Advanced General Aviation Propeller Study (1971)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Zipper730 said:

This seems to provided some use in terms of calculating propeller thrust.
Click to expand...
Good luck with this. Each

WWII prop varied blade chord 'b' and local blade CL as a function of radius from center to tip. The equations do not contemplate variable Chord and CL as a f(r). Each of the integrations are for the range 0.15R through 1.0R (tip) - so if you have a constant chord/constant CL blade - go for it.
 
Ok now you just talk dirty.... i think. Perhaps...maybe. God i wish there was a colour picture that made it all clear for me.
 
That might be a little beyond my paygrade: Regardless, how do you calculate around that?
 
All sillyness from my side apart, it does give an inside of how good those guys with rulers were.
All those who think that they would make a better aircraft just have to go through this thread. And think again. And then again. I am amazed that so much brainpower was around on all fronts.
 
Snautzer01 said:
All sillyness from my side apart, it does give an inside of how good those guys with rulers were.
Click to expand...
It actually is. Much of the math I do with excel.

The reason people were better with math in those days is they weren't dependent on calculators since they didn't exist except for slide-rules. They had to actually do it all themselves.

The brain isn't a muscle but some principles apply: The more you do something, the better you get at doing it. We barely do anything, so we're damned near atrophied.

Sadly, I've learned more about math from watching YouTube videos than I have in JHS/HS: That is really sad.
 
Could it be that the British held off with their CS props until the last minute in 1940 because of the difficulty in doing all these calculations. Were they doing trial and error experiments to find out what actually worked best? Not just for top speed but the whole envelope, climb, dive, acceleration, take off etc? It is a big task without computers.
 
I started off thinking aircraft must be a bit complicated, then I found out the wings and aerofils were complicated. Then the engines and cooling systems were complicated. It turns out even the bloody propeller is so complicated I cant really get my head around it, I must be getting more and more stupid. Or maybe the various ins and outs of a propeller, having to transmit 2,000BHP from zero to 500 MPH at all altitudes and up to 9 G is quite complicated, requiring more than 2 minutes thought to figure out?
 
What is complicated for Piston engine vs jet engine analysis is the multiple unit expressions and conversions required for Drag and Thrust which must be converted to Thrust HP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
"pulling through" a propeller
Replies
3
Views
509
Engineman
E
T
Vs 111 Propeller Specifications
Replies
2
Views
617
tkaniuka
T
G
WWII aviation gasoline
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Daggerr
J
Zero Propeller Question
Replies
8
Views
1K
Jim MacDonald
J
M
MT Propeller Manufactures New Props for Mustangs
Replies
10
Views
1K
gumbyk
Menu
Log in
Register