>>> 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&Simplequery=propellers&page=9
<http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/results.php?rs=All&sf=KW&st=AND&Simplequery=propellers&page=9>
>>>
>>> This is only one of many pdfs on this site.
>>>
>>> Paul Lamar
>>
>> Hi Doug;
>>
>> I recall seeing improved efficiency numbers for CR
propfan/unducted fan
>> research back in the 80's? These may just be better design points.
>> Some of the propfan/related cruise missiles reports were
available for
>> free years ago on the NASA servers.
>> IIRC, the Martin-Baker-5? prototype had CR props - It kept
shedding the
>> tips of the second prop leading to the design choice of
starting with a
>> shorter 2nd prop before it decided to on its own.
>> Some other aircraft such as the lazair found that mounting 2,
2-bladed
>> props right behind each other generated more thrust (?speed) than
>> 90degress apart.
>> The general rule of thumb i have seen is to put a prop 1 chord
length
>> behind the lifting surface to reduce turbulence. Never seen a
number
>> for props. It will probably require fluid dynamics/FEA
modelling and/or
>> trial and error.
>> I would be more tempted to look at one of Paul Lipps multi-bladed
props.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Cary
>>
>> Cary, I don't believe that the Lazair props were
counterrotating. As I
>> remember them, they were essentially bi-plane props turning
together. I
>> can't remember if there was any stagger between the blades.
Have never
>> seen any data on their thrust versus the standard props. The
engines
that
>> drove the Lazair props were really turning up and the diameter of
the props
>> were quite small because of tip speed considerations. I've often
wondered
>> if they were testing for some kind of cascade effect between the
blades.
>>
>> George W
>
> Sorry, you're absolutely right George - thanks for catching that (+1
> beer) - I didn't continue the thought.
> The 2X2-bladed props were joined at the (0.75"? thick) center. No
> stagger that I remember (basically directly inline).
> I think (the Lazair owners?) just happened to already have (a
surplus
> of) the props and needed something to go with the newer, higher HP,
> rotax engines.
> I don't remember the arguments/discussion, 2 instances of the same
> 2-bladed prop, one behind the other, produced more thrust than when
> offset 90 degrees at some test point. (People advocated a 90degree
> split for stacking the existing props to emulate a 4 bladed prop
> configuration).
> My point was that these problems/solutions count as non-trivial
and are
> likely (iterative/sensitive) to even approach any sort of an optimal
> solution :)
> Cheers Again
> Cary
A couple of other comments about counter rotating props and then I'll be
quiet:
They only make sense where you are seriously diameter limited compared
to the amount of horsepower you are running. They add blade area, but
at the expense of a more complex gear box, and weight. And more
blades is more weight. More root losses. If running a constant speed
prop, more than double the price. Have to supply oil or electricity
to each prop.
The rear prop runs in turbulence that grossly changes the apparent
angle of attack many times per revolution. I can't imagine that's
good for efficiency.
I see that counter rotating props are much like ducted fans. Maybe
okay in applications where you've got horsepower to burn, and need to
increase the disc loading because of being diameter limited.
The stock Navy F8F Bearcat manages 2000hp in a 7000lb airframe. Pilot
reports indicate no problems with conventional yaw issues - proper
engine offset and fin shape/configuration. They do note that there is
a significant roll input required at low airspeeds while at high power
setting. I'm sure a Bearcat will torque roll. Rare Bear (R3350
powered, clipped wing, 3000hp), seems to fly okay though I'm sure the
control margins/authority are less than a stock plane.. Control and
performance issues will not be a good reason for counter rotating
props. Also note that Precious Metal (Mustang with Griffon V12 and
counter rotating props) is not particularly fast even with it's
extensive list of modifications, and likely a horsepower advantage
over other Mustangs.
Matt-
Matt,
seems like you are forgetting the Red Baron mustang running the Griffon.
It was the speed record holder at Reno for several years. The team said
that removing the fin offset alone amounted to 3-4 mph speed increase.
All of the cost and complexity claims are true of course.
Bill Jepson
During the 62-63 Med cruise on the USS Forrestal CVA 59, we did a day of
cross deck operations with the British. We sent out Douglas A-4s and
they sent over three Gannets. The Gannets could land without the cross
deck wires, and leave with no catapults. They had wings that folded in
two places to form a very compact storage shape. They had the counter
rotating propellers. The last one off left from the waist cat parking
area off the angle deck. Rolled about 150 feet, and was flying before he
got to the edge.
Molt Taylor had a sort of fluid coupling to take out torsional resonance
in his long drive shaft. It was like two pie pans facing each other with
steel balls trapped around the edges. A steel disc took out the power.
As the pan container was spun up, the balls were pressed tighter against
the disc from both sides because of centrifugal loading. The rig had oil
in it and a degree of a Marcel in the disc to shape a coupling curve.
A tiny version of that with the addition of powdered metal/ oil from an
electronically controlled shock absorber
and you can have any amount of slip or lockup you want.
Hewland used to offer a limited slip differential that had
rectangular blocks with rounded ends. A cage drove the blocks around
driven from one stubshaft, an inner and outer track was driven by the
other stub shaft. The tracks were gentle humps. You could turn the axles
at differing directions, at slow speeds but faster speed could not
overcome the drag generated by the blocks trying to move fast over the
bumps. Simple, nearly no resistance at low speeds, locked up nearly
solid at high speed. All in diff oil, little wear.
Lynn E. Hanover
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.