![]() |
| 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 |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 03:26 PM |
| new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 11:20 PM |
| A question only a newbie would ask | Peter Duniho | Piloting | 68 | August 19th 04 12:54 AM |
| Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 03:54 AM |
| IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 7th 03 12:43 AM |