Bill Freeman wrote:
I agree with Vance. To get the HP absorbed the
narrow props
were overpitched. I thought it interesting that
the spreadsheet
showed this effect. The problem with going
narrower in chord
is that you need to run very high blade angles to
absorb the
power and the blade works badly at lower speeds..
As the
chord is moved into a more appropriate range, the
required
CsubL to absorb the HP drops, therefore the
blade angle drops
and the drag drops, increasing the efficiency.
Remember
these are all at the same HP. The narrow chord
prop would
be a very bad prop over the range, but appears to
be a good
prop if you look at the top end (design poin). It
actually is
essentially equal at top end. This is why I was
looking at this
data.
I thought this process was reasonable, and that
this is what the
spreadsheet was showing. I am very open to anyone
pointing
out where I may have made and error or bad
assumption.
The spreadsheet is very much in the development
stage and
these were not intended originally for public
release,
just to show Paul and Perry how things are
progressing.
The basic calculation method is from Dommasch
"Airplane
Aerodynamics". I have embelished the CsubL and
CsubD
with functions that accurately reflect the local
alpha, plus a
estimate on the Mach corrections above 0.6 M.
Dommash
was doing it by hand and used essentially fixed
CsubL and
CsubD without any Mach effects corrections.
Bill
Long EZ builder & pilot
mechanical engineer