A Public Domain Disclosure- A Passive Counter-rotating Auxillary Propellor.

[[email protected]]

sci.aeronautics does not allow theory work, only aerodynamics b.s.

So my disclosure of a nice STC project is this invention of mine. It
may have been invented already by somebody else, and I have not read
about it. Either way, if I am the first, it is now a public domain
invention, for all to use!!!

The second reversed pitch auxillary prop is mounted on the free
whelling bearing directly, one inch away from the powered prop. It is
intented to simply increase the efficiency of the powered prop. The
drag of the single free wheeling prop will not be found because it
causes the powered prop to function far better. A dislocation of
logic is to add the single drag experiment to the counter-rotating
invention, and then to deny the function of the second example and not
the first also.

So NASA and aerodynamics moderators, can take a hike. I will try the
double prop experiment on my Cessna150 and report back. It only needs
a runway acceleration test to make the data. It should be fun, a light
wood ultralight prop, spinning in front of the aluminum cessna prop!!!

As a drag inducer it will function fine, except the power must be
removed from the aluminum prop also, this is a physics now not
aerodynamics. A nice decent rate control. And hopefully a 30% reduced
takeoff distance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good fun experimental work, with no 337 needed because it will be taxi
only testing? That is a question. Can I test on the runway, with no
intention to take off? And be FAA legal???

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

[Jim Fisher]

> wrote in message
> Good fun experimental work, with no 337 needed because it will be taxi
> only testing? That is a question. Can I test on the runway, with no
> intention to take off? And be FAA legal???

I think you should go ahead and take a flight test with it but maybe that's
just me.

--
Jim Fisher

[Dan Luke]

Eagleson> wrote:
> sci.aeronautics does not allow theory work,

No, Einstein, it's twits they don't allow.

You already know the kind of reception twits get over here, so you might
as well move on.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Jim Fisher]

> wrote in message
It
> may have been invented already by somebody else, and I have not read
> about it.

It has. Submarines use this technology to reduce cavitation and noise.

Either way, if I am the first, it is now a public domain
> invention, for all to use!!!

As soon as you come up with a way to offset the added weight and complexity
(gotta ad a gear box there somewhere, ya' know) I'm sure you are sitting on
a million dollars, Doug. Got for it, buddy!

--
Jim Fisher

[Todd Pattist]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote:

>As soon as you come up with a way to offset the added weight and complexity
>(gotta ad a gear box there somewhere, ya' know)

I think he's talking about a free-wheeling auxiliary prop
with an opposite pitch. I've got no idea why he thinks
it's beneficial.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[One's Too Many]

>
> I think he's talking about a free-wheeling auxiliary prop
> with an opposite pitch. I've got no idea why he thinks
> it's beneficial.

It will be beneficial. It'll help prevent the powered prop of his 150
from cavitating when he flies underwater.

[Dean Wilkinson]

Doug,

Here is a better way to get off the ground sooner... put a hat on your
head with a propeller on top that is free-wheeling. When you start
your takeoff roll, make sure you make airplane noises, that helps too.

Dean

wrote in message >...
> sci.aeronautics does not allow theory work, only aerodynamics b.s.
>
> So my disclosure of a nice STC project is this invention of mine. It
> may have been invented already by somebody else, and I have not read
> about it. Either way, if I am the first, it is now a public domain
> invention, for all to use!!!
>
> The second reversed pitch auxillary prop is mounted on the free
> whelling bearing directly, one inch away from the powered prop. It is
> intented to simply increase the efficiency of the powered prop. The
> drag of the single free wheeling prop will not be found because it
> causes the powered prop to function far better. A dislocation of
> logic is to add the single drag experiment to the counter-rotating
> invention, and then to deny the function of the second example and not
> the first also.
>
> So NASA and aerodynamics moderators, can take a hike. I will try the
> double prop experiment on my Cessna150 and report back. It only needs
> a runway acceleration test to make the data. It should be fun, a light
> wood ultralight prop, spinning in front of the aluminum cessna prop!!!
>
> As a drag inducer it will function fine, except the power must be
> removed from the aluminum prop also, this is a physics now not
> aerodynamics. A nice decent rate control. And hopefully a 30% reduced
> takeoff distance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Good fun experimental work, with no 337 needed because it will be taxi
> only testing? That is a question. Can I test on the runway, with no
> intention to take off? And be FAA legal???
>
> Douglas Eagleson
> Gaithersburg, MD USA

[[email protected]]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> It
> > may have been invented already by somebody else, and I have not read
> > about it.
>
> It has. Submarines use this technology to reduce cavitation and noise.
>
> Either way, if I am the first, it is now a public domain
> > invention, for all to use!!!
>
> As soon as you come up with a way to offset the added weight and complexity
> (gotta ad a gear box there somewhere, ya' know) I'm sure you are sitting on
> a million dollars, Doug. Got for it, buddy!

The test prop is a light wood, ultralight prop, 20 inchs shorter than
the C-150 prop. It can be bolted to the hub bearing wise. A small
inch shaft is used and a pair of normal flange bearings. It should be
suitable for flight, and its harmonic is expected to be about 300 rpm.
So it should then vibrate again at about 40 rpm:) Meaning it will be
stable in high rpm moving conditions because the power is applied by
the air movement and not the shaft!

The shorter prop will have the air redirected onto the part of the
prop that looks like it is incapable of making wind. The thick near
the hub parts.
The need for the rather odd twist on the aircraft is vibration. A
boat design with the pitch fully carried to the hub will vibrate and
fatiuge the wood fibers even.

An STC for a C-150 is easy if the weight change is nose down weight.
Adding weight to the tail is the hard STC to obtain. Adding a lighter
starter, as an STC, is the same type of stability change.

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> Good fun experimental work, with no 337 needed because it will be taxi
> only testing? That is a question. Can I test on the runway, with no
> intention to take off? And be FAA legal???

Yes. You might try the idea out with models first.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Corky Scott]

On 25 Mar 2004 05:36:41 -0800, wrote:

or it, buddy!
>
>The test prop is a light wood, ultralight prop, 20 inchs shorter than
>the C-150 prop. It can be bolted to the hub bearing wise. A small
>inch shaft is used and a pair of normal flange bearings. It should be
>suitable for flight, and its harmonic is expected to be about 300 rpm.
>So it should then vibrate again at about 40 rpm:) Meaning it will be
>stable in high rpm moving conditions because the power is applied by
>the air movement and not the shaft!
>
>The shorter prop will have the air redirected onto the part of the
>prop that looks like it is incapable of making wind. The thick near
>the hub parts.
>The need for the rather odd twist on the aircraft is vibration. A
>boat design with the pitch fully carried to the hub will vibrate and
>fatiuge the wood fibers even.
>
>An STC for a C-150 is easy if the weight change is nose down weight.
>Adding weight to the tail is the hard STC to obtain. Adding a lighter
>starter, as an STC, is the same type of stability change.
>
>Douglas Eagleson
>Gaithersburg, MD USA

Let me see if I've got this right. You bolt this prop on top of the
original prop? And it's pitched to rotate in the opposite direction
of the prop? And it's free wheeling, rotated by the movement of the
airplane through the air?

And this much smaller prop, that is basically a wooden pinwheel, is
supposed to direct the air to the part of the regular prop that is
closest to the hub?

This would be the same part of the prop that basically contributes
almost no thrust because 1. it's spinning too slowly being close to
the hub to produce much thrust and 2. The bulk of the fuselage is
right in back of this part of the prop which tends to negate any
thrust produced within that area. Right? Oh wait, there's a third
point. 3. this part of the prop isn't really shaped as an airfoil, at
least not the part close to the hub, so it cannot produce a bunch of
thrust anyway.

So this pinwheel that's spinning in front of the regular prop not only
will not produce drag, it will make the portion of the propeller that
is blocked by the fuselage suddenly produce thrust?

Did I understand all that correctly?

If I did, I'm pretty sure the "you can't get something for nothing"
dictate applies here.

Corky Scott

[John Galban]

wrote in message >...
>
> The test prop is a light wood, ultralight prop, 20 inchs shorter than
> the C-150 prop. It can be bolted to the hub bearing wise.

This could be expensive. Usually one would expect you to destroy
only 1 propellor when your "Eagleson Landing" collapses the nose gear.
Now it'll cost you two props. Doesn't sound cost-effective to me.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

(Corky Scott) wrote in message >...
> On 25 Mar 2004 05:36:41 -0800, wrote:
>
> or it, buddy!
> >
> >The test prop is a light wood, ultralight prop, 20 inchs shorter than
> >the C-150 prop. It can be bolted to the hub bearing wise. A small
> >inch shaft is used and a pair of normal flange bearings. It should be
> >suitable for flight, and its harmonic is expected to be about 300 rpm.
> >So it should then vibrate again at about 40 rpm:) Meaning it will be
> >stable in high rpm moving conditions because the power is applied by
> >the air movement and not the shaft!
> >
> >The shorter prop will have the air redirected onto the part of the
> >prop that looks like it is incapable of making wind. The thick near
> >the hub parts.
> >The need for the rather odd twist on the aircraft is vibration. A
> >boat design with the pitch fully carried to the hub will vibrate and
> >fatiuge the wood fibers even.
> >
> >An STC for a C-150 is easy if the weight change is nose down weight.
> >Adding weight to the tail is the hard STC to obtain. Adding a lighter
> >starter, as an STC, is the same type of stability change.
> >
> >Douglas Eagleson
> >Gaithersburg, MD USA
>
> Let me see if I've got this right. You bolt this prop on top of the
> original prop? And it's pitched to rotate in the opposite direction
> of the prop? And it's free wheeling, rotated by the movement of the
> airplane through the air?
>
> And this much smaller prop, that is basically a wooden pinwheel, is
> supposed to direct the air to the part of the regular prop that is
> closest to the hub?
>
> This would be the same part of the prop that basically contributes
> almost no thrust because 1. it's spinning too slowly being close to
> the hub to produce much thrust and 2. The bulk of the fuselage is
> right in back of this part of the prop which tends to negate any
> thrust produced within that area. Right? Oh wait, there's a third
> point. 3. this part of the prop isn't really shaped as an airfoil, at
> least not the part close to the hub, so it cannot produce a bunch of
> thrust anyway.
>
> So this pinwheel that's spinning in front of the regular prop not only
> will not produce drag, it will make the portion of the propeller that
> is blocked by the fuselage suddenly produce thrust?
>
> Did I understand all that correctly?
>
> If I did, I'm pretty sure the "you can't get something for nothing"
> dictate applies here.
>
> Corky Scott


When considering total fuel efficiency, the extra performance is
indeed
this kind. The power is wasted rotating the weight of the ineffective
blade. The weight is decelerated by a sideways blowing of air,
requiring wasted fuel power. And this wrong direction air goes
sideways, and not rearwards. So this wasted power is redirected to the
rear!! Redirected by the free-wheeling blade.