News:



  • April 23, 2024, 04:05:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: propeller efficiency  (Read 1786 times)

Offline Charles Hofacker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
propeller efficiency
« on: June 28, 2015, 09:06:55 AM »
Here is a fascinating article on propeller efficiency that is directly applicable to our model airplane. I Hope this is not a duplicate post of somebody else. This will take some time to study but it looks to be very worthwhile.

http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/pubs/BrandtSelig-2011-AIAA-2011-1255-LRN-Propellers.pdf

Note from the conclusions:  "The results showed significant Reynolds number effects with degradation in
performance with lower RPM’s...". But read the whole paper. y1


Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5801
Re: propeller efficiency
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2015, 01:21:59 PM »
Interesting study.  But the RPM is off the low end of the chart.

The test RPM's varied from 1500 to 7500 RPM.

These props need to run 14,000 to 20,000 RPM to get into the design range.   The test range was at low idle, not flying speed.
Paul Smith

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12808
Re: propeller efficiency
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2015, 02:50:40 PM »
Here is a fascinating article on propeller efficiency that is directly applicable to our model airplane.

I repeat something that's been said here numerous times: for stunt, at least, efficiency is not what is most important.  Exceedingly low efficiency is bad because it increases power system weight, but the most important thing for stunt is that the airplane behave well.  A magic setup that keeps the aircraft at a constant speed is probably far more important than efficiency.

Interesting study.  But the RPM is off the low end of the chart.

The test RPM's varied from 1500 to 7500 RPM.

These props need to run 14,000 to 20,000 RPM to get into the design range.   The test range was at low idle, not flying speed.

Some do -- the GWS slow flyer props certainly shouldn't be run that fast.

The biggest takaway from that paper, I think, is that you shouldn't build yourself a really small UAV and just slap a prop on it thinking that you're done -- instead, you should give some thought to the best prop for the job, and you may find that the best prop is not the most "normal" looking.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5801
Re: propeller efficiency
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2015, 01:46:11 PM »
Obviously, this was a student paper aimed at getting a grade and finishing the course.   The test method and data collection look OK.   But the ultra-low RPM renders the data useless for modelers. 
Paul Smith

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12808
Re: propeller efficiency
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2015, 02:04:40 PM »
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Randy Powell

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10478
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: propeller efficiency
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2015, 04:59:10 PM »
Tim Wescott's propellers are always efficient.
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12808
Re: propeller efficiency
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2015, 05:26:07 PM »
Tim Wescott's propellers are always efficient.

Pbthbthbthbthbthb.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here