ESS-38-78

Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

Elena Alessio
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom, [email protected]

Abstract

Gas turbine engines that operate in sandy environments are subjected to severe erosion of the compressor and turbine
components. Helicopters used in desert geographical areas may face failures during start up and landings, due to deteriorated
performance of the engine, which also reduces its operating life. As well as eroding blades, vanes and shrouds, sand can
deposit a “glass” coating that results in corrosion and overheating of components and may contaminate the engine's oil
system, leading to blockages and failure of pumping elements. As a consequence, to prolong the engine's life, improve flight
safety and reduce maintenance costs, various protection systems have been developed since the 1960s. The simplest of them
are preserving coatings that can be applied on rotor blades to resist the erosion of the hard quartz sand. Alternatively, the inlet
air can be cleaned upstream of the engine. To this end, filters can prevent the sand to enter the engine by blocking it and
particle separators divide it from the clean air in different ways. This paper contains a summary of all the methods, their
operation being briefly explained and their advantages and disadvantages being outlined. Finally, a brief description of the
methods available to protect the rotorcraft blades completes this paper.

Keywords: Sand; Helicopters; Filters; Separators; Coatings; Protection

Acronyms In addition, sand will contaminate lubricants, wearing

oil-wetted components and blocking small ports. Sand
IBF = Inlet Barrier Filter “glass” coating deposits lead to corrosion and
EAPS = Engine Advanced Protection System overheating phenomena [3].
IPS = Inlet Particle Separator The impact of sand on engine degradation depends
upon factors like the velocity, the dimension of sand
particles and the compressor configuration, e.g. axial or
1. Introduction centrifugal. However, all these things being equal, the
size of the engine is the predominant aspect. The
Helicopters flying in severe sand environments have performance of smaller engine is more susceptible to
not been protected until the 1960s. In fact, before that compressor tip clearances and surface finish and even a
time, sand ingestion was considered only a minor
small loss of material can change a lot those parameters.
problem. However, in the mid-1960s the US Army Moreover, smaller gas turbines have reduced physical
started to experience sand erosion in Vietnam and at Fort dimensions of blades and higher rotational speeds [3].
Benning in Georgia. As a consequence, sand ingestion As a consequence, helicopters operating for long
started to be seen as a real danger for both the engine periods in sandy environments, because of their small gas
performance and the safety of the pilot and passengers turbines, need some devices to prevent the sand to enter
[1]. In particular, during take off and landing the the engine and protective coatings to reduce the damages
downwash from the helicopter rotor lifts up a cloud of due to erosion, corrosion and contamination of both air
sand, completely engulfing the aircraft. This hazardous and oil.
phenomenon causes the engine to ingest a great amount
In addition to all this, sand erosion can affect also the
of sand that can severely damage it, degrading its life and rotorcraft blades, which thus need protection. Usually,
performance. this is achieved by the medium of coatings or protective
The major damage caused by sand to a gas turbine tapes.
engine operating in a desert environment is the erosion of
the compressor blading and this is manifested in many 2. Inlet Barrier Filters (IBFs)
forms in an axial machine. The two principal effects are
the thinning of the trailing edges and the pitting and Up to the 1990s barrier filter applications have been
cutting back of the leading edges. These phenomena are
restricted to the air condition, industrial and petrol/diesel
more evident at the tip of rotor blades, because the engine fields because filter clogging and high installation
centrifugal force and the action induced by the rotors tend losses led to low separation efficiencies. However, two
to push the sand away from the shaft. On the other hand, solutions to these problems were already available in
stator bladings get more damaged at the roots. All this 1994 [4]. The first one consisted in increasing the filter
increases the risk of surge of the compressor and operation life by periodic cleaning of the filter. The
provokes significant losses in the engine power [2].
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
second one involved a pre-cleaning of the air upstream of (for particles ranging from 0.5 to 10micron in size) and
the filter to extend its life. In the latter case, there is also diffusional interception (for particles smaller than about
the possibility to remove the filter to clean it, still running 0.1micron in size) [8]. In fact, larger particles are stopped
the engine under an adequate protection. Since inertial by direct interception by virtue of their bulk, particles
separators and removable filters have complementary possessing too much inertia have to leave the streamline
effectiveness against small and large particles, the latter to deposit on the fibres (inertial impaction) and, finally,
solution was also very attractive to provide simple and the smallest particles are intercepted by fibres as they
compact installations [4]. wander in random Brownian motion (diffusion). In
With time, the development of high technology IBFs addition to those mechanisms, sieving occurs when a
has led to really efficient filters, able to remove up to particle is arrested because its diameter exceeds the
99% of sand and dust particle from the inlet air. diameter of the filter pores.
Moreover, the wide range of available configurations
allows to match different requirements in terms of mass
flow ad airframe integration.

The single fibre capture mechanism [9].

Form a structural point of view, IBFs can be stiffened

with a structural comb, as in the U.S. Patent 6,595,742
[10]. The comb can be placed behind and/or in front of
the filter media pleats and has several teeth fitted between
adjacent sets of pleats. It supports the filter without
interfering with cleaning operations and does not change
Example of a typical IBF installation [5]. the flow area.

An IBF consists of a series of panels through which

the inlet air is forced to pass following a tortuous route.
The filter fibres trap the contaminant particles because of
their inertia, but, at the same time, the total pressure of
the air is reduced. This reduction becomes more evident
as long as the filter gets dirty and particles clog the
passages through it [6]. In fact, the filter element is
constructed from three to six layers of fabric, such as
woollen cotton, impregnated with a specific oil that acts
as a sticky surface to which particles attach, forming a
cake on the filter itself. Accordingly to the type of
filtration the cake can be removed and the filter can be re- Filter stiffened by medium of a comb [10].
used. Depth filters rely mainly on the adhesion of the
contaminants to the filter element and are not cleanable.
3. Dynertial Systems
However, surface filters block the particles that are too
big to pass through the filter medium and the cake
accreted can be removed. A pressure differential sensor This kind of particle separator utilizes rotating
monitors the pressure loss across the filter and informs components to centrifuge contaminant particles contained
the pilot when it reached the limit set by the in the inlet air. At the beginning of its development, this
device had poor separation efficiency and since the
manufacturer. Also, in the event of over-clogging of the
number of collisions between the particles and the
filter, a bypass door can be opened hydraulically [7].
surface of the device was really small, the only result
Since the oil used in IBF creates problems related to
achievable was a reduced ballistic separation of
pollution and disposal of the used oil, Pall Corporation
contaminants. Moreover, the zero exit swirl design
has developed a new type of IBF. The so-called
provoked an adverse pressure gradient and consequently
Cleanable Inlet Barrier Filter is constructed of a dry
media that can be cleaned with either water or air and can little aerodynamic separation [4].
be re-installed after cleaning even if still wet. This However, the aerodynamic separation can be increased
by moving to a more advanced rotor/stator design, like
reduces maintenance time and costs and the absence of
the one shown in the U.S. Patent 6,499,285 [11]. This
oil makes the cleaning process eco-friendly. Like
device includes an annular inlet, an annular first opening
conventional IBFs, a cleanable filter is based upon three
and an annular outlet, concentrically positioned around
basic filtration mechanisms, direct interception (for
the axis of the intake of the engine. The nozzle vanes, the
particles bigger than 10micron in size), inertial impaction

2
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
blades and the first opening are positioned “radially consequently, experience a greater centrifugal force.
inwardly from the inlet and radially outwardly from the Since an annular gap exists between the outlet tube and
outlet. In addition, the nozzle vanes are positioned an inlet narrower tube, the flow is physically divided into
radially outwardly from the blades.” [11]. This two streams, the clean air enters the engine and the dust
configuration allows the air to flow radially inwardly, particles are scavenged to the atmosphere. Alternatively,
while the particles migrate radially outwardly. mechanical scavenge fans or bleed systems can be used
to remove the dirty contaminants [1].

Vortex tube separator [12].

Dynamic particle separator having a row of nozzle The tubes are arranged in tube banks, which are
vanes and a row of rotating deflector blades [11].
designed specifically to each helicopter type. Modern
packs have a separation efficiency between 93 and 98.5%
The addition of a downstream stator to remove the
for coarse sand and a pressure loss of only 1.5% if the
swirl of the air flow allows the optimisation of the rotor
bank is large enough [1].
to generate an advantageous pressure gradient, thus
reducing the pressure losses across the device [4].

Vortex tube pack [1].

At the present time, Donaldson and Pall Corporation

produce the most advanced vortex tube separators.
Sectional view of a dynamic particle separator Donaldson StrataTM Tubes have a new scavenge
having a row of nozzle vanes, a row of rotating discharge design that allows high-density configurations,
deflector blades and a row of de-swirl vanes [11]. resulting in a smaller inlet area that requires half the
amount of the scavenge flow to keep the same level of
Finally, the particle separator can be composed by two efficiency.
sections, an inertial particle separator (see Section 4.2)
and a dynamic particle separator, where the latter one is
comprehensive of the components represented in the
picture above. This solution increases the useful life of
the blades, the inertial particle separator being configured
to separate coarse particles and the dynamic particle
separator being designed to remove fine particles. With
this arrangement, the removal of bigger particles will
avoid the erosion of the blade tips and leading edges [11].

4. Particle Separators

4.1. Vortex Tube Separator

A vortex tube separator is a device that uses a vortex A standard scavenge discharge and a ramped-style
generator to cause the inlet air to swirl. Contaminant scavenge discharge, both produced by Donaldson [12].
particles have a higher density then the air and,

3
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
Pall Corporation has developed a system called
Centrisept® Engine Advanced Protection System
(EAPS), first applied on the CH-47 Chinook in 1990,
during the Gulf War and developed further since then [9].
This particle separator is constituted by hundreds of
vortex tubes of about 3/4 inch of diameter closely packed
together. The resulting structure is shown in the picture
below.
Ejector scavenge system [15].

4.2. Inlet Particle Separators (IPSs)

4.2.1. Inertial separator

With an inertial separator (also called integral

separator) the sand particles are removed by means of a
duct with a sharp turn. In fact, due to their higher inertia,
contaminant particles tend to go into a scavenge duct and
are then released to the atmosphere, while the air turns
and goes into the engine. This kind of device is called a
Centrisept EAPS unit and detail of a vortex tube [14].
scroll separator, i.e. “particles do not change direction as
readily as does the air transporting them” [17].
Since each Centrisep EAPS unit is specific for a
particular helicopter, the company has designed more
than fifty different configurations, some of those are fully
certified for all weather conditions. In any case, this is a
fix-and-forget device and thus it does not need
maintenance. Engine erosion life is increased up to 20-30
times [15] and, unlike an IBF, the device has an
unlimited dirt-holding capacity. For this reason, an EAPS
unit is extremely more efficient than a barrier filter [16].

Vaneless separator [18].

4.2.2. Separator with Vanes

In a traditional IPS, the contaminant particles

separated from the inlet air can bounce on the scavenge
chamber walls and come back.

Comparison between sand removed by

an EAPS and an IBF during a test [16].

The contaminants removed form the inlet flow can be

eliminated using two different scavenge systems. The
first mechanism utilizes an electrical fan, while in the
second case an ejector is used.

Particle trajectory in a traditional IPS [19].

To prevent the separated particle rebounding back into

the engine flow airstream, some vanes can be added, like
in the U.S. Patent 4,527,387 [19]. The separator
described uses a collection chamber with an annular
entrance where the vanes are collocated circumferentially
and have upstream faces sufficiently angled towards the
air flow to prevent particles from bouncing off them in an
Fan scavenge system [15]. upstream direction. Also, the vane throats accelerate the
flow, further preventing extraneous matter to bounce
back into the device.

4
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
4.2.4. IPS with Flow Dividers

In the same decade, another improvement was

proposed. The first stage of the particle separator
remained similar to the previous one, as shown in the
U.S. Patent 4,702,071[21].

Details of the vanes [23].

4.2.3. Two-stage Separator

Section view of an inlet particle separator [21].
The scavenge duct can be emptied using a blower.
This system has a good separation efficiency (between Using a circumferential scavenge chamber, the mass
85% and 95% for coarse sand and about 65% for fine flow at the inlet of the scavenge chamber would vary
sand [1]), however the blower system might have some circumferentially with distance from the exhaust vent. In
problems that could reduce the performance of the the picture below a section of the device is shown in both
device. As a consequence, in the 1980s several people a sectional and a linear representation and the size of the
tried to improve this device with various methods. arrows is proportional to the quantity of mass flow. Due
The U.S. Patent 4,685,942 [20] describes an IPS that to the extraction method, a different pressure is created at
utilizes two stages of separation, the first one is the different positions and this is reflected also in the clean
original vaneless axial separator and the second one air mass flow entering the engine. As a consequence of
occurs in the scavenge chamber itself. the uneven circumferential pressure distribution at the
compressor inlet, the efficiency of the engine is reduced.

Two-stage axial flow inlet particle separator [19].

Sectional and linear representations of the flow
With this design the separation is centrifugal and it is pattern in an inlet particle separator [21].
powered by a blower that divides the air flow in two
portions because sand particles tend to collect at an outer To provide a uniform flow in the scavenge chamber,
radius than the air. Consequently, the radially outer flow flow dividers can be added between the inlet mass flow at
will consist of highly contaminated air, while the radially stations two and three and between stations four and five.
inner flow will consist of less contaminated air. The result is that each flow path has the same length and
equal flow loss. Since this is not achievable at station six,
an extra flow divider creates a restriction and a
consequent pressure loss, so that the mass flow is reduced
to the same level of the other passages [21].

Linear representation of the flow pattern in an

inlet particle separator with flow dividers [21].
Scavenge system [20].

5
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
4.2.5. Transposed-duct Particle Separator The fluidic device receives compressed air from the
compressor of a gas turbine engine and, through a nozzle,
In a conventional IPS, there is basically a conflict in provides a jet of compressed air into the scavenge system
the cross sectional area of both the scavenge duct and in of the IPS. Finally, one or more valves control the flow of
the duct going to the engine. In fact the former one needs air from the compressor.
to be as large as possible to trap the biggest amount of
particles, but, at the same time, we want it to be small to
minimise both the amount of air pumped trough the
scavenge duct and the overall dimensions of the device.
At the same time, the engine duct has to be big to allow
most of the inlet air to pass along it and small to
minimise the possibility for contaminants to enter.
Moreover, the engine duct resides inside the scavenge
duct and, consequently, a larger engine duct means a
larger scavenge duct and thus a bigger and heavier device
[23]. To solve both these conflict, in 1998 Mann
suggested and patented a novel configuration of the IPS
(U.S. Patent 5,139,545 [22]).

Details of the scavenge system of the IPS [24].

In the picture above, the fluidic device is located is an

optimum position in order to achieve a high separation
efficiency. The inner wall of the fluidic device has a
coanda profile, so that the compressed air flowing out of
the nozzle adheres to it, creating a low-pressure area at
the centre of the scavenge passage and thus accelerating
the flow towards the outlet. Controlling the amount of
compressed air used in the fluidic device, this IPS can be
adapted to the quantity of contaminant particles in the
Axial particle separator [21]. inlet air. As a consequence, the performance of the
engine can be optimized. Also, the fluidic device is
Since the engine and scavenge duct have been lighter and more economic than the blower and is more
transposed, the duct requiring the biggest mass flow (the tolerant to sand particle, requiring less maintenance [24].
engine duct) is now the outside one and therefore has a
larger section than the scavenge duct, while maintaining 4.2.7. Centrifugal Separator
small overall dimensions. The result of this new concept
is not only the higher separation efficiency of the device, When space constraints or other phenomena prevent
but also a reduction in weight and volume and a decrease the use of an axial IPS, a radial IPS can be used, such as
in pressure losses of about 40% [23]. the one described in the U.S. Patent 3,993,463 [17].

4.2.6. Inlet Particle Separator with a Fluidic Device

Currently, the newest design available is descripted in

the U.S. Patent 2012/0131900A1 [24]. The system is
composed of a two-stage IPS, the first stage is a
conventional integral separator and the second one is the
scavenge system. The difference from the previous
designs is that now a fluidic device is integrated in the
scavenge system in substitution of the blower.

Centrifugal IPS [16].

As can be noticed form the picture, there are two IPS

Inlet particle separator [24]. in series, 1 and 2. The first one removes larger particles,

6
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
while the second one acts on smaller particles. In
particular, the second IPS includes a helicoidal duct
conducting the air to the inlet of the engine. Along this
duct little particles are continuously centrifuged to the
outside circumference and scavenge ports remove them
by acting as scoops. The first IPS is necessary to limit the
number of scavenge ports and the related pressure drop.
In addition, the early removal of larger particles allow the
scavenge ports to be smaller. Finally, variations of this
design consider the possibility of closing the scavenge
ports to enhance the performance of the engine when
flying in clean-air conditions [17].

5. Overall Comparison of Sand Protection Systems

Results of US Navy Sand Ingestion Test on T64 Engine [1].
As highlighted by Bojdo and Filippone in [25], inlet
barrier filters are the devices with the highest separation 7. Rotor Blade Protection Systems - Coatings
efficiencies, which also increase with time due to the
accumulation of particles. They are lighter and cheaper The rotor blades of a helicopter are subjected to sand
than vortex tube separators and, unlike the latter ones, erosion during take off, landing and all the operations at
they do not create a distortion to the air flow [7]. They do low altitude. Moreover, sand erosion leads to the
not require a scavenge mass flow or a bleed flow. formation of cracks that enlarge the surface exposed to
However, even if their pressure drop is small at the other phenomena such as rain erosion. However, blade
beginning, it is inevitably going to increase with the coatings improve erosion resistance and the rotor blade
formation of a cake on the filter surface. Thus IBFs have life, extending on-wing time reliability and reducing
the necessity of a constant maintenance and that means maintenance and fuel consumption. As a consequence it
longer time-on-ground. Moreover, there are difficulties in is common to protect the blades with a coating. However,
their integration in still unprotected helicopters [25]. In it needs to be selected taking into consideration the
fact, they need to be located where the pressure of the helicopter operating conditions.
inlet air is relatively independent of the flight direction As an example, a leading-edge metallic erosion strip
and do not create engine performance instabilities [9]. made of nickel and titanium has the problem of the
Vortex tube separators have high separation sparkling and oxidation of the titanium section.
efficiencies and low pressure drops but they need Consequently, a corona visible at night is created around
auxiliary power and can create considerable drag at the rotor blades, thus providing a visible target for the
forward flight conditions. Like with IBFs, there might be enemy if applied to a military helicopter.
integration difficulties and relatively poor performance in In any case, metallic erosion strips provide a better
icing conditions [25]. protection against rain than against sand and, as a
Inlet particle separators have a really low drag because consequence, harder and stronger bulk materials, like
of their high airflow per unit area and can be easily some monolithic ceramics, offer a higher protection level
integrated in existing engines. They are light, compact [26]. The main problem of ceramic coatings is the
and have low pressure drops. However some IPSs difficulty of achieving compatibility between the coating
experience the lowest separation efficiencies (between and the blade itself. In fact, the former one is flexible and
50% and 85% [7]). Also, a large air mass flow is has a large strain, while the coating is a stiff system
extracted to scavenge (up to 20% [9]) and a source of characterised by a small strain and this can easily lead to
power is usually required to scavenge the separated cracks and spalling of the protective layer [26].
particles. In 2011 the United State Army Research Laboratory
has developed a new cold spray compound to protect
6. Engine Blade Protection Systems - Coatings rotor blades. Tungsten carbide – cobalt (WC-Co)
particles, which are wear-resistant, are applied to the
Even when protected by filters or inlet particle leading edge by means of high-velocity air-fuel powder
separators, helicopter engine may ingest extremely fine spraying, while the surface away from the leading edge is
sand particles (below 10 microns in diameter) which can cold-sprayed niobium [27].
severely erode compressor blades. Finally, a variety of polyurethane protective tapes
In many cases, accordingly with blade material, produced by 3MTM can be found in the catalogue
component size and operating conditions, blade erosion available on the company website [28]. Among the
can be partially overcome by applying erosion-resistant numerous options, the most appropriate products for
coatings, as done on the Russian MI-8 and the American helicopter rotor blades are the tape 8542HSMB, the tape
CH-53, powered by the General Electric T64 turboshaft 8545 and the tape 8667HS.
engine [10]. The coating used for those two helicopters is
known as ER-7 and it is produced by the MDS_PRAD Acknowledgement
Technologies. It is a multilayered coating and, according
to Russian experience and US Navy testing, it has been I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Stephen
shown to minimize the effect of sand erosion on for his patient support during the literature review and
compressor blades [1]. writing of this paper.

7
38th Engine Systems Symposium – March 2013 ESS-38-78
E. Alessio / Sand Protection Systems for Helicopters

 
References [15] Pall Corporation (2010) Centrisep® Engine Advanced
Protection System (EAPS). Available at: http://www.pall.
[1] Warren, J. et al. (2005) Effects of Sand and Dust on Small jp/jpn2/Aerospace_50434.asp#Applications (accessed: 4th
Gas Turbine Engines. Annex B in: Best Practices for the February 2013).
Mitigation and Control of Foreign Object Damage- [16] Pall Corporation (2013) Why Choose Centrisep EAPS?
Induced High Cycle Fatigue in Gas Turbine Engine Available at: http://www.pall.com/main/aerospace-
Compression System Airfoils. NATO RTO-TR-AVT-094. defense-marine/centrisep-why-choose-centrisep.page
[2] Goodwin, J. E. et al. (1969) Study of Erosion by Solid (accessed: 4th February 2013).
Particles. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical [17] Barr, S.R. (1976) Particle Separator for Turbine Engines
Engineers (184(1)), 279-292. of Aircraft. U.S. Patent 3,993,463.
[3] Rhee, D. et al. (2012) Effect of sand and dust ingestion on [18] Flatt, J. (1968) Particle Separator, Especially for Use in
small gas turbine engines. In: Transactions of the Korean Connection with Jet Engines. U.S. Patent 3,616,616.
Society of Mechanical Engineers, B (36(8)), 791-796. [19] Lastrina, F.A. et al. (1985) Particle Separator Scroll
[4] Mann, D.L. and Warnes, G.D. (1994) Future directions in Vanes. U.S. Patent 4,527,387.
helicopter protection system configuration. In: AGARD, [20] Klassen, D.D. et al. (1987) Axial Flow Inlet Particle
Erosion, Corrosion and Foreign Object Damage Effects Separator. U.S. Patent 4,685,942.
in Gas Turbines 12 p(SEE N 95-19653 05-07). [21] Jenkins, J.E. et al. (1987) Inlet Particle Separator. U.S.
[5] Donaldsonfilters (2011) Donandson Aerospace & Patent 4,702,071.
Defence - Rotorcraft Filtration Systems. Available at: [22] Mann, D.L. (1992) Air Intakes for Gas Turbine Engines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRxqvJTBLss&featur U.S. Patent 5,139,545.
e=youtu.be (accessed 1st February 2013). [23] Mann, D.L. (1998) Helicopter Engine Particle Separator.
[6] Bojdo, N. and Filippone, A. (2012) Operational In: Triz Journal. University of Bath, Bath. Available at:
performance of inlet barrier filters for rotorcraft. www.trizjournal.com/archives/1999/02/a/index.htm
In: Aeronautical Journal (116(1182)), 847-869. (accessed: 3rd February 2013).
[7] Filippone, A. and Bojdo, N. (2010) Turboshaft engine air [24] Kenyon, R.H. (2012) Inlet Particle Separator System.
particle separation. In: Progress in Aerospace Sciences U.S. Patent 2012/0131900A1.
(46(5-6)), 224-245. [25] Bojdo, N. and Filippone, A. (2009) A Comparative Study
[8] Pall Corporation (2013) Cleanable Inlet Barrier Filters of Helicopter Engine Air Particle Separation
(IBFs). Available at: http://www.pall.com/main/aerospace Technologies. In: European Rotorcraft Forum (04 Sep
-defense-marine/product.page?id=545888 (accessed 2nd 2012-06 Sep 2012). NLR, Amsterdam.
February 2013). [26] Office of Naval Research (2010) Advanced Helicopter
[9] Bojdo, N. (2012) Rotorcraft Engine Air Particle Main Rotor Blade Coatings (FNC). Available at:
Separation (Phd Thesis). University of Manchester, http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Fact%20Sheets/R
Manchester. otor%20Blade%20Erosion%20Protection.ashx (Accessed:
[10] Scimone M. (2003) Aircraft engine air filter and method. 4th February 2013).
U.S. Patent 6,595,742. [27] ARL website (2011) ARL's new cold spray compound
[11] Philip H. (2002) Particle Separator for a Gas Turbine looks promising as helicopter sand erosion solution in
Engine. U.S. Patent 6,499,285. harsh desert terrain. Available at: http://www.arl.army.
[12] Donaldson (2010) Donaldson Inertial Particle Separation mil/www/default.cfm?page=745 (Accessed: 4th February
Technology. Available at: http://www.donaldson. 2013).
com/en/aircraft/support/datalibrary/052457.pdf (accessed [28] 3M website (2013) Erosion Protection. Available at:
6th February 2013). http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Aerospace
[13] Pall Corporation (2013) Single Tube Centrisep®. /Aircraft/Prod_Info/Prod_Catalog/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE
Available at: http://www.pall.com/main/aerospace- 3E02LECIE20SOG5000000_nid=61XB41ZN6Jbe90657J
defense-marine/product.page?id= 54590 (accessed 2nd DCX3gl (Accessed: 4th February 2013).
February 2013).
[14] Pall Port Washington (2011) Centrisept® EAPS – The
ultimate in Helicopter Engine Protection (Training).
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI4c4-
lfuVU (accessed: 4th February 2013).