Correction: An Empirical Analysis of the Wake Interactions of a Novel Multi-agent UAS., (AIAA Science and Technology Forum and Exposition, AIAA SciTech Forum 2022)

Correction Notice This correction is to clarify that the reader should consider the definition of the Figure of Merit (FM ) and the effects of using the FM to compare the efficiencies of rotors that have different dis k loadings when interpreting the results shown in Fig.11 and Fig.12. The paragraph ending on page 10 and beginning on page 11 should read as shown below. This paragraph also includes a correction that clarifies which rotor is being referred to in Fig.12. “Further insight on the impact of rotor-rotor wake interactions on the performance of rotor 1 and rotor 2 can be found by calculating the Figure of Merit (FM) of both rotors. In this analysis, the FM is calculated as shown in Eq. (6). Figure 11 shows that rotor 2 has little to no effect on the performance of rotor 1. Figure 12, shows the average FM of rotor 2 operating in the wake of rotor 1 that has a tip Reynolds Number specified in the legend of the figure. This analysis clearly shows that at configuration 4.5 there are no significant rotor-rotor wake interactions. It should be noted that the FM is only a valid metric of rotor efficiency if the disk loading (T/A) of the rotors being compared are relatively similar. This is because as the disk loading of a rotor increases, the ratio of the induced power versus the profile power increases, creating a misleadingly high FM. The FM comparisons shown in Figs. 11 and 12 should only be used to compare the efficiency of the rotors in different configurations but operating at the same tip Reynolds Number as specified in the legend of both figures. The difference in the disk loading of rotor 2 operating in the wake of rotor 1 while rotor 1 is operating the specified tip Reynolds Number across the different configurations is no more than 19%. Another observation from this is that the counter-rotating configurations operate more efficiently than the co-rotating configurations. The percent decrease in FM of rotor 2 in configuration one in the co-rotating spin direction compared to the counter-rotor spin direction is 5.3 % to 9.0 % depending on the angular velocity of rotor 1. Moreover, as the separation between rotor 1 and rotor 2 increases to the dimensions of configuration two the decrease the FM of rotor 2 is 4.1 % to 6.3 %. However, this is most likely caused by the tolerance of the measurement devices used on the thrust stand.”