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

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message et...
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

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

(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.

wrote in message m...

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)