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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
On 2008-07-12, sid wrote:
Looking in my Warrior II Information manual, the prop is listed as a: Sensenich 74DM6-0-60 or 74DM6-0-58. Is the "inches of pitch" encoded in that number ? Yup...the -60 or -58 is the pitch at 3/4 of the blade length. (The 74 is the diameter in inches.) -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!) AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
: "sid" wrote in message news:799b2347-57da-401d-b49a-d012f9053f35 @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com. .. Not knowing much about props, what do you mean by "... they are each 2 inches of pitch apart." ? I thought props were measured in dia. and angle ? Thanks -------------------------------------------------------------------- A propellers angle or pitch is expressed in inches. Theoretically, a 24" pitch prop has an angle that would travel 24" forward with each revolution, at zero angle of attack. The smaller the number, the flatter the prop. If that seems confusing, consider a right trangle. If the circumference of the propeller arc at any given station is the base, the pitch is the height, and the resulting angle is the pitch angle for that station. That's why props have less angle at the tip, than at the root. Theoretically, it keeps the entire lenght of the blade working at the same angle of attack. Thus climb props are flatter or less pitch, and cruise props have more. nice cuat and paste luser boi. Bertie |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:40:54 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net
wrote: wrote in message ... I can understand why a poor -- as in not smooth -- paint job would alter the prop's efficiency, but never would have guessed having a fractional mm of paint ablated from the leading edge of the prop would affect it that much. Tongue in cheek question -- did the natural color of the prop clash with that color and scare the air, or something? On a serious note, have you any thoughts as to why such a minor change in shape would have such a remarkable change in efficiency? A 5 knot change in airspeed is like reducing the manifold an inch or so, isn't it? That's huge! It also suggests there may be very minor changes in prop that could improve performance too. --------------------------------------------------- You are absolutely right, and his is just exaggerating again as usual. Just keep an eye on his posts, you will come to expect it in time. unlike retards like you maxie I actually regularly fly and have a real life. I have no need to exaggerate. life is sweet enough for me using the real numbers. Stealth Pilot |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
On Jul 12, 7:39*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:40:54 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote: wrote in message .... I can understand why a poor -- as in not smooth -- paint job would alter the prop's efficiency, but never would have guessed having a fractional mm of paint ablated from the leading edge of the prop would affect it that much. Tongue in cheek question -- did the natural color of the prop clash with that color and scare the air, or something? On a serious note, have you any thoughts as to why such a minor change in shape would have such a remarkable change in efficiency? A 5 knot change in airspeed is like reducing the manifold an inch or so, isn't it? That's huge! It also suggests there may be very minor changes in prop that could improve performance too. --------------------------------------------------- You are absolutely right, and his is just exaggerating again as usual. Just keep an eye on his posts, you will come to expect it in time. unlike retards like you maxie I actually regularly fly and have a real life. I have no need to exaggerate. life is sweet enough for me using the real numbers. Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So of the 2 props, 58" and 60" Which would be considered the cruise and which is the performance ? Or are they not far enough apart to tell the difference ? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
On Jul 12, 8:37*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:00:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Jul 11, 7:09*am, Stealth Pilot wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: sid wrote in news:702f8b8d-b77e-452c-904c- : On older planes, does the angle of attack change ? Does the prop angle relax like a motorboat prop does after 1 or 2 decades of constant use ? (fixed pitch of course) There are some older warriors on the field (20 - 25) years, and it seems that there props don't have the bite that the new warrior (10 years old) does. No, but years of wear and dressing the prop because of nicks and what not doesn't do them any good at all. Bertie I have a fibreglass covered wooden prop which makes it reasonably resilient in light rain. I paint it. when the aforesaid light rain has eroded the paint *near the leading edge I lose 5 knots in cruise speed. also If I alter the shape with a poor paint coat I lose cruise speed. the other factor with some commercial aircraft is that there are often 3 props approved for them. a climb, a utility and a cruise prop. on little cessnas they are each 2 inches of pitch apart. memories of cruise with a cruise prop would make cruise on a climb prop seem quite anaemic. ....and what bertie wrote. Stealth Pilot I can understand why a poor -- as in not smooth -- paint job would alter the prop's efficiency, but never would have guessed having a fractional mm of paint ablated from the leading edge of the prop would affect it that much. Tongue in cheek question -- did the natural color of the prop clash with that color and scare the air, or something? On a serious note, have you any thoughts as to why such a minor change in shape would have such a remarkable change in efficiency? A 5 knot change in airspeed is like reducing the manifold an inch or so, isn't it? That's huge! It also suggests there may be very minor changes in prop that could improve performance too. l the prop had a fairly average sheath put on it. average workmanship. I use the paint layers to fair the surface to a smoother shape. the face I see is painted matte black to make it invisible. the leading edge is blue, the rest varnish. chipped paint just creates a turbulator which seems to affect this blade section. (clark Y, aka naca 44xx series) I got 5 extra knots in cruise for nothing when I cleaned up the prop and got the shape right the first time. the damaged leading edge paint just drops me back to the original slower cruise. Stealth Pilot Five knots is a huge gain. I remember reading some years ago of a homebuilt getting a new paint job, and the color change on the wings led to a paint 'bump' or seam near the leading edge which so altered the airflow the airplane could not fly (probably changed the stagnation line). Still, that big a change in cruise speed seems remarkable. In that I fly behind controllable pitch props it's nothing I'd have noticed, but still, if TLC gains that kind of speed advantage it should be standard of care for propellers. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:49:29 -0700 (PDT), sid
wrote: On Jul 12, 7:39*am, Stealth Pilot wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:40:54 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote: wrote in message ... I can understand why a poor -- as in not smooth -- paint job would alter the prop's efficiency, but never would have guessed having a fractional mm of paint ablated from the leading edge of the prop would affect it that much. Tongue in cheek question -- did the natural color of the prop clash with that color and scare the air, or something? On a serious note, have you any thoughts as to why such a minor change in shape would have such a remarkable change in efficiency? A 5 knot change in airspeed is like reducing the manifold an inch or so, isn't it? That's huge! It also suggests there may be very minor changes in prop that could improve performance too. --------------------------------------------------- You are absolutely right, and his is just exaggerating again as usual. Just keep an eye on his posts, you will come to expect it in time. unlike retards like you maxie I actually regularly fly and have a real life. I have no need to exaggerate. life is sweet enough for me using the real numbers. Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So of the 2 props, 58" and 60" Which would be considered the cruise and which is the performance ? Or are they not far enough apart to tell the difference ? the lower the number the finer the pitch. the cruise prop, ie the one more optimised for higher speed cruise, is the 60" prop. the vanilla prop for better climb performance and slower cruise would be the 58" prop. you will notice the difference immediately. if you are thinking of playing with props be careful. the coarser pitch cruise prop will need more runway for the takeoff and the climb out will be worse, but once up at altitude and trimmed for cruise you will see a higher speed. the lower pitch prop will give better takeoff performance and will climb you out a little better but will cruise slower. if you think about it you've just seen the reason variable pitch props were developed. fine pitch for takeoff and coarse pitch for cruise. the pitch figure is for the most effective point on the prop which is the 70% radius position. here are losses toward the hub and tip losses outboard of that position so the rule of thumb is to use the 70% position for pitch calculations. it isnt hard to work out what your prop is doing. the secret is to get everything into common units, typically feet per minute. 60" is 5ft. 5ft x 2500rpm = theoretical speed in ft/minute. cruise speed in knots x 6080 = speed in feet per hour. divide that by 60 and you have speed in feet per minute. compare the two and you'll see what the prop's slip is. if you work out the circumfrence of the circle at the 70% point and do some arc tan on the pitch vs circumference you can work out the flying angle of your prop (at the 70% point). mine flies at close to 4 degrees in cruise. Stealth Pilot |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
On Jul 13, 12:53*am, wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:37*am, Stealth Pilot wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:00:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Jul 11, 7:09*am, Stealth Pilot wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: sid wrote in news:702f8b8d-b77e-452c-904c- : On older planes, does the angle of attack change ? Does the prop angle relax like a motorboat prop does after 1 or 2 decades of constant use ? (fixed pitch of course) There are some older warriors on the field (20 - 25) years, and it seems that there props don't have the bite that the new warrior (10 years old) does. No, but years of wear and dressing the prop because of nicks and what not doesn't do them any good at all. Bertie I have a fibreglass covered wooden prop which makes it reasonably resilient in light rain. I paint it. when the aforesaid light rain has eroded the paint *near the leading edge I lose 5 knots in cruise speed. also If I alter the shape with a poor paint coat I lose cruise speed.. the other factor with some commercial aircraft is that there are often 3 props approved for them. a climb, a utility and a cruise prop. on little cessnas they are each 2 inches of pitch apart. memories of cruise with a cruise prop would make cruise on a climb prop seem quite anaemic. ....and what bertie wrote. Stealth Pilot I can understand why a poor -- as in not smooth -- paint job would alter the prop's efficiency, but never would have guessed having a fractional mm of paint ablated from the leading edge of the prop would affect it that much. Tongue in cheek question -- did the natural color of the prop clash with that color and scare the air, or something? On a serious note, have you any thoughts as to why such a minor change in shape would have such a remarkable change in efficiency? A 5 knot change in airspeed is like reducing the manifold an inch or so, isn't it? That's huge! It also suggests there may be very minor changes in prop that could improve performance too. l the prop had a fairly average sheath put on it. average workmanship. I use the paint layers to fair the surface to a smoother shape. the face I see is painted matte black to make it invisible. the leading edge is blue, the rest varnish. chipped paint just creates a turbulator which seems to affect this blade section. (clark Y, aka naca 44xx series) I got 5 extra knots in cruise for nothing when I cleaned up the prop and got the shape right the first time. the damaged leading edge paint just drops me back to the original slower cruise. Stealth Pilot Five knots is a huge gain. I remember reading some years ago of a homebuilt getting a new paint job, and the color change on the wings led to a paint 'bump' or seam near the leading edge which so altered the airflow the airplane could not fly (probably changed the stagnation line). Sounds like a myth to me. How thick is a paint line? Still, that big a change in cruise speed seems remarkable. I'd say unlikely. Cheers |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Prop angle of attack vs age
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:dt4ek.20332$%q.3231
@newsfe24.lga: "More_Flaps" wrote in message ... I'd say unlikely. Cheers Or hallucination. Your an hullucination? I thought you were more sort of a bad dream. the kind you have whne you eat too many chilli dogs. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Angle of attack | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 27 | December 19th 07 06:17 AM |
Angle of attack (hear it, feel it) | Andre Kubasik | Soaring | 1 | December 16th 07 04:41 PM |
Angle of attack (hear it, feel it) | Andre Kubasik | Soaring | 0 | December 16th 07 03:07 PM |
Stalls - Angle of Attack versus Vstall | [email protected] | Piloting | 44 | October 6th 06 01:26 AM |
Lift and Angle of Attack | Peter Duniho | Simulators | 9 | October 2nd 03 10:55 PM |