A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F4U inverted gull wings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 04, 12:03 AM
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

They wanted to keep the main landing gear as short as possible, to
simplify structural loads. The Hellcat had a relatively long main gear
leg.


A four-bladed prop for the same power output should be shorter than the
three-bladed equivalent.
--

  #2  
Old July 4th 04, 10:46 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Steve Hix writes:
In article ,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

They wanted to keep the main landing gear as short as possible, to
simplify structural loads. The Hellcat had a relatively long main gear
leg.


A four-bladed prop for the same power output should be shorter than the
three-bladed equivalent.


But somewhat less efficient. Each blade added to a propeller knocks
the efficiency down. Later model Corsairs with the more powerful
R2800 'C' series engines had a 4 blade prop, but the diameter is
essentially the same - 13 ' 2".

You also have to tune 'J', the Advance Ratio of the propeller (A
product of propeller rotational speed, propeller diameter, and the
forward velocity of the propeller (and the airplane it's attached
to.) in order to get teh best performance. reducing the diameter for
a given horsepower may have beneficial effects at high speed, but
severely affect the propeller's performance below, say, about 350 mph.

It's all a balancing act - but in ggeneral, you're best off going with
the largest diameter propeller with the fewest number of blades that
you can practically manage.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
--

  #3  
Old July 5th 04, 01:53 PM
Alan Dicey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Stickney wrote:


It's all a balancing act - but in ggeneral, you're best off going with
the largest diameter propeller with the fewest number of blades that
you can practically manage.


i) I'm sure I remember seeing, years ago, a picture of a Noorduyn
Norseman with a single-bladed prop. Since you seem to know what you are
talking about (more than I do, anyway), what factors would drive a
manufacturer to adopt such a radical solution?

ii) Radical solutions such as the Unducted Fan proposals mooted a few
years ago, had many curved blades - any idea what gain they were seeking
that justified the loss in efficiency?

iii) How does this work with contraprops? On the face of it they must
interfere with each other horribly, but they seem to fly quite well.
Can you point me in the direction of some clues?
  #4  
Old July 6th 04, 03:14 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Alan Dicey writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:


It's all a balancing act - but in ggeneral, you're best off going with
the largest diameter propeller with the fewest number of blades that
you can practically manage.


i) I'm sure I remember seeing, years ago, a picture of a Noorduyn
Norseman with a single-bladed prop. Since you seem to know what you are
talking about (more than I do, anyway), what factors would drive a
manufacturer to adopt such a radical solution?


In a word, efficiency. Note that many of the model airplanes used in
free-flight competitions, (Escpecially the rubber powered ones, where
the judges issue you your engine (So many strands of Pirelli rubber,
of some particular length) and "fuel" it up for you (So many turns of
the rubber bands)) where getting the absolute most out of the limited
omount of energy you've got means the difference between winning and
losing, use very wide chord single-bladed propellers. The downside is
that you need a fairly large diameter. That's not much of a problem
in a hand-launched model airplane, but it doesn't work so well in Full
Scale stuff.


ii) Radical solutions such as the Unducted Fan proposals mooted a few
years ago, had many curved blades - any idea what gain they were seeking
that justified the loss in efficiency?


In tha case, what they're trying to do is reduce the effects of the
shockwaves that form on the propeller blades as they fly further and
firther into the transonic region. It's not unlike sweeping a wing
back to delay the Mach Number that the drag rise occurs at, and the
magnitude of the drag rise. Above about Mach 0.65, the efficiency of
a straight propeller drops off alarmingly. At typical airliner cruise
speeds, (Mach 0.78-0.85) efficiency would be down around 60% at teh
low end of the speed range, and 50% at the high end. That's not very
useful at all - there are some measures that you can do to cut the tip
speed down - for example, the Tu-95 Bear (Russian turboprop transonic
bomber) uses a very high step-down gearing from the engines to the
propellers - the props rotate at 750 RPM, vs, say, 1500 or so for that
of a P-51, and a very clever variable pressure ratio compressor system
in its engines that essentially "supercharges" them to deliver sea
level power at 40,000'. (About 3 times what you'd get from a typical
turboprop). The swept propeller blades supply efficiencies in the
Mach 0.78-0.85 range of between 75% and 70%. Using many blades allows
the diameter to be cut down from, say, 22 ft for our notional
conventional propeller to 13 ft. This gives a lower airspeed at the
propeller tip than a large diameter propeller, thus delaying the
transonic effects.
(Note that the entire propeller doesn't go transonic - the airspeed at
the propeller blade is a product of the propeller's rotational speed,
and teh forward speed of the airplane. The rotational speed of the
propeller in ft/sec or m/sec increases as you move outward along the
propeller blade. So, a propeller will start having supersonic flow
appear at the tips, with the supersonic flow field moving inward as
speed increases. A smaller diameter and a slower rotational speed are
helpful in delaying the formation of these shock waves.
(transonic/supersonic flow). You do lose efficiency in the lower
speed ranges, but you get big gains at what your desired cruise speeds
are.


iii) How does this work with contraprops? On the face of it they must
interfere with each other horribly, but they seem to fly quite well.
Can you point me in the direction of some clues?


A contraprop does lose some efficiency by placing one propeller behind
the other, and it requires a more complex drive system. (Which gave
fits on several early U.S. contraprop-equipped aircraft, most notably
the XB-35 Flying Wing, where they never got the contraprops doped out,
and the Hughes XF-11 recon machine (looked like a hyperthyroid
P-38). which was lost on its first flight becasue the aft bladeset in
one of the contraprops went into reverse pitch at low altitude. (This
is the crash that nearly killed Howard Hughes, and led to his drug
addiction (painkillers) and fear of infection.)

What you gain is a greater ability for a propeller of a particular
diameter to absorb power, adn the elimination of torque and P-factor
(destabilization of the airframe due to the rotating airflow from the
propeller affecting the airframe). P-Factor is a Big Deal, with a
high-powered airplane. For example, with a P-51 or a Corsair, you
have to be careful with throttle movement at low speeds, or on
takeoff. If you jam the throttle to it too fast, you'll either swing
off the runway or roll the airplane inverted.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #5  
Old July 6th 04, 09:44 AM
Alan Dicey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
Alan Dicey writes:

Peter Stickney wrote:


It's all a balancing act - but in ggeneral, you're best off going with
the largest diameter propeller with the fewest number of blades that
you can practically manage.


a Noorduyn Norseman with a single-bladed prop: what factors would drive a
manufacturer to adopt such a radical solution?


In a word, efficiency.


Hmm. Efficiency in the sense of translating engine power to thrust? I
can't see it being aimed at top speed, so I guess it would give more
range for a given fuel load?


ii) Radical solutions such as the Unducted Fan proposals mooted a few
years ago, had many curved blades - any idea what gain they were seeking
that justified the loss in efficiency?



In tha case, what they're trying to do is reduce the effects of the
shockwaves that form on the propeller blades as they fly further and
firther into the transonic region. It's not unlike sweeping a wing
back to delay the Mach Number that the drag rise occurs at, and the
magnitude of the drag rise. [...] You do lose efficiency in the lower
speed ranges, but you get big gains at what your desired cruise speeds
are.


Of course - tip speed and transonic drag rise. To get more airscrew in
the airflow /and/ keep the tip speed suitably subsonic,the only answer
is more blades - with sweepback to delay the drag rise. I should have
remebered that from the discussions at the time. None of the Unducted
Fan experiments seem to have made it into a production implementation. I
guess the aim was a cheaper powerplant - propellors being cheaper than
ducted fans - but the loss of efficiency was too great.


iii) How does this work with contraprops? On the face of it they must
interfere with each other horribly, but they seem to fly quite well.



What you gain is a greater ability for a propeller of a particular
diameter to absorb power, adn the elimination of torque and P-factor
(destabilization of the airframe due to the rotating airflow from the
propeller affecting the airframe).


So, for an increase in power turned into thrust there's an improvement
in flyability and the ability to make the airframe lighter because it
doesn't have to absorb the stresses - they're balanced out at the
source. That explains to me how the Fairey Gannet was able to shut off
one half of the Double Mamba powerplant, feather one half of the
contraprop and achieve better endurance at patrol speed.

Thanks very much for taking the time to give me some pointers.

Do you do this for a living? :-)
  #6  
Old July 2nd 04, 06:45 PM
George Ruch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


hobo wrote:

In article ,
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote:

Corsair propeller diameter 13 feet 4 inches, ground clearance
9.1 inches, engine R-2800-8.

The corsair used a 3-blade prop. Why didn't they use a smaller 4-blade
prop if ground clearance was such an issue?


Check again, please: http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4u.htm

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

  #7  
Old July 3rd 04, 12:03 AM
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
George Ruch wrote:

hobo wrote:

The corsair used a 3-blade prop. Why didn't they use a smaller 4-blade
prop if ground clearance was such an issue?


Check again, please: http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4u.htm


The F4U-4 had a four-blade prop, but earlier versions had three blades,
and include a large part of what saw combat in WW2.
--

  #8  
Old July 4th 04, 10:46 PM
hobo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
George Ruch wrote:

hobo wrote:

In article ,
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote:

Corsair propeller diameter 13 feet 4 inches, ground clearance
9.1 inches, engine R-2800-8.

The corsair used a 3-blade prop. Why didn't they use a smaller 4-blade
prop if ground clearance was such an issue?


Check again, please: http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4u.htm


The link you provided has no textual information regarding the prop, but
there is a picture, dated 2001, of a surviving Corsair with a 4 blade
prop. This prop may not be the original factory issue.

When this question was first posted the first website on the Corsair I
found was this:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...t/voughtf4.htm

This is the Smithsonian's website and has a photo of a Corsair with a 3
bladed prop and this text: "The R-2800 radial air-cooled engine
developed 1,850 horsepower and it turned a three-blade Hamilton Standard
Hydromatic propeller with solid aluminum blades spanning 13 feet 1 inch."

This website was my sole source for the claim that the Corsair had a 3
blade prop. Perhaps a 4 blade was later added, but it seems odd that a 3
blade was ever used if ground clearance was so pivotal to the whole
design.
--

  #9  
Old July 6th 04, 04:24 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
hobo writes:
The link you provided has no textual information regarding the prop, but
there is a picture, dated 2001, of a surviving Corsair with a 4 blade
prop. This prop may not be the original factory issue.

When this question was first posted the first website on the Corsair I
found was this:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...t/voughtf4.htm

This is the Smithsonian's website and has a photo of a Corsair with a 3
bladed prop and this text: "The R-2800 radial air-cooled engine
developed 1,850 horsepower and it turned a three-blade Hamilton Standard
Hydromatic propeller with solid aluminum blades spanning 13 feet 1 inch."

This website was my sole source for the claim that the Corsair had a 3
blade prop. Perhaps a 4 blade was later added, but it seems odd that a 3
blade was ever used if ground clearance was so pivotal to the whole
design.


Hobo,
All the F4U-1 models had 3-blade propellers, with a 13'1" diameter.
The later production models, the F4U-4 and F4U-5, with higher-powered
engines, had 4 blade props with a 13'2" diameter, to absorb the extra
power. (More than 800 HP in some versions.)

So, its fair to say that they didn't go to a 4-blade prop to decrease
ground clearance.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
--

  #10  
Old July 16th 04, 02:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:46:07 +0000 (UTC), hobo wrote:

This website was my sole source for the claim that the Corsair had a 3
blade prop. Perhaps a 4 blade was later added, but it seems odd that a 3
blade was ever used if ground clearance was so pivotal to the whole
design.


Prop design is extraordinarily complicated. The Corsair, like several
of the high powered, high speed fighters of WWII had a high enough
performance to reach the boundaries of propeller powered design.

The problem was how to harness all that power. You can use a multi
blade prop with a smaller diameter, but acceleration and climb may be
compromised.

The people who designed the Corsair understood that you loose whatever
thrust was being developed by the inner diameter of the prop because
the thrust is masked by the cowling housing the engine. One way of
getting around the large cowling is to make a large prop. The large
prop allows good takeoff and climb performance. The ability of the
Corsair to haul large loads into the air was likely one of the reasons
it was still flying for the Navy by the time of the Korean war, even
though it had been designed in 1938.

There were actually several reasons for the inverted gull wing design:
This was to be a Navy carrier fighter. Carrier fighters have to land
on board aircraft carriers and this landing is often so harsh that
it's been likened to a barely controlled crash. The landing gear had
to be very very sturdy to take the severe G forces when the airplane
smacked down on the deck.

The design of the fuselage, as was typical for the day, involved a
round cross section. Mating a wing to a round cross section required
a large fairing to reduce drag at the wing to fuselage intersection.
The fairing was not necessary if the wing could be mated at a 90
degree angle to the fuselage.

Finally, the prop being proposed was the biggest ever attached at the
time to a fighter, because the design was to use the Pratt and Whitney
R-2800 engine which at the time was one of the most powerfull ever
developed.

The elegant solution to all three problems was to use the inverted
gull wing. This kept the landing gear short, or at least shorter than
it would have been with a straight wing, made the wing to fuselage
intersection possible without a fairing, and gave the necessary
clearance for that huge prop.

It was not without it's problems however.

Corky Scott

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
All I Wanted For Christmas Were Inverted Spins [email protected] Aerobatics 3 December 29th 04 07:40 PM
VP-II wings available in Oregon, USA (Or, "How I was coconuted...") Roberto Waltman Home Built 2 October 29th 04 04:21 PM
inverted spin recovery explanation Alan Wood Aerobatics 18 August 19th 04 03:32 PM
Double covering fabric covered wings [email protected] Home Built 9 May 9th 04 08:39 PM
Crooked or Wavy Trailing Edges of Wings and Control Surfaces Larry Smith Home Built 3 October 24th 03 02:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.