Fastest
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/rotor-hub-and-swashplate-mechanisms-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Rotorcraft TechnologyRotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanism Patents: Concentration at the Top, a Long Tail Below
- 71.3% of all 913 records sit with just five assignees, so most of the claim space around hub and swashplate architectures is already staked out by a handful of airframers.
- Filings fell 94% from 33 in 2021 to 2 in 2024 — the sharpest drawdown in the trend, though 2025 onward is still filling in as publication catches up with filing.
- B64C dominates at 88.1% of records while narrower mechanical classes like F16C bearings (5.1%) and F16D clutches/brakes (5.6%) stay comparatively thin — a gap worth checking before filing there.
913
Published Records
71%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-94%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (33 records) with 2024 (2) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 913 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the rotor hub and swashplate patent record shows
Rotor hub and swashplate mechanisms sit at the mechanical core of helicopter flight control: they convert cyclic and collective pilot inputs into blade pitch changes while carrying centrifugal, flapping and lead-lag loads through elastomeric bearings, flexbeams and dampers. The 913 records in scope span 2015 to mid-2026 and cluster overwhelmingly around aeroplane and helicopter classifications, with secondary claim activity in springs/dampers, bearings and clutch mechanisms. Patent families, rather than raw publication counts, are the fairer way to read concentration here, since a single design can generate several continuation filings across jurisdictions.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 and has declined sharply since, though the most recent two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Five organisations account for the large majority of activity, leaving a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants working on narrower mechanical sub-problems.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing trend, IPC composition and jurisdictions
These figures describe the 913 records currently in scope for this search. Read the trend against the 18-month publication lag before drawing conclusions about the last two years.
Filing trend: a sharp peak, then a steep drawdown
Filings rose to a peak of 33 in 2021, then fell to 2 by 2024 — a 94% drop over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Technology composition across eight IPC subclasses
B64C (aeroplanes and helicopters) covers 88.1% of the 913 records, confirming this is fundamentally an airframe-classified art. Springs and dampers (F16F, 9.6%), drones (B64U, 6.4%), clutches/brakes (F16D, 5.6%) and bearings/couplings (F16C, 5.1%) each cover a much smaller slice, since records can carry multiple classes these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 913 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about rotor hub and swashplate mechanisms and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative Filing
Gimbaled Tail Rotor Hub with Spherical Elastomeric Centrifugal Force Bearing for Blade Retention and Pitch Change Articulation
TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC.
A rotor hub comprises a gimbal assembly and an elastomeric centrifugal force bearing. The gimbal assembly transfers rotational movement of a mast to the rotor hub and enables the hub to flap relative to the mast. The elastomeric centrifugal force bearing withstands centrifugal force on a rotor blade while accommodating pitch changes, and the filing also covers a design method for selecting the gimbal and bearing pairing for tail rotor applications.Filed by Textron Innovations Inc., published 2017-09-14.
Highest-cited records in the dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4676720A | Bearingless hub structure for rotary-wing aircrafts | 117 |
| 2 | US6327957B1 | Wind-driven electric generator apparatus of the downwind type with flexible changeable-pitch blades | 116 |
| 3 | US6641365B2 | Optimum speed tilt rotor | 105 |
| 4 | US20020109044A1 | Coaxial helicopter | 97 |
| 5 | US4332525A | Matched stiffness rotor flexbeam and blade system | 96 |
| 6 | US5351913A | Coaxial transmission/center hub subassembly for a rotor assembly having ducted, coaxial counter-rotating roto… | 95 |
| 7 | US6848886B2 | Snubber | 93 |
| 8 | US5419513A | Ancillary aerodynamic structures for an unmanned aerial vehicle having ducted, coaxial counter-rotating rotors | 90 |
| 9 | US4804352A | Link-type rotary coupling | 90 |
| 10 | US20060102777A1 | Coaxial rotorcraft control system | 88 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence, not of current technical relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Insights
What the concentration and composition mean for filing strategy
Three patterns matter most for anyone deciding where to file or where to design around existing claims.
Concentration
71.3% of 913 records
held by top 5 assignees
Claim space is crowded at the core
With five organisations holding 651 of the 913 records in scope, core hub and swashplate architectures — gimbal assemblies, elastomeric CF bearings, flexbeam designs — are densely claimed. High density here signals occupied claim space, not that the underlying mechanism is exhausted.
Source: assignee ranking, 84 companies
Trend
-94% (2021→2024)
filings, peak to latest complete year
A steep drawdown, not necessarily a cooling field
Filings dropped from 33 in 2021 to 2 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 counts are still incomplete and should not be read as confirmation the field is winding down.
Source: filing trend, 2017-2026
Composition
9.6% F16F, 5.1% F16C
share of 913 records
Secondary mechanical classes are thinner
Springs/dampers, bearings and clutch/brake classifications each cover a modest share of records compared with the dominant B64C class. That gap is where narrower mechanical improvements — damper materials, bearing geometries — may face less prior art density.
Source: IPC subclass distribution
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to rotor hub and swashplate mechanisms, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who holds the core claims, and where activity has gone quiet
The ranked leaders account for most of the field's filing volume, but recent-year momentum has slowed across the board — a pattern worth checking against publication lag before reading it as retreat.
Leader
202 records
single largest assignee
One organisation holds more than double the fifth-place count
The leading assignee's 202 records dwarf the fifth-place total of 37, indicating a long-running, well-resourced filing program rather than a single design cycle.
Source: assignee ranking
Mid tier
37 to 15 records
fifth to tenth place
A tighter cluster below the leader
Positions five through ten sit in a narrower band, from 37 down to 15 records, suggesting several airframers and suppliers maintain active but smaller portfolios in this space.
Source: assignee ranking
Momentum
0 in latest year
across leading assignees
Recent-year filings have gone quiet across the top names
Every one of the leading assignees shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects incomplete recent data rather than a genuine stop in R&D activity.
Source: recent-year momentum by assignee
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| United Technologies Corp | 0 | — |
| Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH | 0 | — |
| Sikorsky Aircraft Corp | 0 | — |
| Bell Helicopter Textron Inc | 0 | — |
| HILL GRP TECH LTD | 0 | — |
| The Boeing Company | 0 | — |
| UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP | 0 | — |
| Lord Corp | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature core with specific narrower openings. These next steps help translate that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.
Map the leader's claim boundaries
With one assignee holding 202 of 913 records, a claim-by-claim review of its core hub and bearing patents will show exactly where its coverage ends and where a design-around becomes feasible.
Explore claim mapping in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches
Damper materials, bearing geometries and drag reduction fairings show thinner coverage than the dominant airframe classes — worth a focused prior art search before committing R&D spend.
Run a white space search in EurekaRe-check the trend once 2025 data settles
The apparent drop to 2 filings in 2024 is real, but 2025 and 2026 are still filling in. A follow-up pull in a year will clarify whether the field is genuinely slowing.
Track filing trends in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about rotor hub and swashplate patents
One assignee leads clearly with 202 of the 913 records in scope, more than five times the tenth-place count of 15. The top five assignees combined hold 651 records, or 71.3% of all records in scope, so filing activity is concentrated among a small group of established airframers and their suppliers rather than spread evenly across the field. A freedom-to-operate review in this space should start with that leader's portfolio before moving to the mid-tier holders.
Filing peaked at 33 records in 2021 and had fallen to 2 by 2024, a 94% drop over that span. However, publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any pull are understated and should not be read as proof the field has gone cold. A fair read is that the field cooled markedly from its 2021 peak, with the most recent trend still unconfirmed.
Nearly all records (88.1% of 913) carry the B64C aeroplanes-and-helicopters classification, confirming this is fundamentally airframe-classified art. Smaller but meaningful overlaps appear with springs and vibration dampers (F16F, 9.6%), unmanned aerial vehicles (B64U, 6.4%), clutches and brakes (F16D, 5.6%) and bearings/couplings (F16C, 5.1%). Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the record total.
The narrower mechanical classes tied to elastomeric lag dampers, spherical CF bearing geometries and hub drag reduction carry noticeably thinner coverage than the dominant hub and swashplate architecture claims. These sub-areas sit adjacent to heavily claimed core mechanisms but have not seen the same filing density, making them worth a targeted prior art search before committing to a design. High density in the core does not mean the surrounding mechanical detail is equally occupied.
This Textron Innovations filing claims a gimbaled tail rotor hub assembly that combines a gimbal enabling the hub to flap relative to the mast with a spherical elastomeric centrifugal force bearing that both retains the blade against centrifugal load and accommodates pitch change articulation. It also covers a method for designing and selecting that gimbal-and-bearing pairing for tail rotor applications. Anyone designing a tail rotor hub using an elastomeric CF bearing for combined retention and pitch articulation should review this filing's specific claim language before finalizing a design.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Rotor Hub and Swashplate Mechanisms in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole rotor hub and swashplate mechanisms corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.