Paul,
>
> Say, are there any efficiency merits to mounting counter
rotating
> propellers right after each other? Say two sets of three
blades. P
> factor would be canceled of course.
>
> Doug in Japan
>
> Rumor has it that..... that is true but I don't have any
comparison data.
>
> Is this what you have in mind? Only props instead of ducted fan?
> If so it is a very good idea as there are no issues with torque
pulses
> getting into turbines. Good going Doug.
>
>
> Paul Lamar
>
> Counterrotating props, or "contrarotating" as is more
technically
used,
> was a big idea 50 years ago to allow for more hp with reduced
prop
> diameter. The Tupelov Bear is the best example along with the
Hughes
> spy plane design, the Mustang, the Spitfire, etc. They all went
for the
> contrarotating props at some point, and with the Tupelov, are
still
> being used.
>
> However, and I explored this a lot a few years ago with
designers
(Jim
> Bede was one) that the turbulent flow over the second (aft) prop
was
> intense and destructive not to mention the complex coaxial hub
needed.
> Vibration was not just to the prop but also the shaft, the
engine, the
> mounts, the airframe, etc. The noise is out of this world loud
as
> demonstrated by the any rear pusher prop flying in the turbulent
> fuselage wake of air going thru the prop (Piaggio, LearFan,
etc.).
>
> When I protested that efficiency was increased by negating the
'swirl'
> P-factor, I was told it was "small gain vs. big loss" and better
to
> stick with single prop, more blades if necessary.
>
> Just my experience from a few years ago. There's good articles
on the
> contra props on the web. Try this:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating_propellers
> Greg
>
> Here is a bunch of actual data.
>
http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/results.php?rs=All&sf=KW&st=AND&Simplequer
y=propellers&page=9
>
> This is only one of many pdfs on this site.
>
> Paul Lamar
Seems like if the counter rotation props were a big gainer,
aircraft
like the C130H and the Dehavilland DHC8 400 would have gotten them
instead of just adding blades to the existing setup. I realize a
new
prop is probably cheaper than a whole new gearbox, but both of
these
aircraft were significant redesigns from their predecessors.
Peak prop efficiency comes from accelerating a large mass of air to
a
speed slightly higher than the speed of the aircraft. Counter
rotating props may gain efficiency at very high speeds - reference
the
Russian Bear.
Regards,
Matt-
Airboat speed reduction units have such a feature. Some with the rear
prop turning faster than the front.
Operating in very dirty air with a bunch of people sitting on bench
seats in front of the props, and you know how dirty people can be. Front
prop has wider blades usually 4 or 6 and the rear prop with higher pitch
slightly thinner blades. Also allows for the big block Chevy to be lower
in the mount, and not torque the boat over on its side with a sudden
throttle application. Always a problem with well dressed Northerners in
the boat. Probably arrived at through trial and error. Like the Wright
Brothers.
Lynn E. Hanover
I'll add to this that if I were to build something of this sort (and I
plan to) I'd be looking at prime numbers for my blade sets, and the
secondary set wouldn't rotate at the same speed as the primary.
There is an old NACA paper on this that is very good. I think most of
the really loud applications to this are loud because of the harmonics.
Reduce or eliminate the harmonic and I think this will be a very good
idea.
Noise from propellers with symmetrical sections at zero blade angle, II
Deming, A F naca-tn-679 December 1938
Doug, once you get it built can I just buy it from you so as not to go
through the hassle? LOL
Decker, Michael
Lynn, what kind of gear box are the airboat people using.
In other words how does it achieve counter rotation?
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Youtube key word UTUBPLEASE
Copyright 1998-2008 All world wide rights reserved.