![]() |
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Don W" wrote in message
. net... Can someone explain to me why 300HP applied to a large rotor at ~700 RPM is enough to lift a 2000lb helicopter straight up, but the same 300HP applied to a smaller diameter propellor at ~2600 RPM can not even come close to allowing a 2000 LB airplane to climb vertically? This is really bugging me. BTW, does anyone have any idea what the thrust produced by the propellor of the hypothetical 300 HP (say LYC-IO540 powered) airplane would be? Obviously the thrust produced by the 300HP helicopter exceeds 2000 LBs. TIA, Don W. I am not a helicopter guy, so please don't expect my to carry this thread very far; but I'll try at the most basic level. Lift as generated by throwing air downward in order to maintain the altitude, or the constant rate of ascent or descent, of an object is based upon a momentum equation--rather than an energy equation. Therefore, throwing twice as much air downward half as fast will support the same weight; but will require about half as much energy per unit time, or about one half the horsepower. Remember that horsepower is a measure of energy, or work, per unit of time. The helicopter is thus supported on the downwash from its rotor, producing a vertical thrust at least equal to its weight (actually more when hovering) and literally glides forward in response to tilt. I stopped for a moment to dress in my flame retarding coveralls in anticipation of the response to my use of the word "glide"; however that is what it does. It even recovers a little efficiency, compared to its hovering condition, by virtue of continuously transitioning onto new and undisturbed air. At its most "efficient" speed, a helicopter might be more than half as efficient as a really atrocious airplane. OTOH, in the case of an airplane propeller, we need to make the energy equation work--while the wings deal with the momentum equation. We can choose a wingspan appropriate for the intended weight and cruising speed and a wing area to meet our stall speed requirements, determine the expected drag in cruise, choose a propeller disk area and number of blades appropriate for reasonable efficiency in cruise, and match the result to an engine, and possibly a PRSU since the propeller disk area determines the diameter and the maximum RPM. Finally, determine that the available power can supply sufficient thrust for take-off and climb. Traditionally, small airplanes produce a maximum static thrust on the order of one fifth of their weight when tied in place, and much less in cruise. The propeller, of course, constantly transitions into new and undisturbed air and its efficiency improves from zero at the start of the take-off roll to an acceptable figure in cruise. One size does not fit all. BTW, a 700 rpm rotor is pretty small and may be really inefficient--even by helicopter standards! I hope this helps. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Propellors for sale | Jean-Paul Roy | General Aviation | 0 | July 15th 04 02:33 PM |
Propellors for sale | Jean-Paul Roy | Owning | 0 | July 15th 04 02:32 PM |
Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?) | Ken Sandyeggo | Home Built | 13 | August 6th 03 06:37 AM |
Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?) | Ken Sandyeggo | Rotorcraft | 2 | August 6th 03 06:37 AM |
Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?) | Mark Hickey | Rotorcraft | 4 | August 1st 03 05:20 AM |