A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Advancement of prop blade in flight, new information



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 04, 05:37 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Advancement of prop blade in flight, new information

Sorry, I got my information wrong when I stated that a three bladed
prop advanced 15 inches during each revolution at 200 mph.

I now have the article in front of me and the exact quote is as
follows: "At 200 mph and 2,800 rpm, the blades on my three-plade prop
follow three distinct helical paths through the air, and each blade is
25" ahead of the previous blade at the same point of rotation."

I repeat that I am not a prop engineer nor do I have any formal
training in aerodynamics but it appears to me that by advancing 25"
during it's revolution, the affect of one blade might have upon the
next one would seem to be pretty inconsequential.

Corky Scott






  #2  
Old August 16th 04, 06:16 PM
AJW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sorry, I got my information wrong when I stated that a three bladed
prop advanced 15 inches during each revolution at 200 mph.

I now have the article in front of me and the exact quote is as
follows: "At 200 mph and 2,800 rpm, the blades on my three-plade prop
follow three distinct helical paths through the air, and each blade is
25" ahead of the previous blade at the same point of rotation."

I repeat that I am not a prop engineer nor do I have any formal
training in aerodynamics but it appears to me that by advancing 25"
during it's revolution, the affect of one blade might have upon the
next one would seem to be pretty inconsequential.

Corky Scott

For what it's worth, at 150 kts and 2500 RPM means the airplane advances about
6 feet per prop rev. A two bladed prop means each balde is in air 3 feet ahead
of the prior blade.
  #3  
Old August 16th 04, 10:04 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you look at a diagram of the streamlines around a wing, which is all a
prop is, you'll see that the velocity and direction of the air is changed a
surprising distance above and behind the wing. One of your prop blade tips
would be like a wing flying two feet above and behind another. The effect
at this distance would not be significant but would exist.

However, the same prop climbing out at 90 mph and 2800 RPM would put each
blade only 11.15 inches "above" the preceding. This is close enough that
each blade will encounter air that already has some component of motion to
the rear. This reduces the change in velocity (lift) that the blade can
impart.

The three blade prop will be less efficient per unit of area than the two
blade where it counts, near Vx with trees in the windshield. Given a
limitation on length however, the extra blade area of the three blader can
easily offset the efficiency loss by a substantial margin.

Another factor in the efficiency equation is the tips. The tip losses and
vortexes are a big factor in wings which is why there is such emphasis on
making tips small (high aspect ratio) and things like winglets. A three
blade prop has an extra tip which will effect the effeciency without any
help from the blades ahead.

--

Roger Long



"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
Sorry, I got my information wrong when I stated that a three bladed
prop advanced 15 inches during each revolution at 200 mph.

I now have the article in front of me and the exact quote is as
follows: "At 200 mph and 2,800 rpm, the blades on my three-plade prop
follow three distinct helical paths through the air, and each blade is
25" ahead of the previous blade at the same point of rotation."

I repeat that I am not a prop engineer nor do I have any formal
training in aerodynamics but it appears to me that by advancing 25"
during it's revolution, the affect of one blade might have upon the
next one would seem to be pretty inconsequential.

Corky Scott








  #4  
Old August 16th 04, 10:35 PM
DanH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AJW wrote:

[snip]
For what it's worth, at 150 kts and 2500 RPM means the airplane advances about
6 feet per prop rev. A two bladed prop means each balde is in air 3 feet ahead
of the prior blade.


That's the same number I came up with, but that assumes there's a
one-to-one ratio between engine RPM and prop RPM. Is that true of all
single engine piston aircraft? I'm obviously not an AC mechanic, but I
thought I could see a reduction gear in the cowl.

DanH
  #5  
Old August 16th 04, 11:13 PM
AJW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


AJW wrote:

[snip]
For what it's worth, at 150 kts and 2500 RPM means the airplane advances

about
6 feet per prop rev. A two bladed prop means each balde is in air 3 feet

ahead
of the prior blade.


That's the same number I came up with, but that assumes there's a
one-to-one ratio between engine RPM and prop RPM. Is that true of all
single engine piston aircraft? I'm obviously not an AC mechanic, but I
thought I could see a reduction gear in the cowl.

I don't know of a SEL airplane in general use that uses reduction gearing
between the shaft and the prop, Dan.
  #7  
Old August 17th 04, 04:59 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Any airplane with a "G" in its engine designation.

Mike
MU-2

"AJW" wrote in message
...

AJW wrote:

[snip]
For what it's worth, at 150 kts and 2500 RPM means the airplane

advances
about
6 feet per prop rev. A two bladed prop means each balde is in air 3

feet
ahead
of the prior blade.


That's the same number I came up with, but that assumes there's a
one-to-one ratio between engine RPM and prop RPM. Is that true of all
single engine piston aircraft? I'm obviously not an AC mechanic, but I
thought I could see a reduction gear in the cowl.

I don't know of a SEL airplane in general use that uses reduction gearing
between the shaft and the prop, Dan.



  #8  
Old August 17th 04, 09:20 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ajw,

I don't know of a SEL airplane in general use that uses reduction gearing
between the shaft and the prop, Dan.


All Thielert Centurion driven aircraft - way over 100 and counting.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #9  
Old August 17th 04, 10:14 AM
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , AJW wrote:
I don't know of a SEL airplane in general use that uses reduction gearing
between the shaft and the prop, Dan.


Many hundreds of examples of Europa aircraft. My friend's Europa runs
the 4-cylinder, opposed, liquid cooled 914S engine at something like
5400RPM in cruise. I think the prop turns less than half that RPM.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
  #10  
Old August 17th 04, 10:22 AM
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Roger Long wrote:
The three blade prop will be less efficient per unit of area than the two
blade where it counts, near Vx with trees in the windshield. Given a
limitation on length however, the extra blade area of the three blader can
easily offset the efficiency loss by a substantial margin.


Anecdotally, I'd say that the extra blade does easily offset the losses.
You see quite a few glider tugs (lower powered ones especially) like the
Ralleye with a 4-blade prop to improve climb performance (and reduce
noise due to shorter blades)


--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 Mark Oliver Aerobatics 1 October 5th 04 10:20 PM
A question only a newbie would ask Peter Duniho Piloting 68 August 18th 04 11:54 PM
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots [email protected] Owning 9 April 1st 04 02:54 AM
IVO props... comments.. Dave S Home Built 16 December 7th 03 12:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.