Making wood propeller?

[Oliver Arend]

Inspired by a couple of articles on Bob Hoovers blog and the fact that
it's likely that my first homebuilt will be slow and VW-powered, I was
thinking of making a wood propeller. I have access to a 3-axis CNC
lathe which should be long enough for at least half a prop, so that's
not an issue.

Bob went ahead and got a couple of shelving boards made of pine and
glued them together. So far so good.

I probably made a beginner's mistake and went to the local home
improvement store (Bauhaus, a German chain) to look at the different
solid wood boards they offered. The good side: The choice is huge. The
bad side: I have no idea if the stuff is any good.

Woods available are:
- spruce
- birch
- beech
- oak
- eucalyptus (which has neat coloration, btw)
- paulownia
and even more exotic stuff I had never heard of.

I guess spruce is widely used in aviation, dang cheap and the sticks
they use to make the shelving boards run the full length, which seems
good for strength. The problem I have with it is the huge number of
knotholes, which would weaken the prop.

The others are much more expensive, are made of smaller bits of wood,
and apart from birch plywood I have never heard of them being used in
aviation.

So I guess it's practicing on "box store" spruce. But what should I
use for the "real thing"?

Oliver, also trying to bring some life back into the group ;-)

[flybynightkarmarepair]

On Jan 29, 10:08*am, Oliver Arend > wrote:
> Inspired by a couple of articles on Bob Hoovers blog and the fact that
> it's likely that my first homebuilt will be slow and VW-powered, I was
> thinking of making a wood propeller. I have access to a 3-axis CNC
> lathe which should be long enough for at least half a prop, so that's
> not an issue.
>
> Bob went ahead and got a couple of shelving boards made of pine and
> glued them together. So far so good.
>
> I probably made a beginner's mistake and went to the local home
> improvement store (Bauhaus, a German chain) to look at the different
> solid wood boards they offered. The good side: The choice is huge. The
> bad side: I have no idea if the stuff is any good.
>
> Woods available are:
> - spruce
> - birch
> - beech
> - oak
> - eucalyptus (which has neat coloration, btw)
> - paulownia
> and even more exotic stuff I had never heard of.
>
> I guess spruce is widely used in aviation, dang cheap and the sticks
> they use to make the shelving boards run the full length, which seems
> good for strength. The problem I have with it is the huge number of
> knotholes, which would weaken the prop.
>
> The others are much more expensive, are made of smaller bits of wood,
> and apart from birch plywood I have never heard of them being used in
> aviation.
>
> So I guess it's practicing on "box store" spruce. But what should I
> use for the "real thing"?
>
> Oliver, also trying to bring some life back into the group ;-)

Birch, Beech or Oak would be fine for the real thing. Most any
hardwood has enough strength for the purpose. The grain in Oak will
give you trouble; the Birch or Beech will be far easier to work.

Some of my experiences in building a prop-clock:
http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung/Sonerai/Carve_Prop.html

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:08:07 -0800 (PST), Oliver Arend
> wrote:

>Inspired by a couple of articles on Bob Hoovers blog and the fact that
>it's likely that my first homebuilt will be slow and VW-powered, I was
>thinking of making a wood propeller.

There is an australian company in bundaberg that sells a propeller
made from Queensland Hoop Pine.

at one of our flyins a friend was walking around asking everyone where
the bushfires were to the north of the airfield. he could sure smell
them but he couldnt see smoke or fire but guessed that we were all in
for a busy fire season.
everyone looked at him and went "huh??"
fact is that there were no fires in new south wales that day.

one of the guys asked "have you got a wooden prop?"
"yeah a new &&&&&&& prop, I swapped out the old one yesterday"
"we'd better have a look at your prop!, got tools?"
"nuh, bit overloaded as it is"

one of the guys grabbed his aircraft tool roll and we gathered by his
canard dragonfly.
there was ceratinly a bushfire smell near that prop.

when the prop came off the rear face of the hub was charred to a depth
of about quarter of an inch.

the analysis was that the hoop pine lacks the compressive strength to
make a good propellor wood. evidently all the props made in queensland
hoop pine eventually fail in the hub area to either crushing or
charring.

friend hurridly phoned a mate who was departing later that day and got
him to bring the old prop with him, so it became a non event.

the crush strength of the wood in the hub area is likely to be the
critical factor in selecting the wood species used for a propeller.

(gads an interruption I cant dodge. I'll continue this in another post
after I get clear. back soon.)
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:08:07 -0800 (PST), Oliver Arend
> wrote:

>Inspired by a couple of articles on Bob Hoovers blog and the fact that
>it's likely that my first homebuilt will be slow and VW-powered, I was
>thinking of making a wood propeller.
<snip>
>I probably made a beginner's mistake and went to the local home
>improvement store (Bauhaus, a German chain) to look at the different
>solid wood boards they offered. The good side: The choice is huge. The
>bad side: I have no idea if the stuff is any good.
>
>Woods available are:
>- spruce
too soft. although the tensile strength is ok the crush strength in
the hub will not be sufficient.

>- birch
probably ok.

>- beech
probably very ok

>- oak
probably not the best choice since the wood has chemical interactions
with iron.

>- eucalyptus (which has neat coloration, btw)
eucalyptus (sold as "australian oak" in australia), probably euc.
deligatensis and about 3 other eucalyptus types can be successful
propellor woods.
read my caveat that comes later though.

>- paulownia
very soft new zealand wood suitable as a spruce substitute for ribs
and the like. probably too soft to make a good prop wood.

>I guess spruce is widely used in aviation,

spruce is used in other areas of wooden aircraft construction but it
usually isnt suitable for propellors.

> The problem I have with it is the huge number of
>knotholes, which would weaken the prop.

glad to hear of your concern! it will save your life.

propellor woods need to be denser than the woods used for
construction. wooden construction typically uses woods in the order of
25 to 35 pound per cubic foot density.
my guess is that propellor woods are best in the 45 to 65 pounds per
cubic foot density range.
propellor woods need to be perfect because of the stresses they are
subjected to. in cruise the tips will be flying around mach 0.8
props are made in laminates about 10mm thick (or less) so that any
blemishes and weaknesses can be identified and removed. this makes
certain that the prop is of adequate strength and has no stress
increasing voids or splits within it.
laminating also allows the weight of each blade to be evened up if
necessary by end for ending heavier ended laminates.

as bob hoover says, try as you may, your first prop will be a junk
item. your second prop will probably be usable though.

my first prop was in eucalyptus deligatensis, was all glued up and
shmick (...an australian term for bonzer, which is an australian term
for pretty near perfect)
I carved the back faces by the old practise of tenon saw cuts almost
down to the face and chiseling out the waste then rasp and sanding to
the final shape. the rear faces looked bloody beautiful. all the
cutaway glue joints were broken and found to have impressive
strengths.

work interrupted and I had to leave it for a few months.

on my prop the back face is recessed. note that the front face is the
datum. to do the recess I set up my saw bench to the depth needed and
passed the half carved blank back and forth across the circular blade
to cut out to the depth. something about the eucalyptus makes it
difficult sawing and the rear face was left less than perfect.
work interrupted again.

when I bought my knee mill I realised that by putting the front face
of the prop face down on the milling table I could traverse a cutter
to correct my datum problems with the rear face of the hub. in
practise this worked well.
however.....
while I was sitting there traversing the cutter (manual mill controls)
I noticed a dark line in one of the joints that shouldnt have been
there. I cleaned up a thin automotive feeler gauge and probed the dark
line. to my horror the feeler could be pushed in full depth.
doesnt end there though.
the feeler could be slid along quite a way.
then I noticed another dark line.
the feeler could be slid in full depth and moved quite a distance.
then I noticed another dark line. ...and another. ...and another.

I went back and tested to destruction the joints in all the cutaway
chips. all showed perfect glue strengths.

to admit that this caused some consternation is to understate the
confusion totally. how could joints just a few millimeters apart be so
different? I even located chips that came off right adjacent to some
of the cracks. the jointing in the chips was perfect while the actual
blade was utterly incompetent.

I mulled over this for some weeks before deciding that the bandsaw
would answer my questions.
it would also prevent the folly of trying to repair the half shaped
blank.
when I had bandsawed the prop into six inch lengths I went to town on
destructive testing to understand what had gone wrong.

I deduced 3 things.
1...the wood was not fully cured (had not lost all its surplus
cellular water)and the idle period during summer had seen the wood do
some additional slight shrinkage. this was evident in the very slight
cupping of the faces I had tried to glue.

2...the wood showed a trait of eucalyptus that I was referring to
previously when I made mention of a caveat. occasionally the wood
shows a waxy surface that is hard to detect and quite happily ruins
attempts to glue the wood.
I'm told that cabinet makers will wash down the surface with MEK
thinners and Acetone thinners to dissolve the waxes from the glue
surface. evidently when dried off these will glue satisfactorily.
I've yet to try this but be warned!
also glue squeeze out gives absolutely no hint of surface adhesion
problems.

3... the smaller size of the chips meant that the wood had more
surface area to evaporate water from and the distortions that resulted
in cupping in the blank didnt exist in the chips. these differential
shrinkages can create enormous shear forces in the glue joint.

the waxiness in the eucalyptus was so pervasive in places that the
glue had cured without bonding to either adjacent surface!

I hope something is learnt from all this.
I'm goint to try making prop number two in a few months time.

on the airfield a few months ago a commercial wood prop was
investigated for a paint crack. it too was found to be a dry joint for
half a blade. it doesnt just bite us amateurs.

Stealth Pilot

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

>>Woods available are:
>>- spruce
> too soft. although the tensile strength is ok the crush strength in
> the hub will not be sufficient.
>
>>- birch
> probably ok.
>
>>- beech
> probably very ok
>
>>- oak
> probably not the best choice since the wood has chemical interactions
> with iron.
>
>>- eucalyptus (which has neat coloration, btw)
> eucalyptus (sold as "australian oak" in australia), probably euc.
> deligatensis and about 3 other eucalyptus types can be successful
> propellor woods.
> read my caveat that comes later though.
>
>>- paulownia
> very soft new zealand wood suitable as a spruce substitute for ribs
> and the like. probably too soft to make a good prop wood.
>
>>I guess spruce is widely used in aviation,
>
> spruce is used in other areas of wooden aircraft construction but it
> usually isnt suitable for propellors.
>
>> The problem I have with it is the huge number of
>>knotholes, which would weaken the prop.
>
> glad to hear of your concern! it will save your life.
>
> propellor woods need to be denser than the woods used for
> construction. wooden construction typically uses woods in the order of
> 25 to 35 pound per cubic foot density.
> my guess is that propellor woods are best in the 45 to 65 pounds per
> cubic foot density range.
> propellor woods need to be perfect because of the stresses they are
> subjected to. in cruise the tips will be flying around mach 0.8
> props are made in laminates about 10mm thick (or less) so that any
> blemishes and weaknesses can be identified and removed. this makes
> certain that the prop is of adequate strength and has no stress
> increasing voids or splits within it.
> laminating also allows the weight of each blade to be evened up if
> necessary by end for ending heavier ended laminates.

Maple is widely available as flooring. It might be the best choice for a
prop.

I would add a point that nobody has yet added. It is that the orientation
of the grain to the face of the wood in your blanks is very important. The
plain sawed boards more often available will make the weakest blanks,
because of the way the wood changes with changes of moisture content. The
grain needs to be as close to 90 degrees to the face of wood as you can get
it. Also, alternate layers so the wood grain lines are opposite in each
layer as you go. Something like this:

////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb[_2_]]

If you want to build, build.
If you want to fly, buy.

http://www.tn-prop.com/prop.htm

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:18:30 GMT, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:08:07 -0800 (PST), Oliver Arend
> wrote:
>
>>Inspired by a couple of articles on Bob Hoovers blog and the fact that
>>it's likely that my first homebuilt will be slow and VW-powered, I was
>>thinking of making a wood propeller.
><snip>
>>I probably made a beginner's mistake and went to the local home
>>improvement store (Bauhaus, a German chain) to look at the different
>>solid wood boards they offered. The good side: The choice is huge. The
>>bad side: I have no idea if the stuff is any good.
>>
>>Woods available are:
>>- spruce
>too soft. although the tensile strength is ok the crush strength in
>the hub will not be sufficient.
>
>>- birch
>probably ok.
>
>>- beech
>probably very ok
>
>>- oak
>probably not the best choice since the wood has chemical interactions
>with iron.
>
>>- eucalyptus (which has neat coloration, btw)
>eucalyptus (sold as "australian oak" in australia), probably euc.
>deligatensis and about 3 other eucalyptus types can be successful
>propellor woods.
>read my caveat that comes later though.
>
>>- paulownia
>very soft new zealand wood suitable as a spruce substitute for ribs
>and the like. probably too soft to make a good prop wood.
>
>>I guess spruce is widely used in aviation,
>
>spruce is used in other areas of wooden aircraft construction but it
>usually isnt suitable for propellors.
>
>> The problem I have with it is the huge number of
>>knotholes, which would weaken the prop.
>
>glad to hear of your concern! it will save your life.
>
>propellor woods need to be denser than the woods used for
>construction. wooden construction typically uses woods in the order of
>25 to 35 pound per cubic foot density.
>my guess is that propellor woods are best in the 45 to 65 pounds per
>cubic foot density range.
>propellor woods need to be perfect because of the stresses they are
>subjected to. in cruise the tips will be flying around mach 0.8
>props are made in laminates about 10mm thick (or less) so that any
>blemishes and weaknesses can be identified and removed. this makes
>certain that the prop is of adequate strength and has no stress
>increasing voids or splits within it.
>laminating also allows the weight of each blade to be evened up if
>necessary by end for ending heavier ended laminates.
>
> as bob hoover says, try as you may, your first prop will be a junk
>item. your second prop will probably be usable though.
>
>my first prop was in eucalyptus deligatensis, was all glued up and
>shmick (...an australian term for bonzer, which is an australian term
>for pretty near perfect)
>I carved the back faces by the old practise of tenon saw cuts almost
>down to the face and chiseling out the waste then rasp and sanding to
>the final shape. the rear faces looked bloody beautiful. all the
>cutaway glue joints were broken and found to have impressive
>strengths.
>
>work interrupted and I had to leave it for a few months.
>
>on my prop the back face is recessed. note that the front face is the
>datum. to do the recess I set up my saw bench to the depth needed and
>passed the half carved blank back and forth across the circular blade
>to cut out to the depth. something about the eucalyptus makes it
>difficult sawing and the rear face was left less than perfect.
>work interrupted again.
>
>when I bought my knee mill I realised that by putting the front face
>of the prop face down on the milling table I could traverse a cutter
>to correct my datum problems with the rear face of the hub. in
>practise this worked well.
>however.....
>while I was sitting there traversing the cutter (manual mill controls)
>I noticed a dark line in one of the joints that shouldnt have been
>there. I cleaned up a thin automotive feeler gauge and probed the dark
>line. to my horror the feeler could be pushed in full depth.
>doesnt end there though.
>the feeler could be slid along quite a way.
>then I noticed another dark line.
>the feeler could be slid in full depth and moved quite a distance.
>then I noticed another dark line. ...and another. ...and another.
>
>I went back and tested to destruction the joints in all the cutaway
>chips. all showed perfect glue strengths.
>
>to admit that this caused some consternation is to understate the
>confusion totally. how could joints just a few millimeters apart be so
>different? I even located chips that came off right adjacent to some
>of the cracks. the jointing in the chips was perfect while the actual
>blade was utterly incompetent.
>
> I mulled over this for some weeks before deciding that the bandsaw
>would answer my questions.
>it would also prevent the folly of trying to repair the half shaped
>blank.
>when I had bandsawed the prop into six inch lengths I went to town on
>destructive testing to understand what had gone wrong.
>
>I deduced 3 things.
>1...the wood was not fully cured (had not lost all its surplus
>cellular water)and the idle period during summer had seen the wood do
>some additional slight shrinkage. this was evident in the very slight
>cupping of the faces I had tried to glue.
>
>2...the wood showed a trait of eucalyptus that I was referring to
>previously when I made mention of a caveat. occasionally the wood
>shows a waxy surface that is hard to detect and quite happily ruins
>attempts to glue the wood.
>I'm told that cabinet makers will wash down the surface with MEK
>thinners and Acetone thinners to dissolve the waxes from the glue
>surface. evidently when dried off these will glue satisfactorily.
>I've yet to try this but be warned!
>also glue squeeze out gives absolutely no hint of surface adhesion
>problems.
>
>3... the smaller size of the chips meant that the wood had more
>surface area to evaporate water from and the distortions that resulted
>in cupping in the blank didnt exist in the chips. these differential
>shrinkages can create enormous shear forces in the glue joint.
>
>the waxiness in the eucalyptus was so pervasive in places that the
>glue had cured without bonding to either adjacent surface!
>
>I hope something is learnt from all this.
>I'm goint to try making prop number two in a few months time.
>
>on the airfield a few months ago a commercial wood prop was
>investigated for a paint crack. it too was found to be a dry joint for
>half a blade. it doesnt just bite us amateurs.
>
>Stealth Pilot
Gluing "gum" is a lost cause.

[Ernest Christley]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> the crush strength of the wood in the hub area is likely to be the
> critical factor in selecting the wood species used for a propeller.
>

There's not a rule stating that you can't combine species. A lamination
of a harder wood on the front and back of the prop would improve the
props chances of survival.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:58:32 -0500, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> the crush strength of the wood in the hub area is likely to be the
>> critical factor in selecting the wood species used for a propeller.
>>
>
>There's not a rule stating that you can't combine species. A lamination
>of a harder wood on the front and back of the prop would improve the
>props chances of survival.
But the expansion rates may be different enough to cause other
problems - and the CENTER would still compress.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
> There's not a rule stating that you can't combine species. A lamination
> of a harder wood on the front and back of the prop would improve the props
> chances of survival.

Perhaps it would improve, but the hub could still crush the weaker inner
layers.

If it was only crush strength on the surface, that could be fixed by a
thicker washer the hub bolts go through, but that is not the case. The
softer wood in the inner layers that you propose would still crush, which
would lessen the pressure between the hub and wood and washer and wood.

For those that did not know, it is the friction between the hub and the prop
that drives the prop, not the wood being pressed on by the bolts. When the
pressure holding the prop goes down, so does the friction, and the charring
begins, all of the way to failure.
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:15:02 -0500, wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:58:32 -0500, Ernest Christley
> wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>>> the crush strength of the wood in the hub area is likely to be the
>>> critical factor in selecting the wood species used for a propeller.
>>>
>>
>>There's not a rule stating that you can't combine species. A lamination
>>of a harder wood on the front and back of the prop would improve the
>>props chances of survival.
> But the expansion rates may be different enough to cause other
>problems - and the CENTER would still compress.

thank you clare. the problem *is* that the softer laminations
compress.

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:05:37 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>

>
> Maple is widely available as flooring. It might be the best choice for a
>prop.
>
I have often wished I had it available.


>I would add a point that nobody has yet added. It is that the orientation
>of the grain to the face of the wood in your blanks is very important. The
>plain sawed boards more often available will make the weakest blanks,
>because of the way the wood changes with changes of moisture content. The
>grain needs to be as close to 90 degrees to the face of wood as you can get
>it. Also, alternate layers so the wood grain lines are opposite in each
>layer as you go. Something like this:
>
>////////////////////////
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>///////////////////////
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>///////////////////////

agreed.

there was on my airfield a long time ago a 5/8th scale sidlinger
hurricane.
this eventually ended up in a museum after a very checkered safety
history.
at one stage of its life it had a prop made of the most amazing wood.
in parts the wood was a tightly curled grain that would probably be
described as cranky grain. there is no way in hell that a sane person
would have selected such twisted short grained wood in a prop.
the prop was used for about a year through the test flying when a
retract collapsed on landing. the aircraft described a semi circular
skid off the runway, through the dirt, over the taxiway, through even
more dirt and came to rest beside the airfield fence.
the prop had tried to do some considerable rotary hoeing during the
excursion and was smashed into many parts.
of course muggins here was fascinated by the cranky grain and made a
point of finding all the bits to confirm that it had let go where it
appeared to be the most deficient.

I was amazed. not one piece of deficient cranky grain had let go in
the entire prop. all the breaks were through areas of sound wood.
I'm never sure of these certainties any more.

btw I once encountered an ultralight at kalgoorlie that had been flown
across the nullabor in the middle of summer. according to the cockpit
placards the cruise speed was 68knots. it had a reduction belt drive
from a moto guzzi V twin.
the hand carved prop had a bloody big knot in it! it seemed to be
carved from radiata pine and was surviving the flying without a
blemish.
again certainties seem less certain with age!

Stealth (better to just get on with it)Pilot

[flybynightkarmarepair]

On Jan 30, 2:49*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:

> the crush strength of the wood in the hub area is likely to be the
> critical factor in selecting the wood species used for a propeller.

The state of the art in prop bolts for wood propellers:
http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/2008_Zeitlin-Belleville_Washer.pdf

The better the prop is sealed, the less the variance in humidity will
be, so it's important to seal and finish a wood prop.

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:07:19 -0800 (PST), flybynightkarmarepair
> wrote:

>On Jan 30, 2:49*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
>> the crush strength of the wood in the hub area is likely to be the
>> critical factor in selecting the wood species used for a propeller.
>
>The state of the art in prop bolts for wood propellers:
>http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/2008_Zeitlin-Belleville_Washer.pdf
>
>The better the prop is sealed, the less the variance in humidity will
>be, so it's important to seal and finish a wood prop.

my tailwind has used belleville washers on the prop since it was
built.
first flight was october 1985.

without doubt you have the wierdest belleville washer setup on the
prop in the pdf's I have ever seen.
the old bellevilles on my prop are not much bigger than a standard
aircraft washer. the prop uses a steel crush plate. the bellevilles
are it under the bolt head. there are no other washers used.

....which reminds me that I need to replace them and I have no idea
what size was used. they work wonderfully! I use 120 inch pounds of
torque on each bolt.

Stealth Pilot