.33 |
-10.7 |
-1.02 |
-2.04 |
11.2 |
5.6 |
| 40,000 |
443 |
-7.2 |
-14.4 |
-1.38 |
-2.76 |
6.18 |
3.09 |
Note: Greyed out boxes indicate tip speed higher than Mach 0.95
A 60º bank yields 3x higher turn rate than a 30º bank & 1/3 turn radius of a 30º bank
|
Weight Analysis
This analysis was performed for the non-hovering gyroplane version, where the rotor transmission only needs to provide power to pre-rotate the rotor. For a hovering version, all weights given below would be the same, other than the rotor transmission, which would need to be 23,022 lbs heavier to handle to the increased power. This would increase the empty weight from 138,134 lbs to 161,156 lbs, and decrease the useful load by that difference.
| Aircraft Empty Weight Estimation for CGT-150* (non-hovering version) |
| Structures Group** |
Weight (lbs) |
| Wing (simple hinged flap) |
17,101.5 |
| Horizontal Tail |
1,162.2 |
| Vertical Tail |
1,796.3 |
| Fuselage |
20,398.9 |
| Gear Sponsons |
2,354.4 |
| Main Landing Gear*** |
10,444.0 |
| Nose Gear*** |
2,611.0 |
| Total Structural |
55,868.3 |
| |
| Propulsion Group |
Weight (lbs) |
| Engines & Mounts |
12,771.6 |
| Engine Controls |
56.0 |
| Starter (pneumatic) |
161.5 |
| Fuel System |
736.3 |
| Rotor**** |
14,016 |
| Complete Rotor & Prop Transmission & Shafts**** |
12,380 |
| Total Propulsion |
40,121.4 |
| |
| Equipment Group |
Weight (lbs) |
| Flight Controls |
2,037.2 |
| APU |
1,100.0 |
| Instruments |
239.4 |
| Hydraulics |
330.3 |
| Electrical |
780.3 |
| Avionics |
2,141.4 |
| Furnishings |
6,325.1 |
| Air Conditioning |
3,665.5 |
| Anti-Ice |
700.0 |
| Handling Gear |
105.0 |
| Military Cargo Handling System |
1,697.6 |
| Total Equipment |
19,121.9 |
| |
| Total Weight |
Weight (lbs) |
| Structures |
55,868.3 |
| Propulsion |
40,121.4 |
| Equipment |
19,121.9 |
| Total Empty Weight |
115,111.5 |
| 20% Growth Factor |
23,022.3 |
| Assumed Empty Weight |
138,133.8 |
*-Method based on Chapter 15 of Raymer, Daniel P: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Third Edition. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
**-Structure weight based on 50% weight savings due to carbon composite construction.
***-Landing Gear based on a calculation by Carter, not Raymer's method. The Carter calculation, because of its extreme energy absorbing capability, weighs slightly more.
****-Rotor and transmission weights based on calculations by Carter & consultants, as these are not addressed in Raymer's method. Part of drive train weight duplicated in Propulsion Group calculations; does not reflect the weight savings of the CAT Prop.
|
Return to Heliplane Overview
|
Home
