# Where do you find propeller data



## Zipper730 (May 20, 2022)

For example, where do you find data on blade-angle range, pitch-range, activity factor, overall efficiency and stuff like that for calculating thrust in aircraft.

The following might find this interesting: 

 drgondog
, 

 FLYBOYJ
, 

 GregP

S
 Shortround6
, 

 Snowygrouch
, 
X
 XBe02Drvr


I'm interested in figuring out the ways to calculate these figures myself. I've actually started watching math videos on YouTube (sad that YouTube is better at teaching me math than professional teachers)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 20, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> For example, where do you find data on blade-angle range, pitch-range, activity factor, overall efficiency and stuff like that for calculating thrust in aircraft.
> 
> The following might find this interesting:
> 
> ...


My interest in propellers is operational more than theoretical. Afraid I'm not very useful in pursuit of the esoteric data. Sorry.


----------



## MiTasol (May 20, 2022)

Same here.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 20, 2022)

X
 XBe02Drvr
, the idea was to determine how much thrust was being produced roughly at speed.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> For example, where do you find data on blade-angle range, pitch-range, activity factor, overall efficiency and stuff like that for calculating thrust in aircraft.
> 
> The following might find this interesting:
> 
> ...


You have to start with published manufacturer data from Ham Std, AP and Curtis. Those docs are the source for Performance Analysis by NAA, Republic, Grumman.

The propeller chart efficiencies are extracted from chart for calculated values of efficiency without losses and corrected values due to compressibility. These differ with Tip Mach No, prop thickness and AoA. These values are required to combine with activity factor and prop thickness to apply corrections to the blade's ability to absorb the power of the engine to develop the power coefficient

That is just one aspect of the journey. For recip and Especially In-line engines, the exotic elements of 
1. Exhaust gas thrust Tjet, which is function of mass flow of exhaust gasses in slugs/sec, and the velocity of the ejected gas, the ratio of manifold pressure to outside ambient pressure, the angle of the exhaust stacks to CL of Thrust, and the area of the exhaust stacks.
2. Calculated Thrust Horsepower Delta of Exhaust Thrust as function of Velocity of airframe x Tjet/375.
3. Add to Thrust Horsepower of Prop/Engine system.
4. Gather data to calculate momentum losses of carb air -------> function of specific air consumption, fuel to air ratio, BHP, and Velocity.
5. Because air velocity to carb is immersed in prop slipstream, a correction factor for increased drag is required.
6. Ditto for pressure drag losses due to cooling drag.
7. Calculate pressure drag losses for airframe immersed in prop slipstream.
8. Sum up Thp equation to include base HPower Avaliable plus exhaust Thrust HP, minus Thp loss due to Carb and minus Thp loss due to Cooling Drag,minus Thp loss due to airframe immersed in prop slipstream.

You have already developed tables for Thp as function of Velocity, CL and CD and factored Thp available after reducing based on Parasite Drag, Induced Drag, Mach No corrections to Parasite Drag - as function of Reynolds Number ratio (RN of Wind tunnel Test/RN of actual velocity conditions) ------> then moved to the Propeller and exhaust and carb and cooling thrust and drag calcs discussed above.

This is my one and only discussion on this subject. It makes my head hurt to go back 50 years and pull the 'stuff' together.

One last note, several of the base charts were developed for the airframe companies and used by engineering groups for carb and mass flow rates (R-R and Allison for example) and Prop data (HamStd, Aero Prd, Curtiss). You are unlikely to gather all of what you need to develop a model. 

Now you are ready to make Performance Estimates.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (May 20, 2022)

My head hurts.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> My head hurts.


Mine also. Required assignment in Master's curricula - far easier for jet engine. I did develop an excel spreadsheet for a discussion with Lednicer, based on NAA Performance Report on P-51B. Wish I had seen it much earlier.

The biggest blank spot is lack of access to the HamStd data and R-R data


----------



## Snautzer01 (May 20, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Mine also. Required assignment in Master's curricula - far easier for jet engine. I did develop an excel spreadsheet for a discussion with Lednicer, based on NAA Performance Report on P-51B. Wish I had seen it much earlier.
> 
> The biggest blank spot is lack of access to the HamStd data and R-R data


Yes but you understand that shit. I only read he post you made and go...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> For example, where do you find data on blade-angle range, pitch-range, activity factor, overall efficiency and stuff like that for calculating thrust in aircraft.
> 
> I'm interested in figuring out the ways to calculate these figures myself. I've actually started watching math videos on YouTube (sad that YouTube is better at teaching me math than professional teachers)


I just rely on manufacturer's data In the civilian world much can be found in the type certificate data sheet

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> For example, where do you find data on blade-angle range, pitch-range, activity factor, overall efficiency and stuff like that for calculating thrust in aircraft.
> 
> The following might find this interesting:
> 
> ...


Look to 1.) Hamilton Standard Propellers, "Hamilton Standard Method of Propeller Performance Calculations", b.) NACA Advanced Restricted Report, dated November 1942, "Effect of Exhaust Stack Shape on Design and Performance of the Individual Cylinder Exhaust Gas Propulsion System" and c.) GALCIT Report 390, dated Feb 1944, "Wind Tunnel Tests o on a 1/4 scale North American Model 102 (P-51B) Airplane Equipped with Running Propellers".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (May 20, 2022)

That should keep the Zipper busy for a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 20, 2022)

drgondog said:


> You have to start with published manufacturer data from Ham Std, AP and Curtis. Those docs are the source for Performance Analysis by NAA, Republic, Grumman.


Is there anyplace to find that online?


> The propeller chart efficiencies are extracted from chart for calculated values of efficiency without losses and corrected values due to compressibility. These differ with Tip Mach No, prop thickness and AoA. These values are required to combine with activity factor and prop thickness to apply corrections to the blade's ability to absorb the power of the engine to develop the power coefficient


So you'd have to calculate the tip-speed and apply correction factors? At least I know how to calculate tip-speed.


> That is just one aspect of the journey. For recip and Especially In-line engines, the exotic elements of
> 1. Exhaust gas thrust Tjet, which is function of mass flow of exhaust gasses in slugs/sec, and the velocity of the ejected gas, the ratio of manifold pressure to outside ambient pressure, the angle of the exhaust stacks to CL of Thrust, and the area of the exhaust stacks.
> 2. Calculated Thrust Horsepower Delta of Exhaust Thrust as function of Velocity of airframe x Tjet/375.
> 3. Add to Thrust Horsepower of Prop/Engine system.
> ...


I see your point. I figure just figuring out the propeller's thrust would be the starting point... 


> Look to 1.) Hamilton Standard Propellers, "Hamilton Standard Method of Propeller Performance Calculations", b.) NACA Advanced Restricted Report, dated November 1942, "Effect of Exhaust Stack Shape on Design and Performance of the Individual Cylinder Exhaust Gas Propulsion System" and c.) GALCIT Report 390, dated Feb 1944, "Wind Tunnel Tests o on a 1/4 scale North American Model 102 (P-51B) Airplane Equipped with Running Propellers".


Okay, those sound like outstanding sources. Can't guarantee any success but I'll see what I can do.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I just rely on manufacturer's data In the civilian world much can be found in the type certificate data sheet


If I may ask, where do you find that?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> If I may ask, where do you find that?








RGL Home Page







rgl.faa.gov





Here is an an example of an older "TCDS." Newer ones are more detailed in their information. You can look up the information by manufacturer or model (if known). I can tell you that propellers can be pretty in-depth with models between blades and hubs (if we're talking constant speed props) so it takes a bit to fully understand the data.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 20, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> RGL Home Page
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, I assume you'd either enter model number or search for propellers?

BTW: What does TCDS stand for and, is there any kind of meaning with propeller designations such as 6091A-0?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> So, I assume you'd either enter model number or search for propellers?


Model number or manufacturer - sometimes an individual or organization may hold a TCDS even though they were not the original manufacturer.

Think of a TCDS as the FAA's recognized "birth certificate" of a given product


Zipper730 said:


> BTW: What does TCDS stand for and, is there any kind of meaning with propeller designations such as 6091A-0?


Type Certificate Data Sheet

As far as the numerical meaning - if it's not indicated in the TCDS you'll have to go to the manufacturer, usually in a maintenance manual. Sometimes you can Google the designation and a website may give you a breakdown.

As mentioned, propellers can be complicated

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2022)

I believe 6091A-0 might be related to a HS drawing


----------



## Aeroweanie (May 22, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> For example, where do you find data on blade-angle range, pitch-range, activity factor, overall efficiency and stuff like that for calculating thrust in aircraft.
> 
> The following might find this interesting:
> 
> ...


The attached might help - its stuff I've collected in my career. I'm still looking for similar stuff for the Ham-Std 6153-18, 6261-0, -1, -2 or -3, 6405-18, 6495-20, 6105-8 and 6477-0 blades (all used on the DC-3).

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 23, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Look to 1.) Hamilton Standard Propellers, "Hamilton Standard Method of Propeller Performance Calculations"


I searched and was unable to find this using Google or Bing (though the Google did get me to hamilton-standard's page; Bing got me bubkis).


> b.) NACA Advanced Restricted Report, dated November 1942, "Effect of Exhaust Stack Shape on Design and Performance of the Individual Cylinder Exhaust Gas Propulsion System"


This I found here.


> c.) GALCIT Report 390, dated Feb 1944, "Wind Tunnel Tests o on a 1/4 scale North American Model 102 (P-51B) Airplane Equipped with Running Propellers".


I am unable to find this on Google or Bing. Are there better locations to search?




Aeroweanie said:


> The attached might help - its stuff I've collected in my career.


It seems the propellers you have cover the Convair B-36F, the Douglas C-133, the Lockheed 1649. I'm not exactly sure if everything's in order because the B-36 is powered by R-4360's, the C-133 by T34's, and the 1649 by R3350's.

While this is a crash-course for me: Having found some data on general aviation propellers, which may not work because of the fact that the older props generally had variations in chord and C/L as a function of radius from center to tip, and the formulas described don't factor in variable chord and CL as a function of radius as well as some searching on Google.

It appears that ß = blade angel; b = blade section in feet (I assume this is the chord); while I'm not sure what the difference between integrated and coefficient of lift, IIRC: Coefficient of lift was basically the amount of lift provided to calculated dynamic pressure or force (BTW: Does coefficient of lift and coefficient of thrust on a propeller mean the same thing?)


----------



## Aeroweanie (May 23, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> I searched and was unable to find this using Google or Bing (though the Google did get me to hamilton-standard's page; Bing got me bubkis).
> 
> This I found here.
> 
> ...


Try this:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aeroweanie (May 23, 2022)

And this:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> While this is a crash-course for me: Having found some data on general aviation propellers, which may not work because of the fact that the older props generally had variations in chord and C/L as a function of radius from center to tip, and the formulas described don't factor in variable chord and CL as a function of radius as well as some searching on Google.


Zipper, There is a reason that books on Aero or Performance wave their arms in the air and state "assume prop efficiency is 0.80 (0.85)", and glib step into Thrust HP discussions. Most high performance props fit into that bandwidth. Ditto for Oswald efficiency. I'm too old and tired to devote a lot of cycles on helping you learn differential and integral calculus and the aerodynamics of propeller blades. BTW props have both Lift and Drag as a function of angle, blade section, chord, and radius from axis. Essentially if you wish to develop a Center of Pressure, integrated CL and CD, and spanwise pressure distribution - you must integrate the spanwise airfoil sections as a function of relative angle of attack, wing twist and chord. For 3-D wing, assuming a spanwise rotation from a lifting line to account for induced drag component 


Zipper730 said:


> It appears that ß = blade angel; b = blade section in feet (I assume this is the chord); while I'm not sure what the difference between integrated and coefficient of lift, IIRC: Coefficient of lift was basically the amount of lift provided to calculated dynamic pressure or force (BTW: Does coefficient of lift and coefficient of thrust on a propeller mean the same thing?)


no.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (May 23, 2022)

Differential equations & Analytical Calculus are why I don't have a college degree.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 23, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Zipper, There is a reason that books on Aero or Performance wave their arms in the air and state "assume prop efficiency is 0.80 (0.85)", and glib step into Thrust HP discussions.


That bad eh?


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> That bad eh?


How bad can it be to predict performance of multiple twisted airfoils rotating at high speed in a turbulent and rotational flow in which local velocities approach or exceed Mach1?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2022)

special ed said:


> Differential equations & Analytical Calculus are why I don't have a college degree.


I question the requirement for either math syllabus for Design engineers. The basic understanding of calculus is important when engaged in more theoretical analysis - as well as similarity with matrix operations - but for 99% of mechanical and structural engineering design activities I can't see the need. When I waded through MS program I took Control Theory, Calculus of Variations and Chaos Theory. Only calculus of variations was important in my experience in the abstraction of developing closed solutions for such esoteric stuff as 3-D envelopes (aircraft, wing, etc). That said, computational models developed by theoreticians are required for such esoteric models as CFD. The worst 'differential' equation to deal (for me) with was Navier Stokes - which also requires computational methods to solve because there are more variables than equations.


----------



## special ed (May 24, 2022)

Those were required at USAFA in 1960.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 24, 2022)

special ed said:


> Differential equations & Analytical Calculus are why I don't have a college degree.


At university in 1965 the College of Science and Engineering required three semesters of calculus before a student could pursue ANY science major. I wanted to be a biologist, but found calculus hard going, so when I asked for help I was told if it wasn't intuitive to me, I didn't belong in any field of science. Engineers ruled the roost there, so I was transferred to the "College of Arts and Parties" to become a geographer.


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2022)

special ed said:


> Those were required at USAFA in 1960.


I know - also every university with an engineering degree.

There are a lot of engineering graduates on this forum - so I would put the question? How necessary was Calculus in your engineering based career?


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At university in 1965 the College of Science and Engineering required three semesters of calculus before a student could pursue ANY science major. I wanted to be a biologist, but found calculus hard going, so when I asked for help I was told if it wasn't intuitive to me, I didn't belong in any field of science. Engineers ruled the roost there, so I was transferred to the "College of Arts and Parties" to become a geographer.


And yet one of the best textbook/reference book on drag, Hoener's Fluid Dynamic Drag has only one or two references of diffferentials - in which rate of change with respect to say CL as function of AoA. You had an amazingly negative experience with bigots that probably could not ever explain where calculus was useful in biology.


----------



## special ed (May 24, 2022)

In my case, it was "oh well" if I had made it, the next year was Electrical Engineering and thermodynamics. Double E and thermo wiped out a lot of cadets.


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2022)

special ed said:


> In my case, it was "oh well" if I had made it, the next year was Electrical Engineering and thermodynamics. Double E and thermo wiped out a lot of cadets.


Confess that EE was mostly B avg for me. Thermo/Fluid Mechanics seemed to be easy.

Unfortunately many of the academics teaching Engineering had PhD and an attitude of 'it sucks to be you' with respect to the theoretical vs practical. It is a mafia with respect to inbred textbooks.

My Engineering track at Ga.Tech and U.Texas contained a lot of raw math at the 'proof' level in which theorems ruled the early courses in differential calculus.

Amazing how such marvels as P-51, F-104, B-70 and SR-71 were managed with slide rules and Friden, then HP, calculators. I started my career in airframe industry in 67 when IBM360 and CDC6600 were the rage with 16K of memory and until applications like CAD and NASTRAN surfaced in 69-72 timeframe, computational apps were non-existent other than self developed Basic and Fortran programs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 24, 2022)

I ran into a similar problem with the (theoretical) mathematics teachers, where they were teaching as if everyone had the same fascination/fixation with the math, and not how to apply it. It was very annoying to say the least, and made it significantly harder to learn what I wanted to learn. After the first class where I encountered the problem I just kept asking the teacher to show me how it could be applied. After a while (in some of the classes) all I had to do was raise my hand and the teacher would start on an example.

My sister gave me a HP programmable calculator (reverse polish notation) when I finished my Mechanical Engineering degree in '83. I remember thinking it was so cool, with its one line formula solving ability. Ah, back in the day . . . when men were men, and the newest hand held calculators had more calculating power than all of the Apollo space program.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 25, 2022)

drgondog said:


> You had an amazingly negative experience with bigots that probably could not ever explain where calculus was useful in biology.





drgondog said:


> Unfortunately many of the academics teaching Engineering had PhD and an attitude of 'it sucks to be you' with respect to the theoretical vs practical. It is a mafia with respect to inbred textbooks.





drgondog said:


> Amazing how such marvels as P-51, F-104, B-70 and SR-71 were managed with slide rules and Friden, then HP, calculators.


Tell me about it! These guys were on a testosterone power trip. Freshman E & S students were encouraged to walk around with their slipsticks hanging from their belts in quick-draw holsters and challenge each other to "shoot-outs". Ever wonder why they didn't graduate many female engineering or science majors? The IBM 360 in the admin building that ran the entire campus actually belonged to E & S, whose students got first dibs on its academic availability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 25, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> I ran into a similar problem with the (theoretical) mathematics teachers, where they were teaching as if everyone had the same fascination/fixation with the math, and not how to apply it. It was very annoying to say the least, and made it significantly harder to learn what I wanted to learn. After the first class where I encountered the problem I just kept asking the teacher to show me how it could be applied. After a while (in some of the classes) all I had to do was raise my hand and the teacher would start on an example.
> 
> My sister gave me a HP programmable calculator (reverse polish notation) when I finished my Mechanical Engineering degree in '83. I remember thinking it was so cool, with its one line formula solving ability. Ah, back in the day . . . when men were men, and the newest hand held calculators had more calculating power than all of the Apollo space program.


Hi Thomas - your narrative reminds me of my Academic advisor, Dr. Jack Fairchild, musing that theoretical mathematicians gleefully pursued esoteric math 'that nobody could use', and engineers gleefully applied them to real world problems/solutions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BobB (May 25, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I know - also every university with an engineering degree.
> 
> There are a lot of engineering graduates on this forum - so I would put the question? How necessary was Calculus in your engineering based career?


Even the early U-2 practice of graphing fuel flow vs time to get fuel consumed is a simplified calculus. In a thirty plus year engineering career, I very seldom consciously used calculus but probably got a lot of data given to me that had some calculus input. Gordon Israel said that he sometimes regretted his lack of formal education when he ran into a problem where he couldn't handle the math but he always knew somebody who could. On slide rules vs electronic computers, the computers tend to fool you into thinking that you have accuracy to ten decimal places when you've made so many assumptions and simplifications that you're lucky to be within an order of magnitude. Those guys with six inch slide rules in their pockets could get a quick answer that was "good enough".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 25, 2022)

re "How necessary was Calculus in your engineering based career?"

In all seriousness, I would have to say not very. In my life I have used calculus far more when trying to unravel the mathematics involved in my hobbies, ie 'Real' physics vs Quantum physics, astro-physics and Einstein space, old NACA reports , etc.

I will have to say, however, that having an understanding of the patterns of thought involved in the discipline of Calculus involving the construction of formulas was very helpful occasionally - both at work in engineering and in the pursuit of my hobbies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> re "How necessary was Calculus in your engineering based career?"
> 
> In all seriousness, I would have to say not very. In my life I have used calculus far more when trying to unravel the mathematics involved in my hobbies, ie 'Real' physics vs Quantum physics, astro-physics and Einstein space, old NACA reports , etc.
> 
> I will have to say, however, that having an understanding of the patterns of thought involved in the discipline of Calculus involving, the construction of formulas was very helpful occasionally - both at work in engineering and in the pursuit of my hobbies.


I would say "occasionally" as in actually performing a Range estimate using Breguet range equation. Amusingly, the Post about Propeller calcs elsewhere was the weakest link as the prop efficiency is required. Not to mention accurate specific fuel consumption data. That said, 'few and far between' is the right answer for me.

I entirely agree that the fundamental understanding calculus and differentials in the grasp of change of one variable with respect to another is a key process to assist in thinking though many problems.


----------



## ThomasP (May 26, 2022)

I have always liked the fact that Calculus was largely designed to present the data in a visual-graphic format. Although it is not always(often?) necessary in practice to do so, I found it sometimes helps in clearly grasping/understanding the interplay of forces.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aeroweanie (May 29, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I know - also every university with an engineering degree.
> 
> There are a lot of engineering graduates on this forum - so I would put the question? How necessary was Calculus in your engineering based career?


I still use calculus on a daily basis, 42 years into my career.


----------



## ThomasP (May 30, 2022)

Hey Aeroweanie,

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living? You may have said elsewhere but I did not catch it.


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2022)

Aeroweanie said:


> I still use calculus on a daily basis, 42 years into my career.


What are you doing? Do you mean solving differential equations manually, or utilizing computer based solutions for complex equations like Navier Stokes?


----------



## ThomasP (May 30, 2022)

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Tom Fey (May 30, 2022)

NACA electric motor whirl tests of propellers and blades give tables / curves of static thrust, horsepower, blade angle, etc. against which you can check your work.


----------



## Aeroweanie (Jun 8, 2022)

drgondog said:


> What are you doing? Do you mean solving differential equations manually, or utilizing computer based solutions for complex equations like Navier Stokes?


Years ago, I wrote a propeller analysis code, based upon classical strip momentum theory. Nowadays, we just run the prop in Navier-Stokes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aeroweanie (Jun 8, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Aeroweanie,
> 
> Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living? You may have said elsewhere but I did not catch it.


I am consulting aeronautical engineer, doing design, analysis and certification work.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

