News:



  • July 23, 2025, 09:28:32 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Undercamber props  (Read 5169 times)

Online Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2632
Undercamber props
« on: April 29, 2011, 01:28:57 AM »
Under recommendation, I picked up a couple of props at VSC that are undercambered. Specifically they're 10 5/8 X 4 1/4 2 blade carbon props. I tried one on my Brodak 40 powered Chipmunk replacing a Rev-up 11 X 5W, and it works great. It let the engine run at a little higher RPM, which increased power somewhat. But I don't really understand the reason for undercamber. Are they just more efficient? Is there a downside to unbercamber?

This is the prop I have.     http://eliminatorprops.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_12&products_id=34
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12913
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2011, 01:53:19 AM »
They'll be less efficient if you put them onto the plane backwards, and there's less meat there for strength -- you probably couldn't get away with an undercambered wood or glass-filled nylon prop.  Undercambered airfoils have a narrower range of angles of attack at which they are efficient.  That's a bad thing for an adjustable pitch prop on a full-sized plane, or for most full sized plane's wings.  But I can't see it as being bad in a properly designed stunt prop.
AMA 64232

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

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2011, 07:40:48 AM »
Undercambered airfoil goes to higher drag at low AoA, means if model accelerates (down the hill) and prop goes to low angle of attack, then the airfoil drag can act as a brake - it just does not allow the engine go to higher rpm.

But if that all has to work, the motor itself needs at least "some" natural rpm stability, it is why they work so well on piped engines.

Offline Randy Powell

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10476
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2011, 10:08:14 AM »
I know that due to the greater "lift" of the prop, they put more load on the engine so you generally need a somewhat smaller diameter prop if it's undercambered to keep the load on the engine similar to the standard flat back prop.
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711
 Randy Powell

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 14530
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2011, 01:30:46 PM »
I know that due to the greater "lift" of the prop, they put more load on the engine so you generally need a somewhat smaller diameter prop if it's undercambered to keep the load on the engine similar to the standard flat back prop.

  That's mostly because the effective pitch is higher (much higher at the tips) than you might think. This is the result of the generally higher camber.

    Igor's polars are also very intriguing, but I don't know for sure if the prop airfoil we have acts the same way as the Göttingen. It makes sense that it might, for the same reason (presumably separation at the *lower* surface at low AoA). That might explain why you put an undercambered prop on a standard PA61 setup (designed around a Bolly semisymmetrical prop), it tends to work *way* too abruptly.

    Brett

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2011, 02:54:19 PM »
Those two airfoils are just examples, but you can take any other example, line NACA 4 digits 9%, you will see the same effect, if you add little bit camber, the polar will move little up and little right, that move up will result in the same - the drag at low but still positive lift, unlike stright airfoils having lowest drag at lowest lift (in absolute numbers):


Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 14530
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2011, 03:12:48 PM »
Those two airfoils are just examples, but you can take any other example, line NACA 4 digits 9%, you will see the same effect, if you add little bit camber, the polar will move little up and little right, that move up will result in the same - the drag at low but still positive lift, unlike stright airfoils having lowest drag at lowest lift (in absolute numbers):

   So, when you do your semi-magical CFD program on the airfoil, is the reason as I suspect - is it due to separation on the lower surface at low AoA?  It makes some sense to me if you look at what the normal force would do as you raised it.

  And just to be entirely clear, I think they probably *are* doing what you think, because it perfectly explains our (Ted, David, and I) observations comparing Eather U/C props to Bollys and why you want a radically different engine setup.

    Brett

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2011, 08:57:42 PM »
I have no aeronautical background experience, but ive got over 30 Eather props, and I find that undercamber certainly produces more thrust and constant speed compared the bolly or even eather flat back.

Its my prop of choice.

Im running Stalker 81 - low RPM High pitch 4 stroke run characteristic.
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Dave Adamisin

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2011, 09:26:32 PM »
I've got one (Bob McDonald 13.25x4.25) and I love it. It doesn't stop pulling. Superb.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 07:37:27 PM by Dave Adamisin »

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12668
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2011, 09:45:15 PM »
With the undercamber Eather and "Werwage" props, I see more engine load, of course, with the same diameter/pitch compared to a flat back. 

I remember having to go to a Eather undercamber 3 blade on a Webra .32 to get the engine loaded enough since I could not use more prop diameter ("classic" plane with limited prop clearance).  It solved the engine "load" problem very nicely, and used about 1/2" less pitch than the flat back props used previously.

Big Bear
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Allan Perret

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1892
  • Proverbs
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2011, 06:46:23 AM »
With the undercamber Eather and "Werwage" props, I see more engine load, of course, with the same diameter/pitch compared to a flat back. 

I remember having to go to a Eather undercamber 3 blade on a Webra .32 to get the engine loaded enough since I could not use more prop diameter ("classic" plane with limited prop clearance).  It solved the engine "load" problem very nicely, and used about 1/2" less pitch than the flat back props used previously.

Big Bear
OK, I have a question about this engine loading issue. 
How do you know when a particular engine / plane / prop setup needs more or less load ?
Allan Perret
AMA 302406
Slidell, Louisiana

Online Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2011, 02:45:05 PM »
  So, when you do your semi-magical CFD program on the airfoil, is the reason as I suspect - is it due to separation on the lower surface at low AoA?  It makes some sense to me if you look at what the normal force would do as you raised it.

yes, that semi magical program can show also transition and separation points:

Offline Bob Reeves

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3414
    • Somethin'Xtra Inc.
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2011, 03:24:06 PM »
They work good on 4 strokes  y1

Offline Joe Yau

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 749
    • My CLPA Channel
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2011, 03:53:52 PM »
I was told the undercambered props don't work too well with the OS.40 VF / pipe set up (at approx 10.800 rpm)..  and the flat back props will work better.  so I ordered some. :)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 08:25:59 PM by Joe Yau »

Offline Clancy Arnold

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1453
  • I am 5 Ft. 8 In., the Taube is 7 Ft. 4 In.
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2011, 06:43:20 PM »
Back in 1985 when I built my C7A Caribou CL Scale model the aircraft documentation called for an undercambered 5 digit NASA airfoil.  That was the reason the Caribou could clear a 50 ft obstacle in 750 ft.  Lots of lift at a low speed.  Think of the airfoils used on FF models. Same reason!
Clancy
Clancy Arnold
Indianapolis, IN   AMA 12560 LM-S
U/Tronics Control
U/Control with electronics added.

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12668
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2011, 10:20:21 PM »
I was told the undercambered props don't work too well with the OS.40 VF / pipe set up (at approx 10.800 rpm)..  and the flat back props will work better.  so I ordered some. :)

Hi Joe,

Back in the day, early-mid '90s, the Eather Undercamber 3 blades were being used by several on the OS .40VF piped set ups.  That is the first reason I ended up with any of them. ;D 

Paul's set up did not use them, and many followed his lead since he was winning the Walker Trophy every year. ;D
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Joe Yau

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 749
    • My CLPA Channel
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2011, 09:59:15 AM »
Hi Joe,

Back in the day, early-mid '90s, the Eather Undercamber 3 blades were being used by several on the OS .40VF piped set ups.  That is the first reason I ended up with any of them. ;D  

Paul's set up did not use them, and many followed his lead since he was winning the Walker Trophy every year. ;D

Hi Bill,

Just curious how the Eather Undercambered prop worked out for you?   did it displayed too much load for the .40VF?

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12668
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2011, 02:59:32 PM »
Hi Bill,

Just curious how the Eather Undercambered prop worked out for you?   did it displayed too much load for the .40VF?

Hi Joe,

They worked prety much as well as Bollys.  A different needle setting, since a little less pitch was used.  The 3 blade undercamber being right at 3 1/2 versus about 3.8 for the Bolly.  Never saw "too much load".  Good overheads and verticals!

Bill
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 14530
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2011, 06:22:09 PM »
Hi Bill,

Just curious how the Eather Undercambered prop worked out for you?   did it displayed too much load for the .40VF?

    Pretty much all the early experiments in the UC props in this country were done with 46Vfs, not because they didn't work with 40's. but because that's what Ted and David were running at the time. This was around 92-94. I can recall calling Brian about getting some props* after one of our flying sessions - and waking him up since it was about 4 in the morning in Aus. We had them shipped straight the the Executive Inn in Vincennes for the 93 NATs.

    The problem I and most of us flying the 40VF at the time was that with our setups, the tendency was to explode in the corners like you lit a JATO bottle. The first-gen 40VF systems, while to the uninitiated, were referred to as "constant speed" systems (because they didn't break from 4 to 2), were not that way at all, they actually had a fair bit of boost. We had no idea why at the time, but the UC props tended to greatly enhance that to the point it was *way* too much of an effect. Now, I think I understand why - a combination of the effective pitch distribution being heavily weighted to more pitch at the tips, and the effect Igor notes above (and first found about 10 years ago) where the drag goes down when the AoA increases. In fact, the way we attempted to mitigate it a the time was to depitch the tips, which sort of worked but wasn't at good as the Bolly. Later, with the PA40, it was even worse with the standard setups because the PA wanted to 4-2 and had much stronger boost and brake to begin with.

    David came close to figuring it out on the PA40, by using a non-standard system, but Ted was probably responsible for the majority of the work using the 46VF. He got it running softly enough to take full advantage of the UC prop. When the PA61 came along David figured out how to get it to run kind of like a big 46VF, mostly by keeping it from breaking at all, and just running it in a 4 all the time. It's not like you need a lot of "boost" in the corners running a piped 61 in an old ST46 airplane. The key was unloading the engine enough to make it stay far from the breakpoint, then pumping up the compression, (spigot) venturi, and nitro to get the performance back (since you no longer had to consider what it does to the break).  And you didn't have to screw up the performance with lots of diameter. For example, I came in tied for 3rd at the 2000 NATs with a teeny little 11.5-3.6 3-blade that was David's old break-in prop, and that worked just dandy on a 46VF. It turned out to work pretty well with flat-back props, too.

   Then the RO-Jett 61BSE (144 deg "Brett Version") came along, with timing (accidentally) just like the 46VF, and, gee, works just like a gigantic 46VF, no muss, not picky about running pretty softly like a VF, but with 33% more displacement. That works with either prop with no real adjustments, once you get the pitch on the UC prop low enough to get the right RPM.

      Brett

* we called from a "restaurant" in Napa called "Harry O'Shortals", now quite deservedly closed. I am not sure why, but several good reasons occur to me:
 
   Fell into river when undercut by yearly flooding in Napa River
   closed by the County of Napa health department. One time, for reasons that escape me, David, Bill, Kathy, the kids, and I went to Harry O'Shortal's for dinner. Several mice ran along the window sill right next to the table while we were there - yes, the *indoor* side of the window.
   proprietors died from either ptomaine  poisoning, or embarrassment

Online Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2011, 07:37:44 PM »
Brett, all that is great information to have. As you know, I'm planning to use the RO Jett 61 in my new plane. And I have one of Teds' old VF 46's if I wanted to try that too.
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2011, 11:09:27 PM »
Hi Joe,

Back in the day, early-mid '90s, the Eather Undercamber 3 blades were being used by several on the OS .40VF piped set ups.  That is the first reason I ended up with any of them. ;D  

Paul's set up did not use them, and many followed his lead since he was winning the Walker Trophy every year. ;D

I've kind of an interesting story about Brian's undercambered props and .40VFs.  I first flew the original Trivial Pursuit at the 1992 Nats with a .40VF swinging a 12 X 3-1/4 Bolly two blade (fiberglass, not carbon) at outrageous RPMs.  Didn't use a tach in those days but, because I was having teething problems with the engine/pipe/low pitch thing I ended up running pretty much flat out with the 3.25 pitch spinning probably in the vicinity of 11.5 to 12K.  Noise you wouldn't believe but, boy, did it ever fly the airplane great (at 5.8 sec/lap according to Randy Smith who videotaped all the finals flights).  It finished in second place (a frequent occurrence in subsequent years, by the way).  The racket was the result, I believe, of the tips approaching transonic speeds.

I loved the "real low" pitch a lot and about this time I got to know Brian and he was starting to make props.  I figured I'd get a couple of three blade 11 X 3.25s from him and thought the lower diameter would cut the racket down some.  Brian then sent me three, the first props I ever got from him...came in a pizza box which was a very clever idea!

Took the TP and the new props out to the field, cranked up the VF and somebody (Brett, maybe?) let 'er go.  Sheesh, the bloody thing barely moved and when it did finally take off I didn't even try to fly a pattern with it despite the prop spinning at max revs.

After a couple of repeats of wasting six or seven oz a flight flying in very slow circles I gave up and put the old Bolly on it and it worked just like it did at the nats.  What the heck was the deal here.  At some point in time I had the Bolly in hand with the pitch gauge and noted that when I checked the pitch I could see daylight between the leading edge and trailing edge.  Not a lot but very definitely there.  The prop had a tiny bit of undercamber to it.

I wrote to Brian about the discovery and he asked me to mail the props back to him.  A couple weeks later another Pizza box arrived at Flying Cloud Isle and there were the same props packed therein, along with a note.  Brian had literally sanded undercamber into the blades of the props.  Took them out to fly and it was sort of like magic.  The engine was more loaded, the airplane sprang into the air (or sprung as much as a 70 oz, .40 powered ship was ever going to spring) and it flew delightful patterns.

I let Brian know of the vast improvement and he promptly set to work making a new mold for undercambered three blade props that were identifiable by the use of red dye in the epoxy resin.  I (and I believe, David) used those props pretty much exclusively while we ran piped .40 and .46s (both PAs by David and VFs [Randyized ones with the chromed aluminum liners] by me).  When we ultimately started to run .60s like everyone else we found we preferred the 12" diameter flat backed props.  There's probably a reason why the smaller higher revving engines prefer the UC ones and not the flat backs but I've no idea why that would be.

At any rate, that's where the undercambered Eather props originated.

Ted Fancher

Edit:  Just reread this and realized I should have included a disclaimer.  The ultra low 3.25 pitch was a short lived experiment that was discarded once I learned to control the engine run better (a lengthy subject that is of little value nowadays where everyone is conversant with the pipe operation).  The lowest pitch I used competitively after doing so was 3.5 or so.  Nowadays, with the RoJett .61 I favor the pitches are more "normal" in the 3.8 to [very occassionally] 4.0 range.  If a guy wanted to set-up a smaller engine (say a .25VF) which would be happy turning a 9-10" or so diameter prop between 11.5 and 12K such low numbers would come back into my thought processes.  In fact, I've often thought about putting such a combination into my old yellow and orange Chizler (the covering of which is peeling off as we speak)


« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 04:27:53 PM by Ted Fancher »

Offline FLOYD CARTER

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4504
    • owner
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2011, 01:39:12 PM »
Since I don't own any Bolly-type props, would it be worthwhile to sand some undercamber into a wood prop?  It would be fairly easy to do, and if it works, would be worth the effort.

Floyd 
91 years, but still going
AMA #796  SAM #188  LSF #020

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2011, 04:20:33 PM »
Since I don't own any Bolly-type props, would it be worthwhile to sand some undercamber into a wood prop?  It would be fairly easy to do, and if it works, would be worth the effort.

Floyd 

Floyd,

Actually, that's quite a good idea--wish I'd thought of it back when I was competing seriously.  I'd say it's worth experimenting with.  The props that Brian modified for me had substantially less undercamber "sanded into" them than he included in the molds for the U/C versions he sold, yet the difference in performance was quite dramatic.  All the usual caveats apply, of course.  Keep the blades balanced and do your best to make the wood removal uniform from blade to blade.

Ted


Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 14530
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2011, 05:35:29 PM »
Actually, that's quite a good idea--wish I'd thought of it back when I was competing seriously.  I'd say it's worth experimenting with.  The props that Brian modified for me had substantially less undercamber "sanded into" them than he included in the molds for the U/C versions he sold, yet the difference in performance was quite dramatic.  All the usual caveats apply, of course.  Keep the blades balanced and do your best to make the wood removal uniform from blade to blade.

   After we buzzed down the last of the regular hand-sanded "purple" props in Lubbock, I took one of my flat-backs, and with some 80-grit sandpaper wrapped around a piece of header pipe, sanded the undercamber into it. I'm not the craftsman that Brian is, but it was pretty easy and it came out just like the others. And flew the airplane the same. It only took about an hour and that one made it through the rest of the week to a third-place finish.

     Brett

Offline Bob Reeves

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3414
    • Somethin'Xtra Inc.
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2011, 05:43:51 PM »
If you can find them the old Rev-Up props marked "Four Stroke" have a slight undercamber.

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2011, 06:54:47 PM »
   After we buzzed down the last of the regular hand-sanded "purple" props in Lubbock, I took one of my flat-backs, and with some 80-grit sandpaper wrapped around a piece of header pipe, sanded the undercamber into it. I'm not the craftsman that Brian is, but it was pretty easy and it came out just like the others. And flew the airplane the same. It only took about an hour and that one made it through the rest of the week to a third-place finish.

     Brett

How do you remember this stuff????  Only thing we remember about Lubbock was that any hamburger ordered rare looked just like the charcoal it was cooked over!  And it was delivered in "Texas Time"

Ted

Now that you mention it, I do remember the takeoff you're talking about.  Gusty winds and a too short landing gear and the prop whacked the ramp pretty firmly and I just stood it on its nose so it wouldn't take off and shake itself apart.  As I recall the prop ended up to be about a 2.25 X 3.25 by the time it got shut down.  The engine was well broken it afterwards, however.

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2011, 12:12:59 AM »
2.25 X 3.25

I've always avocated less Diameter improves your corner.

 ;D
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Online Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2011, 04:12:46 AM »
2.25 X 3.25

I've always avocated less Diameter improves your corner.

 ;D

Talk about unloading the engine......
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2011, 11:26:09 AM »
Talk about unloading the engine......

Yeah, I think that answers an earlier question about unloading.  I.e. when the airplane no longer moves when the engine is running you've reduced the load too much.

Ted

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 14530
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2011, 12:21:38 PM »
How do you remember this stuff????  Only thing we remember about Lubbock was that any hamburger ordered rare looked just like the charcoal it was cooked over!  And it was delivered in "Texas Time"

    What do you mean, how do I remember this stuff?  How could I forget a thing like that?  I also remember that the white couch in my Residence Inn room looked like the dust bowl had returned. I guarantee that they are still getting black dust out of there 15 years later.

    I remember feeling guilty about not launching it right, until the same thing happened when David and Bill did it.

    Brett

Offline Steve Helmick

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 10285
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2011, 11:07:35 PM »
Somebody did an article on wood prop reworking that detailed his method of undercambering a prop kit. He used a dowel wrapped with sandpaper, stroking down the length of the blade, but with the dowel on an angle to the chord line. I haven't tried to find out if it actually works, but assume it would.  ??? Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2011, 12:24:23 AM »
A few years ago I sanded a wood prop with undercamber in it. Incidently I made a tiny airfoil sanding block.
perhaps I went too far , however I found it useless, just had no thrust, or pull. I suspect It became too light.

If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline Mark Scarborough

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5918
Re: Undercamber props
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2011, 01:25:32 PM »
Pat and I have both sanded undercamber into our wood props, I have noted a difference ( obviously) but I had not thought analytically about WHY until now, it was beyond my pay grade,,,, LOL,, In fact its one of the ideas I have been toying with for my Avenger , reducing the diameter and putting some undercamber in to increase the load,, now I have a reason,,  n~
For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137


Advertise Here
Tags: