![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 9, 2:39*pm, wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote: Years ago, when there was a controversy as to whether paddles or propellers were most efficient for ships, the British came up with a simple test: *They built two identical ships, with identical engines, one with paddles and one with a prop. *They tied a rope between the sterns, and had the captains go to full power to see which had more thrust. Wikipedia says that "In 1848 the British Admiralty held a tug of war contest between a propeller driven ship, Rattler, and a paddle wheel ship, Alecto. Rattler won, towing Alecto astern at 2.5 knots (4.6 km/h)...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller Jim Logajan wrote: However, it is probable that the paddle wheel ship simply didn't have the right size paddles. Paddle wheels should be capable of efficiencies similar to propellers - but it takes very large wheels. I used to think so, too, but an article a couple of years ago in Flying, by Peter Garrison, set me straight. It was about Lift to Drag ratios and *Coefficients of Lift, and laid out what those mean not only in terms of wings, but any foil, including propellers. A paddlewheel cannot generate any more thrust than the torque applied to its shaft can produce at the arm-length of the paddle, while a propeller can produce more thrust because its blades can cut through the medium with a minimum of effort and produce considerably more lift or thrust for a given torque than a paddle will. So we don't see paddlewheels on boats anymore. I wish I could find Garrison's article again. Dan That's a more insightful argument than the ones I'd have made, eg (1) no matter how large the paddle wheel, at least some of the energy would be spent pushing down, than up, on the water, rather than throwing it aft, and (2) a screw can be placed deep in the water with less rooster tail losses. You can't get more power out than you put in, but any effort that makes the thrust more efficient pays off. Thanks for the tip. As an aside, someone pointed out that a windmilling prop is a lot like a wing flying upside down -- not nearly as effective, camber is on the wrong side. Once mentioned it was obvious. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LPV versus LNAV/VNAV versus LNAV+V | Wyatt Emmerich[_2_] | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | December 17th 07 01:38 AM |
Wooden Propellers | Danny Deger | Piloting | 11 | March 4th 07 10:17 AM |
Propellers | [email protected] | Home Built | 6 | March 30th 06 01:41 PM |
"zero" versus "oscar" versus "sierra" | Ron Garret | Piloting | 30 | December 20th 04 08:49 AM |
Missing propellers | Benny | Simulators | 1 | March 18th 04 07:18 PM |