![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Corky,
You don't see that so much anymore in certified airplanes But you will, again. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Corky
Computer dropped my add on to your posting so will try again. Besides the round engines, the V's also had gearing. The Merlin in the P-51 had a two to one (ie, engine ran 3000 rpm on take off and prop turned 1500 rpm). Big John On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:03:06 -0400, Corky Scott wrote: You don't see that so much anymore in |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "AJW" wrote in message news:20040816181349.12901.00001819@mb- I don't know of a SEL airplane in general use that uses reduction gearing between the shaft and the prop, Dan. My old Navion, Helio Couriers, Republic Seabees, Cessna 175's... Lots of Rotax powered light planes... Not overly common, but they are out there. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"DanH" 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. DanH In addition, the term "slippage" comes into play. That's the difference between the theoretical distance the prop should advance with each revolution and the actual. And besides a reduction gear creating a difference between engine and prop RPM, a constant speed prop gives control of the prop speed to the pilot or the prop governor mechanism. -- Scott |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"tscottme" wrote in message
... In addition, the term "slippage" comes into play. That's the difference between the theoretical distance the prop should advance with each revolution and the actual. The slippage is only related to a theoretical number based on the prop pitch. For the purpose of this discussion, the only interesting thing is the prop RPM versus forward speed. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() DanH wrote: I'm obviously not an AC mechanic, but I thought I could see a reduction gear in the cowl. That was probably the flywheel -- they have toothed edges to mesh with the starter. If gears are used for a reduction system, they are likely to be enclosed in a housing; you wouldn't be able to see them. George Patterson If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people he gives it to. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 at 21:04:45 in message
, 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. Just curious, but how does this fit with the 6 bladed props on the latest C130s? The Herk has gone from 3 to 4 to 6 bladed props it seems. Short take off and good climb out is a major requirement for the C130 I would have thought? Still curious but how does the extra blade area compensate for a loss of efficiency? Depends how you define efficiency perhaps? If the 3-blade prop loses something does the extra blade area restore the efficiency? Another thought: No matter how many blades there are they are all subject to exactly the same conditions. There is not a leading blade. The other blades are in no sense one behind the other. In fact the rotation of the prop radically changes the velocity vector that actually meets the blade. The extreme of this is the enclosed fan where the enclosure markedly reduces tip losses. The fan runs nicely along like this with a high blade area and little daylight visible through the disc. ;-) -- David CL Francis |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"David CL Francis" wrote in message
... The extreme of this is the enclosed fan where the enclosure markedly reduces tip losses. The fan runs nicely along like this with a high blade area and little daylight visible through the disc. Whatever happened to the concept of piston engines running a ducted fan? That aerocar thing has them, but what about on other more normal planes? How efficient is a ducted fan compared to a prop? I seem to remember hearing in model aircraft settings, a prop is more efficient. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 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 6th 03 11:43 PM |