![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 20, 8:51*am, bildan wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:09*am, wrote: On Nov 19, 5:59*pm, "noel.wade" wrote: Can anyone corroborate those numbers? Numbers? *No... A four blade Pawnee going low overhead at full power is still very loud. *The prop does nothing for the engine noise and the Pawnee has quite a lot of that. *What it eliminates is the 'snarl' from high speed prop tips that is most noticeable to an observer in the plane of the prop. If 'snarl' is your problem, maybe this is your solution. The performance loss is noticeable and annoying, but not a deal breaker in itself. Clubs I know who've bought them have not been real impressed. *For the price, I'd like to be impressed. *Ymmv. -T8 It's interesting to do some highly oversimplified "back of the envelope" numbers on Pawnee tugs. *(The following ignores some important stuff.) Assume a 40:1 glider weighing 1000 pounds being towed at its best L/D airspeed of 60KTS and climbing at 500FPM. *1000/40 = 25 pounds of aerodynamic drag. *60x25/325 = 4.6HP to overcome that drag. Of course the tug is lifting the glider at 500FPM or 8.33 FPS so 8.33x1000/550 = 15.14HP to lift the weight of the glider. 15.14+4.6 = 19.74HP which is the rate at which work being done on the glider by the Pawnee. *In other words, only approximately 20HP is used to tow the glider. If the tug engine is actually producing 230HP (highly doubtful), 210HP is being wasted somewhere - most of which is probably just the Pawnee hauling itself through the air. *That wasted energy is where most of the noise is coming from. The above suggests that a tug with a highly aerodynamic airframe could use far less HP which is why 80HP motorglider tugs seem to work so quietly. Or lets guess around 30 hp assuming prop (in)efficiency, ~80% best case?, but who knows in practice. And the wasted energy is where *all* the noise comes from :-) And as a data point, the ~50 shp engine in my ASH-26E give up to 700 fpm climb... on a good day. A more efficient tug could reduce the amount of prop thrust needed and therefore noise that needs to be made in the first place. If prop noise is a significant factor, which it seems to be, adding blades definitely seems to help. BTW I agree with your earlier post about the apparent differences in towing behind a Pawnee with a Hoffman 4 bladed prop. Soar Truckee switched to a four bladed prop and did some good community PR work around reducing noise, including a positive article in the local newspaper. See - www.soartruckee.com/pdfs/Pickle_part_1_0612.pdf and www.soartruckee.com/pdfs/Pickle_part_2_0612.pdf The rate of climb with a heavy glider (e.g. DG-1000S with two occupants) at ~7k'+ density altitude seemed a little lower than a two bladed prop, but that's not a scientific comparison. Mile High may be able to provide data on that as well. Hopefully a tow pilot with experience with these will weigh in. Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
To Pawnee or not to Pawnee...that is the question... | Travis Beach | Soaring | 56 | March 24th 14 06:21 AM |
To Pawnee or not to Pawnee...that is the question... | Travis Beach | Soaring | 4 | October 17th 07 01:31 PM |
3-blade prop? | Jay Honeck | Owning | 19 | September 27th 06 09:29 AM |
Complex / High Performance / Low Performance | R.T. | Owning | 22 | July 6th 04 08:04 AM |
Pawnee t/o performance-towing | Kurt | Soaring | 2 | September 24th 03 08:39 AM |