7
Figure ". Difference Between '!.'est and Calculated Propeller
Efficiency at High Reynolds Numbers.
R.N
:s:w
.900 x 10
6
I::
.750 x 10
6
3.50 x 10
6

3.50 x 10
6

.' "'. ....... . '  ..; . " __ .. ...... .. ..:;_:l,;;,.,: . ;.".;;;'._;.. .... ...
..
"
,il
PROPELLERS FOR MINIRPY VEHICLES
propellers used on miniRPV's are generally less than three
feet in diameter. With blades of normal solidity"' in the
of eo to 200 activity factor and operating at the speeds
of less than 200 knots, the operating Reynolds number will be
below 500,000. Since present methods of calculating the per
formance of propellers has only been proven to be suitable
when operating at Reynolds numbers above 500,000, it is nec
essary to investigate the effects of the low Reynolds number
on the characteristics of propellers designed for miniRPV's.
To do this it is necesaary to examine the effects of low
Reynolds number on both airfoil and propeller performance.
LOW REXNOLDS NUMBER CONDITIONS
In t,he Reynolds number range below 500,000 ,the lift and drag
charactf:.ristics of the airfoilS depend on tne type of boundary
encountered. The number where the flow transforms
from the laminar turbulent condition is defined as the
critical Reynolds and is 500,000 on a flat plate.
When the boundary layer is laminar the airfoil is operating in
the subcritical Reynolds number ranqe, and it is very thin.
under these conditions, the laminar boundary layer does not
the ability to take energy from the outer flow. As a result
in the case of any divergent flow, it adheres poorly to the
surface and separates as in the case of the upper surface of
the airfoil. This causes a large increase in drag and a loss
of lift.
In the supercritical operating range the boundary layer be
comes turbulent. When this occurs, the flow remains attached
to the airfoil for a muoh gr6ater distance with a correspond
ing increase of lift end a decrease of drag. The Reynolds num
ber at which this transition takes place depends on the amount
of divergence in the flow or curvature in the upper airfoil
surfac.. The critical Reynolds number thus increases with
angle of attack and airfoil thickness ratio. Because of the
large increase in drag and decrease in lift when operating
below the critical Reynolds number, it i8 important that this
range of operation be avoided. This can be done by selecting
the proper airfoil sections and operating conditions.
To determine the performance of RPV propellers, airfoil data
are needed that oover the entire Reynolds number range.
Ideally, the critical Reynolds number should also be identi
fied as a funotion of airfoil type and angle of attack.
22
I:
I
,
i
I
I
I:
!
i
I,
,\ '
AYAILABLE LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER DATA
To determine the effects of Reynolds number on the character
istics of small propellers, the available airfoil and propel
ler data was reviewed. This was done for the cases where the
operating conditions are less than the critical, i.e., Reynolds
number less than 500,000.
Airfoil Data
The airfoil data used for the design and analysis of conven
tional propeller blades was oombined from a great many tests
that were run at Reynolds numbers in excess of one million.
The airfoil data was oompared and analyzed until a systematic
set of data was developed for a large range of airfoil param
eters, inoluding thickness ratios of .04 to 1.0 and design CLls
of 0 to 0.7. The data was developed to apply over a range of
angles of attack to the stall angle and Mach numbers up to 1.6.
These airfoil data are given in Reference 1.
The low Reynolds number airfoil data available is sparce cam
pared with that f o ~ airfoils operating above the critical.
usually, airfoil data is run at Reynolds Lumbers in excess of
1.0 x 10
6
, whereas data is needed for the miniRP, V propeller
analysis in the Reynolds number range of 5 x 10 to 5 x 10
5
The available data span a large number of years and represent
tests that were run in a number of different wind tunnels with
different levels of turbulenoe. Because of this, direct com
parisons of the results is qpestionable as some of the tunnels
used had a very high turbulence factor, whereas others had
very low levels of turbulence. Since the Reynolds number for
flow separation is extremely important, the turbulence level
in the tunnel has a large influence on the test results.
1 Borst, at a1.
23
,','
.\.
,
I.
\
11
'(
I,"
Referenoes 6 through 14 give the only available data in the
5 x 10
4
to 5 x 105 Reynolds number range required for miniRPV
propeller analyses.
In Referenoe 6 the results of tests of NACA fourdigit airfoils
with and without high lift devices are for Reynolds
numbers from 40,000 to 3 x 10
6
These tests were conducted in
tbe NACA variabledensity tunnel. This tunnel has a very high
turbulenoe faotor, Whioh influenoes the drag and maximum lift
6
7
8
9
Jaoobs, E.N.,& Sherman, A., AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERIS
TICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER,
NACA TR 586, 1937.
Relf, E.F., Jones, R.,& Bell, A.H., TESTS OF SIX AIRFOIL
SECTIONS AT VARIOUS REYNOLDS NUMBERS IN THE COMPRESSED AIR
TUNNEL, Rpts. & Memoranda No. 1706, Apr:!..l 1936.
Jones, R., & Williams, D.H., THE EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGH
NESS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AIRFOILS NACA 0012 AND
RAF 34, RptS. & Memoranda 1708.
Lnenicka, Jares1ay, UNPUBLISHED TEST OF A NACA 4412 AIR
FOIL AT REYNOLDS NUMBER 20,000 to 250,000, Letter to L.K.
Loftin of NASA, 19 Maroh 1974.
10 Altbaus, D., EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS l!'ROM THE LAMINAR WIND
TUNNEL OF THE INSTI TOT FiJR AERO AND GASDYNAMII< DER UNI
VERSITAT STUTTGART, Stuttgarter profi1katalog I, 1972.
11 Sohmitz, F.W., AERODYNAMICS OF THe: MODEL AIRPLANE, PART 1,
Translated by Translation Branch Pedstone Soientifio Infor
mation Center Researoh & Development, Directorate, U.S.
12
13
14
Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., N7039001
Des1auriors, E.J., BLADE PERFORMANCE AT LOW REYNOLDS NUM
BERS, GeneraJ. Electrio, Rpt. No. R54AGT605, dated 11455.
Lippisoh, A., UNSTETIGKECTEN 1M VERLSUF DES PROFILWIDER
STANDES, Messeraohmitt, A.G. Augsburg, Maroh 1941.
Lippisoh, A.M., W1NG SECTIONS FOR MODEL PLANES, Air Trails
Pictorial, April 1950.
24
r
i" '" ",.," """,",. '"""
"
,
i
... ',
characteristics measured as discussed in Reference 15. In a
tunnel with a high turbulence factor it is,st best, difficult
to f1nd the effect1ve Reynolds number and so interpret the test
data. For example, the effective Reynolds number of 792,000
was estimated in Referenee 15 for a test value of 300,000.
Th1s very large d1fference between the test and effective Reyn
olds number is qpestioned, 15 so only the trends observed in
th1s report are considered to be valid. These trend compari
sons are made at the measured or test value of Reynolds number
only.
The variation of tt,e drag coefficient with lift for three NACA
fourdigit airfoils with cambers oorrespon.ding to design lift
coeff1c1ents of 0, 0.33,and 0.63 frorc. Referenoe 6 is given in
F1gures 5 thrOUgh 7 for a ser1es of Reynolds numbers. cor
responding variation of the lift ooefficient is also given in
Figures 5 thl:'ough 7. These data indicate that at test Reynolds
number3 above about 170,000 the draq is nearly oonstant when
the airfoil is operating near the minimum for the
symmetrioal airfoil operating at lift ooefficients _ .6 the
draq is neal'ly independent of Reynolds number. For t.he cam
bered sect10ns the same trend is observed but at h1ghel' lift
coefficients. Below Reynolds numbers of 170,000 and at lift
coefficients abOVe and below those for minimum drag, the data
in Figures 5 through 7 show a large drag increase with Reynoum
number. It would appear that where the drag increases rapidly
airfoil is operating in the subcritical Reynolds number
range.
The data of Reference 6 shows that the 3lope of the lift curve
is generally unaffected by the Reynolds number, however, the
maximum lift coefficient and variation of CL about the stall
is greatly Because of the qpestion of tunnel turbu
lence effects, these data are not directly used for RPV pro
peller
The data of Reference 12 was in a tunnel w1th nearly the
same turbulence factor as that of the NACA Variable Density
Tunnel, 6 and the Flaine trends noted were also observed, but for
a1rfoils with much higher levels of camber. In Reference 9,
however, the angle for zero lift and the corresponding lift
6 Jacobs and Sherman.
9 Lnenicka.
12 Deslauriers.
15
Hoerner, S.F., & Borst, H.V., FLUID DYNAMIC LIFT, published
by Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick Town, N.J. OA723, 1975.
25
. '" ."
06
1
HcH_t+++++++rH ++++H(:
1++++++IcIH+++++!HH .
.04
:. .,
I
f
.02
O.
H+++H ... . :  ..) '''1)  : "i I ..  .:  ... ",:.. .. ..
''''' ..... . Hf.  .1._1.._ ""1 .......... .!.IIIII"' .... .+l.! .. , .
 _ .  ...  .1 ... . ., 1.1 "'''' ' (II. ...... _. '+)',1 .
o .4 .s
I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 9
oelf
:l.
o
:l.el'/:t  C
L
, 1 1
.. .LLL I. 1 LL.Ll. Te.t
::: Reynol&. No.
111 0 3,180,000
..
HI++++HIIIW1++. .
_ .. 
:24 I A 2,380,000
j )(,,1,340,000
 +"' 660,000
 0 330,000
0170,000 .. .. .: ..
H1H1t1 +++++1' L f+++++tH++tt .
I
.   ...
tI7I"'I!III'IfI .. .. _... .. .... _.
  __ 4. .1 '4
o IHHI.++,....=++++H+ . ..   ... ++HH
tt.H ..   .
.4 .8 1.2 1.6
L:l.ft Coeff:l.cient  CL
Figure 5. Twodimensional Airfoil Data Run in the NACA
Var.iable Density Wind Tunnel as a Function of
Reynolds Number  NACA 0012 Airfoil.
26
\', I' 'I' I II
,.
\I
.'
,
.,
.,
.,"'
,.j
'I
. I
,I I
I
1:1
.
SU;
.06
04
.02
o
...
..
...
:
.
ILl, ..
I+++Hf"+f"
f'fj+Hj+"j'j ..
'1 j .i(,
ttH1j"I''I:
+"'++ ..
'. II
I l rl.+t1+A+HfHllrIlI"
.' 'If':' ,.:!" .. i
' ",,'t.t._, .++.+'" .. ,,,.,_"" frf
ttt"j .. 'IIH"'I++' ++tt+H .. LH'Hj"'HH'H++1
o .4 .8 1.2
tlHI't ++++tt+tIttH1"+t.ttt .  1;11'" . H++++ Ht+It+++tHHH
o .i .s 1.2
Lift Coefficient  CL
Figure 6. Twodimensional Airfoil Data Run in the NACA
Variable Density Wind Tunnel as a Function of
Reynol de Number  NACA. 2412 Airfoil.
, ~ . '
.06
..
~ .
f.tt
. ..
.,.
~
If ..
</
~
to'
!II"'"
~
. ~ ~
1':
rl
.tJ
1.1 .
, . ~
"'I'
=1
~ ~
==
~
..
III ~
1 E i ~
.' ....
o
\'
.4 0 .4 .S 1.2 1 .6
.  ."t.l 
o
.4 .8
1.6
..... .
L1ft Coefficient  CL
Figure 7. Twodimonsional Airfoil Data Run in the NACA
Variable Density Wind Tunnel as a Function of
Reynolds Number  NACA 4412 AirfoiL
28
,',
curve were also influenced by Reynolds number. The meager
data of Referenoe 9, Figure 8, shows an increase in drag with
Reynolds number with the same type of trend as observed in '
Figures 5 through 7. Since nothing is known about the tunnel
or test oonditions, these data also oan only be used as sup
portive information.
To aohieve good reliability for application of the airfoil
asta it should be based on data taken in a low turbulence tun
nel. These test operating conditions are the best representa
tions of the expected operating conditions. For these reasons,
the test results given in References 10 and 11 are considered
to be the most reliable low R&ynolds number airfoil data avail
able. Unfortunately, the low Reynolds number data obtained in
low turbulenoe tunnels is very sparce. The results shown in
Figure 9 for the high camber FX 63137 airfoil from Reference
10 are considered to be reliable. These data show a much
larger change in drag with Reynolds number than would be ex
pected due to the change in drag for an airfoil with turbulent
flow conditions. Although the drag change with Reynolds num
ber is of the same order of magnitude as measured in the Vari
able Density Tunnel,6 the actual level is less.
The most complete study available on the performance of air
foils operating at low Reynolds number is that given in Refer
ence 11. This was an awardwinning effort that oovered tests
of several different airfoil types run in a low turbulence
wind tunnel. These data show the lift, drag and moment charac
teristics of airfoils operating in the sub and superoritical
flow ranges. For the standard types of airfoilS tested the
critical Reynolds number is in the range of 40 to 160 thousand,
depending on the camber and angle of attaok. This is signifi
below critical Reynolds number of a flat plate and
below the operating Reynolds number expected for miniRPV pro
pellers. The variation of the arag with Reynolds number thrcuc;ah
the critical range is illustrated in Figure 10 for the N60
airfoil. The N60 airfoil is similar to airfoils normally
used on propellers. has a camber of 4% with a oorresponding
design CL of 0.55 and a thickness ratio of
6 Jaco.bs and Sherman.
9 1.1nenicka.
10
Althaus.
11
Schmitz.
29
';' I
I
Value. of Reynolds Number
1.0
ri
1
45,000
i
30,000
~
0.5
20,000
o .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12
Drag Coefficient  CD
Figure 8. Twodimensional Airfoil Data for NACA 4412
Airfoil as a Function of Reynolds Number.
30
31
,.... '. _ ......... .
..... .... ..... , . ~ . . ., ........ ".' "
\ l
" I
,
The trends illustrated for the N60 airfoils were also ob
tained for the other airfoils tested. In the transition range
the dra; decreases, goin; from subcritical to supercritical.
This change occurs for a given angle of attack ate higher Rey
nolds number when measured with an increase of velocity than
it does with a decrease of velocity. Tests made at higher
level.s of tur'.oulence showed a decrease in the critical Reynolds
number. It should be noted that the critical Reynolds number
inereases with increasing angle of attack.
The variation of the Ora; and lift coeff1,cients for the N60
airfoil at a series of Reynolds numbers is illustrated in
Fiqure 11. .' When the airfoil is operating at speeds above the
critical Reynolds number the drag remains relatively low, and
the minimum value deoreases with increased Reynolds number.
When the laminar separation takes place the lift drops sharply
and a large drag increase is encountered until it approaches
the level measured at the lower Reynolds numbers.
From this review of the available low Reynolds number airfoil
data it was found that sufficient systematic changes of CL and
CD were not available to allow the performance of miniRPV
propellers to be calculated by the vortex theory of strip
analysis. To do Such calculations it is necessary to have
tests covering the complete range of variables of th.ickness
ratio and design CL for the range of Reynolds number, such as
those given in Reference 1.
Sinoe suoh data is not available, it beoomes necessary to
develop corrections to the high Reynolds number airfoil data
used in the strip analysis program. The applioation of these
correotions should make it possible to find the performance of
propellers for miniRPV I s at any operating oondition, and to (Je
termine the losses due to number as woll as due to
the other desiqn and performance variables.
MQW REXNOLPS NUMBER TEST PATA
Because of the conoern with regard to the effects of Reynolds
numbeI' on the performance of propellers, most of the modern
test data was run at conditions above the critical. For in
stance, the large number of twobladed propellers tested by
NACA in tho 8 and l6foot highspeed tunnels
3
,5 are unsuit
able for use in evaluating propellers for miniRPV's because
of the relatively high operating Reynolds numbers.
1
Borst, et ale
3 Delano and Carmel.
5 Maynard and Steinberg.
32
I r ' . I ," (' " 1 t '," .' L J
.
, !
1
'. i
I
12

~  

1.0
.,/
",
Ct/CD
1
7
o
0,8
i
L...  
"...
I ~
I
CL
I
1:1
 ~
.12 . ~ .6
................. '"
r" ~ &
~ . ;
VI
CD
 ,
i
,.,.
".
~  
~   

~
~
I
.j.I
41
tj
08 ;j .4
CI)
'1"4
CJ
rot
Suboritioal Supercl'itioal
lI:l
~
.04 .2
Rk
1
l
0 0
I)
50 000 100,006 150,000
~ . Reynolds Nutnber
FiQure 10. Variation of LID and the Lift and Drag
Coefficients With Reynolds Number for
N60 Airfoil at a Oonstant Angle of
Attack of 6
0
33
I'"
6
4
2
o
o "
rot
m
f
I
c
':.
?
t.:
t::
fi,
If
It'
I
f
i
w
.,.
2.0
=t.,f R
1.6
;; Ie
1.2 .:,'
,
I:
. '
rI ,
o '
..I
111
'8 0.8
o
111
rI
0.4

8
8 x 10
6
..
.10
Drag Coefficient  en
.4
I.H+1=
II
..
1'= ..
.20
&;Y"Fn;

1
',
o
= Bx1.u
J:
,enB"
 
+
. 
 ,
a
10 20
Angle of Attack  41
168,000
147,000
126,000
105,000
1M, 000
63,000
42,000
21,000
Figure 11. Lift and Drag Coefficient as a Function of Reynolds Number for
N60 Airfoil Tested in a Low Wind Tunnel.
__ 'w'?'ti&!rmt'tk
\
A literature search was conClucteCl to find propeller test dGta ,.' .
that would be suitable to evaluate the effeots of low operat:lng ;,',' '.,
Reynolds numbers on performance. The data given in References
16 through 20 appear to be the best available for this purpose.
The data that appears to be the most useful and extensive are
the slries of propellers run at Stanford University by E. Reid
for NACA. 161B These tests were run w.ith threebladed pro
pellers with. diameter of 2.8 feet in the Stanford 7.Sfoot
wind tunnel. The Reynolds numbers of these tests cover a
large portion of the operating range expected with miniRPV
propellers. In fact, the teats that were run are very cloae
to thoae that would have been specified for the study of mini
RPV propellers if new teats were to be run. In addition to
providing thrust and torque data for the entire propeller, de
tailed wake survey measurements were also made. These measure
ment. of both torque and thrust are unique and are the only
suoh known data available on propellers.. Wake survey data of
this type is now available for axial floW compressors and ia
very UI$ful for investigating the details of the flow for eaoh
blade station of the compressor Or propeller.
_._
16 Reid, E.G., THE INFLumNCE OF BLADEWIDTH DISTRIBUTION ON
PROPELLER CHARACTERISTICS, NACA TN No. 1834, March 1949.
17 Reid, E.G., WAKE STUDIES OF EIGHT MODEL PROPELLERS, NACA
TN 1040, July 1946.
18 Reid, E.G., STUDIES OF BLAPE SHANK FORM AND PITCH DISTRI
BUTION FOR CONSTANTSPEED PROPELLERS, NACA TN No. 947,
JanUIlt'Y 1945.
19 Groae, R.M., &c 'l'aylor, H.D., WIND STUDIES OF IrHE
EFFEC'l'S OF BLAnE THICKNESS RATIO, CAMBER AND PITCH DIS
TRIBUTION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF MODEL HIGHSPEED PROPEL
LERS, Hamilton Standard Rpt. No. HS1352, June 19S5.
20 Gro , Brindley, D.Lu, A WIND 'rUNNEL INVESTIGATION
OF THE EFFECT OF BLADE ACTIVI'l'Y FACTOR ON 'l'aE AERODYNAMIC
PERFORMANCE OF MODEL PROPELLERS AT FLIGHT MACri NUMBERS
FROM 0.3 TO 0.9, Hamdlton Standard Rpt. No. 8S1125,
March 1954.
35
ANALYSIS OF LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER PROPELLER TEST PATA
To determine the effects of Reynolds number on propeller per
formance, the test data of References 16 through 18 were com
pared to that calculated using the strip analysis method and
data of Reference 1. Since the aocuracy of the strip analysis
ca1oulation procedure was demonstrated to be good for condi
tions corresponding to high Reynolds number, the be
tween the efficiency measured by test and that oalculated can
be considered to be due to operation at a Reynolds number be
low 500,000.
As in the case of the analysis of the accuraoy of the calcu
lated propeller performanoe at high Reynolds number, the dif
ference between the test and calculated results was found for
a range of operating CL at x = .7 and is given in Figure 12.
The Reynolds numbers of the test were in the range of 1.3 to
2 x 10
5
for the working portion of the blade. Thus, the dif
ference in performance shown is that due to changes by
operation at low Reynolds number. The effioiency change given
in Figure 12 applies for propellers with blades using NACA 16
and Clark Y sections and with an integrated design CL of 0.7
for a range of planforms and, therefore, loadings.
The difference between the test and calculated efficiency
shown in Figure 12 shows the importance of the operating lift
coefficient in comparison to the design value. When the
operating CL is near deSign, the change in efficiency due to
Reynolds number is small. However, when CL is several points
below the design eL, large differences in efficiency are ob
tain.d. These changes in efficiency reflect a large drag
change due to Reynolds number in much the same way as were
measured for twodimensional airfoils (Figure 11). The drag
change between high and low Reynolds numbers also showed little
change at CL near the design value, but large drag changes at
other conditions.
Detailed oomparisons of the test and oalculated efficiency for
Model 4 of Reference 17 are shown in FiquJ."es l.3
s
and 14. These
were done for Reynolds number of about 1.5 x 10. The results
1
Borst, et ale
16
Reid.
17
Reid.
18
Reid.
36
W
..!
o .
I
I
I
I
o.
I
k I
j
n 0
r
I
r
I
, c
I
o.
I
I
A. r
p(
'V
r:
<:
I
,
[J
"<
......
o.
k>r
h
111
IJ
I
a
.D
 <>
<>
n
A
1"00...
D
[]..
_.__._
Reference 16,
Blade
Model 6
Model 4
Model 3
C )
d
.12
.15
.20

___ H.
x 10
6
x 10
6
x 10
6
,
I
I i 0: [
8 10
o
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
1.2 1.4
Lift coefficient @ X = .7 = C
L
.7
Figure 12. Difference Behleen CaTculated and 'lest Efficiency as a Function of
Operating Lift Coefficient  Airfoil Data Uncorrected for Reynolds
Number.
;:,
"
...
.20
.8
Cr
.16
.6
C
p
0.150 x 10
6
R.N
12
"
Referenoe 16
.4 . cp
CT
Mea.ured
 
Q Calculated 6
.OB
5 37
0
.2
.04
0 1.0 2. .0
Advanoe l\a1::l.o
 J
linn
1:1'1.1'1:11
.1.1:11:1:1
. ,
, 1111IJHI:lIII:I:ltl
1"1.:'+1
1:W.l1
" I.I:dUill1
'!
"
Eff:Loienoy
'" .1
Meuure
0 Caloula.
.,
, .
" .
, .
,6
fj
I
.4
..
.2
Ii
1.0 2.0 . o
Advanoe  J
Figure 13. Compari!':'!". of Calculated Propeller pe't:'formance
Data With Test Data at Low Reynolds Number _
Airfoil Data uncorrected for Reynolds Number.
38
.,
1
'1
".
I
i
r
'j
S
.. 20
CT
.1.6
.12
.OB
F'
I
.!
.;\
.B
Cp
.6
.4
.2 .
o
o
.8
.6
.4
.2
Advallce Rat:l.o  J
Advance Ratio  J
..
n.N. = 1.5 X 10
5
Model 4 of Ref. 16
Cp
C'l'
 Mea_ured
C Calculated
.0
.
Maaaurea
0 Calculated
.0
Figure 14. Comparison of Propeller Perfqrmance
Data With Test at Low Reynolds Number 
Airfoil Data Uncol'rected for Reynolds Number.
39
,.
again show good agreement in propeller effioienoy and thrust
coefficients for the higher power levels or at conditions
where CL operates near the design CL. As the power ooefficient
and, therefore, the operating CL decrease, the test effioiency
beoomes muoh lower than the oalculated value for all four blade
angles investigated.
D&tailed comparisons of the variation of test vs calculated
values of the thrust and torque distributions for the Model 4
propeller were also made (Figures 15 and 16). As indicated,
these oomparisons of thrust and torque are unique for propel
lers and were very usefUl the necessary changes
in the airfoil data due to operation at loW Reynolds numbers.
PROPELLER TEST DATA REDUCTION
With the measurements of the thrust and torque coefficients
aft of the propeller, the operating lift and drag coefficients
can be found if the theory used to calculate the equivalent
twodimensional flow conditions is valid. Sinoe,. as shown pre
viously, the calculations using theory to find the induced
angle of attaok are aoourate, the results of the propeller data
reduction to seotion lift and drag coefficients shOUld be reason
ably good. This assumes that the measured values of thrust and
torque at eaoh blade station in the wake truly represent the
conditions on the blade at that station. .
To calculate the lift and drag coefficients from the measured
thrust and torque coefficients, the following equations are
used:
where
C 4 (nD )2 1 (ddJeCT cos (6 + ddx
CQ
x! 'Sin (6) (9 )
L = a W (biD)
2
4 I:nD} 1 (dCO cos (6  sin (6)
B rW '(biD) dx x dx
winD =
)'1 ,.
J (1 + ;/2 (1 sin(6 )
sin il
40
(10)
(11)
,
..
4
3
.2
.1
o
.2
.1
o
o
J = 1.80
Cp= .0972
"0= 86"
"1:= 77.3"
C
Lxbi7
= .2870
a.H.x::.7 = 251 x 10
6
fI = 37
0
..
'l'eat
Calculated
aeference 16
Model 4
Activity Factor 92.6
fractional aad1ua  x
.4 .6 .8 1.0
fractional Radius  x
Figure 15. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Load
Distribution  Airfoil Data Uncorrected
for Reynolds Number.
41
, :
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
o
.1
o
Figure 16.
,'"
Reference 16 MoOel 4 Ai = 92.6
iJ :; 2.69
Cpll .771
'Ie 7",
'It:; 77.6"
CL1D=.7 1:1 1.0093
R.N'x=.7 1:1 .177 x lb
6
.s.75 1:1 60
Telt
   Calaulated
Pract10nal Rad1uI  x
.2 .4 .6
fraotional R ~ a i u .  x
.8 1.0
.S 1.0
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Load
Distribution  Airfoil Data Uncorrected
tor Reynolds Number.
42
I' " ,
, I
I
I
I
'1"\1' I, 1'1"
These equations are easily derived from the dCa/ax and dOT/ax
equations of Reference 1 and Equations (4) and (5).
The wind angle is a function of the lift coefficient and
must be determin.d to find the operating Ct and CD from telt
data. Because there was no direot measurement of the swirl
angl',it i8 necessary to use theory 1 for Thus,
lcnowinq test values of 4Cn/ax and dor/dx the lift and drag co
efficients oan be calculated using the theoretical variation
of the wind angle as det'rmined.
Lift p.ta from ,rSR.ller wake Survey
Using the wake survey data of Reference 17 and Equation (9),
lift coefficients w.r. calculated from tb. t.st data of sev.xal
different blade modals, one of Which is shown in Figure 17.
Comparison of the lift coeffioi.nts determined from ths wake
surv.y and tb. twodimensional airfoil data used in the
dard strip caloulation 887 Showed reasonably good agr.ement.
At the lower lift coefficients there appears to be an error of
angle of attack of about 1 to 2 degrees. However, the agree
ment over the angle of attack range between the two sets of
data, including conditions approaohing the maximum lift coeffi
oient eLK' is quite good.
'l"he Ba7 twodimensional airfoil data was obtained mainly fro\1l
References 21 and 22. Althouqh the.' data were run at Reynolds
numbers above the critical, the maximum lift appears to bft
questionable. A comparison of the maximum lift obtained from
that of Referenc, 15 with the values estimated from Reference
22 shows that Cux used in the B87 program propeller calcula
tions is too low. For normal propeller performance estimates,
this generally does not present a problem, however" where the
blade operating CL does approach the maximum as at the low
speed takeoff condition, it is necessary to modify the basic
1 Borst, et al.
15 BOIrn.r and Borst.
17 Reid.
21 Abbott, Ira H.,& Von A.E., THEORY OF WING
Dover PUblications, Inc.
22
Lindsey, W.F., Stevenson, D.B.,& Daley, Bernard N., AERO
DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF 24 NACA SERIES AIRFOILS AT MACH
NUMBER BETWEEN 0.3 and 0.8, NACA TN 1546.
43
1.2
. .,,,
I
o
17.
.... "':j: . r1:' .. .. . . . . . . . .... 1:.,
.. .  ": : :":' "i: : > .. :: ,: : : ':', : . . :'" : .. : : .. : .. ',,;: '
o
: :Design 01. 1:1 .7
, ..
.. :.:1: . " :, .. , " , .......... :: .::
" ,: . ',j: ':'
, ' .. 8
.... , ... ;:: ,: ,It
.... "'" "''''
.. ,. .. .., ...
, .... : .. , I't
I+H:" ' 1=1: : ..... dCt/du = 0.1 ..
'IIIiEE r'L. . tj : . :.: {h:11 . rl ...
'. teit :... . :tI:t:j: ;w=tLij :!il:l.+lH.
.' ,':: ' :::.:.:
.... .. .". .6 0
....... :.::.:: ... :'. .71 0
.. :
'.:... ..... ' + .89 x
... ..... .. .95 Cl
. .... '. .. : .: :' .. : : ..... :H:I+.+ ... .. 1+fffttl .. .H: .m .. FH. f .. F
. .... .. .. . . . .. " ,
. . . . .  . . .. ..  ........ .
. .. ..... . . _.".
. ....... . . ... . .. .  .. , .
. ,
ltHHH+t+I
Angle of Attack  Go
Comparison of Lift Coefficient Calculated From
propeller Data With CL From Twodimensional
Airfoil Data, Ba7 propeller strip Analysis Pro
gram  Reynolds Number = 1.24 x 10
5
I
; .
i.
; .
airfoil data as described in Reference 1 to account for a more
realistic CLX' Because of this low value of CLX and the vari
ation of CL with the angle of attack used for performance calcu
lations in the B87 program, it to be suitable for the
analysis of miniRPV propellers. This is apparent When one
compares the CL reduced from the model test data of Reid with
that of B87. Baaed on ehe CL of the re'Buced propeller eest
data for low Reynolds numbers and the available low Reynolds
number airfoil 4ata, such aa shown in Figure 17, it appears
that no corrections are required for modifying the 8B7 a!r
foil lift data for application to the design and analysia of
RPV propellera. This is especially true as the main problem
, with Reynold8 numblrs in the case of lift ia that of CLX'
Since the miniRPV propellers are qenerally designed for the
condition for highe.t expected loading such a. climb, the air
foils will be operating at lift coefficients well belOW their
High efficiency will then obtained at the peak
loading canditions.
prag from proptllir telt pata
TWodimensional drag coeffioient data was also found from the
propeller wake lurvey data of Reid, using Equations (9) and
(10), the results of one model are given in Fioure 18. The
drag data obtained from the propeller wake survey measurements
agree with ehe twodimensional data of B87 When the operating
CL is well below the value. At values of oper
ating CL, near the design value, the data obtained from ehe
wake survey data results in negative drag ooefficienta. Sinoe
clearly negative values of drag are not real, the prooedure for
reducing the propeller wake survey was examined to determine
the oaule.
A composite curve derived from the aeveral models tested is
Shown in Figure 19. In examining the results of the reduction
of the wake survey data,it is noted that the Shape of the drag
ourve, Figure lS, as a function of C
u
appears to be reasonable.
Based on the physical quantities used in detennining CDI the
most likely sources of are the measurements of den/dx,
dOT/dx, x and the calculation of _. Integrations of sur
vey thrust and torque data are in good aqreement with
foroe measurements and, therefore, are not considered the
oause of error. Analysis of the caloulation of the wind angle
_ indicated that the differences to account for the
values of negative drag obtained could not exist and still
achieve the accuracy observed in checking propellerinduoed
efficiency. Therefore, the assumption that the measured
values ot x in the wake to x on the blade ap
peared to be the source of error that caused the negative
drag coefficients.
1 Borst, at ale
45
I
,I
I
';: .
Ii
, !
1.2
, ,.;: rrrr,
: i. ':' i . i ! I
'::U il: i in!Jt
t
'd .. , v: i, 'i ;:;H
,. : ..iCalCUlafolllooll .. '.' II.IJ.
u . "i i i J
III .
tl:
II ....
I.
iIi
Ii ;1
I
from 'rest
.,
1It:or
i
..
I I
. .
;! I!
I :, ji I"
1::::'
'In!
, .. I I
I ,
I
i . I,' I I
l.!
:1'll
. .
I': .
,Ij' . ' IJ
ti'!.H.
..
..
. .
i::.
I.'
,
II:
. ,
It I!r:
...
. ,
i,
.' .
=
,!I!'. . ,
B87
station
x
!:I:r
...
.1,1:11,'
I
I , . ,
.. ,I I.
e ....
I::::
,
. 'if
'j}i; Ii : : '. .6
,
!!i:;
. ,
I
' .
.,
,
, :
.. ..
...
iJ .
.71
.. ... . ,
"':':, !.
. . .. , .
, , .. ..
: ',': ..
1
' .
.89
Ii
' .
''''
I
..
..
,.j
.95
I'li' II
i
..
I
, .1
o
1:;11
I
i ;
I': ., .
Jut;
...
I
"
il!
II '( , I 1 H :1.1.:
"
..
I,,:; [';:1 I
Mod.ified to Eliminate
Negative
CD
Value.
!lili
I
!
Ii, I;
il !: II 'I t III I! III II'!JII 1:1"1"1:1'1 III : I III! I I: 1 : !
:
.04
o .04 .08 .12 .16
Draq Coeffioient  CD
lSi Comparison of Lift and Draq Coefficients
Calculated From propeller Test Data With
Twodimensional Airfoil Data, 587 propeller
strip Analysis proqram  Reynolds Number a
1.24 X 10
5
46
, ,
1.2
.... . ...
.. ". . ... ,. . .. . , . .. . .,' ,
I I' . . . . '.. . ,. . . .  . .
";: 'I :,::', :;;, ';: .. ::: "> ' ,:, , .. , , "
: ::: .. ; ;, .. :" .. .. ',: ' ': , : .. , " .. ''',' " , .. ,',':', ,':', , '," _, ': :,:: : ,,' ,:, ',"_:.: ',' ,>, ' ','"  1'1
. : Itlt: . : .  .. .' :: .. ; ',. :' :.:. .: , .. :.
.04 o .04 .08 .12
Draq Coefficient  CD
Figure 19. Composite Airfoil Characteristics With
Modification. Reynolds Number = 120,000
CLi = .7
.16
Ba.e4 on the low Reynold. number teat data :Lt waa observed that
When the airfoil is pperating above the critical, the drag,
When the operating CL il near th, design CL the airfoil,w.Ul
be eqUal to that at the high Reyno14s number (FigurelB). 'l'hul,
the drag coefficient in the rangaof CL = .7 from the Reid wake
luZ"Vey datoa should oorrespond clo.ely to that in the B87 pro
gram, rather than be negative as shown in Figure 18. It was
found that using the dOi' ana dCQ values for wake station x = .71
would re,ultin oorrect 00 calculation for blaae stations x =
.65; and wake station x = .890orr8aponded to blade station x =
.82,8tC" FUrthermore, ainoe finite value. of thru.t and tor
que were mea.ured at wake .tation i.05 it could be concluded
that reSUlting in drag coeffioients were
oause4 the .expanlion of the m.
BasecSon the above ana1ys:Ls the drag curve calculated frcrn the
wake survey <!eta"hould be, ahifted 80,tl'aat tbea&ta a;re.s
w:Ltht.he B87'de.t.a at 'a CL equal ,to the df!lsiqn cr.,. The curve <i,
to ;h:LS change i. shown :Ln F1QUre 19.
After thia adjU:ilt.ment, th. change in Cp due to operating at. t:.he
lower ReynoleSs numbers can now ba eat:Lmated.
48
, ;
I
i .'
I
I
I '
I
I'
,.
I
I '
I
i '
'I
urn REYNOLDS NyMBER CORRECTION
Sinoe suffioient syatematio low Reynolds number twodimensional
airfoil data was not available for ca1oulatino the performance
of miniRPV propellers, it is neoessary to find a Reynolds num
ber oorrection !or airfoil data. In
oorreetion,the available low Reynolds number data from both
twodimenlional airfoil data and the propeller wake survey data
was used. The u.e of, the propeller wake survey data for find
ing the correction to the airfoil is art important advanta;.,
.a the Cata then applies direotly.
It was neoessary to find only a oorreotion to the ara; ooeffi
oient de:t:a for the Reynolds number, as the lift data already
used in the ia7 computer data app1ie. (as previously shown).
In determining the correction to the dra; data of the i87 fUr
the Reyno1dl number, it was necessary to assume that it would
apply to the data for all type. of airfoil and would be inde
of Mach number. From the available data it appears
that the drag change will be constant over a range of operatin;
lift corresponding to the delign lift ooefficient plus 0.2.
the drag correction for the Reynolds number i8 a funotion
of the quantity
Where
fd = f IOLi + .2  CLol (12)
CD low Reynolds numberl CD high Reynolds number
neai;n C
L
Operatin; CL
The dra; coefficient correction for the Reynolds number fd then
becomes a multiplyin; factor to the B87 airfoil data and is a
function of desiqn CL and Reynolds number. Basioally, the
correction shown in Fiqure 20 i8 oonsidered to apply at Rey
nolds numbers above and below the oritioal. Althou;h the lo
cation of the critical Reynolds number is diffioult to identify
for all the airfoils, the fd variation shown does account for
operation above the oritioal. The variation of fd with
IOLi + 0.2  CLol shown for the various Reynolds numbers in
Figure 20, is based mainly on the reduction of the wake survey
test data.
P\lcted Fan.
When the performanoe of duo ted propellers, proce
dures have been developed to correct the flow field in the
duot 80 that twodimensional airfoil data can be used to find
the forces on the rotor. The theory for the induoed
49
I:
I
j
.'"
.'
I
!
UI
o
5.0
4.0
fd
3.0
.
....
2.0

1.0
o

I
..
.
fd
eLi
CLo
 io""'

,,
....
I
I
= Cnr.ow R.N.
CDHigh R.N.
= Design CL
=
OperatiBg CL

i,..
I'"
L'
I""'"
.
f.
..
..

..
.
l...
I
.......

P
Iii'
.2 .4

I""'"
L.
I""'"'

..........

I
I"'

10
.6 .8
ICLi + 0.2  CLoI
Revnolds No.
0,000


10
.. 
0,000

n
.....
""T
L'
20 .00,000

.....
,
,
,

'
0
 
0,000
...
l...
I
1.0 1.2
Figure 20. Correction to Drag Coefficient for Reynolds Humber.
_ _ " .ii . .;:.....,.,. ...: .... .:=,
"
flow oonditions at the rotor. and thus the induced efficiency,
is similar to that used for an open propeller. The only dif
ferenoes are those made neoesaary by the applioation of the
duct. Since twod1mensional airfoil data are used for the an
alysi. of ducted fans, the fd correction to the corrected B87
data oan be applied for the analysis of duoted fans operating
at low aeynol4a numbers.
CHECK OF THE lUlYNOLDSNU'MBER fd CORREC1'ION
USing the Reynolds number oorrection to the drag ooefficient
shown in Figure 2Q, the low Reynolds number propeller test data
by Reid was analyzed. Comparison of the test efficiency with
that calculated with the mod1fied B87 strip analysis oomputer
program incUoates t'hat the drag correction 'has improved the
accuracy of the calculated results. As shown in Figure 21,
the calculated efficiency agrees with the test values at low
Reynolds number within plus or minus This is nearly the
same aoouraoy as that achieved for propellers ftnd
il believed to be within the aoouracy of the basic test data.
RANGE 01' OPERATION,
With the new correotion to drag, Figure 20. to aocount for Rey
nold. number above and below the critical, the performance and
characteristios of propellers oan now bG determined over the
complete range of operation. This can he done using the strip
analysis procedures d.scribed in the B87 oomputer program and
the equivalent hand oe,loulation described in Reference 1. The
methods and data now apply for the range of operation of the
original strip analysis program plus Reynolds number down to
50,000. This include. all the operating range encountex'ed by
miniRPV propeller.s.
1 Borst, et ale
51
, I I ..... I' I PI. 1. ! I ! ' , 4 ,1'

\
t
I
[
!
r
!
us
:' .,...., ..... . , __ ... _ "="""=''0:. .. ..:...  __ ________________________________ .
0.4
0.3
B87 Blade
R.B Cor. 887

.........
!
I
_ 6 "'.J
Moc1el " .1
_ .Moae13 =.2 ,
'"
J 0 0
f6;
01
I
I
I
0
0.2
..
: ,
.A A.
c
"Y
0.1
I
(r> <:
q
JT
i'...
"
.
( <
.... c qr . ,
J .....  _ ...... _
o 0
.2 .4 1:0 .6 .8 1:2
Operating Lift Coefficient @ x =.7 = C
L
.7
Figure 21. Comparison of Test and Ca1cu1ated Propeller Efficiency With and
Without: the Reynolds Number Drag Correction.
Ig' _n
r
I
,
i
i
::
SINGLEPOINT HEmop
For preliminary desiqn studies the sinqlepointmethod of de
termininq propeller performance has been Such
methods have been found to be useful as the can be
quickly estimated using only charts and desk oaloulators for a
large variety of confiqurations. Bused on these performance
estimates, the most promising confiqurations can then be fur
ther studied and optimized. The singlepoint method
only for variable pitch constant speed propellere operating at
high Reynolds numbers. To be useful for the analysis of RPV
propellers the singlepoint method must be modified to apply
at low Reynolds numbers and for propellers with a fixed blade
angle.
THEORY
'rhe theory of the sinlj1lepoint me'ehod is btf.sad on the aSl!lump
tion that the operating conditions of the can be speci
fied by those occurrinq at one blade station, Thus, if the
propt,.:ller i8 operating at a given loe..tlinq, the lift ooef
ficient at the .75 radius will the lift/draq ratio of
the blade. The lift/drag ratio dependll on the camber
and bl&de angle distribution. Also,' at a qiven ad'V'anoe ratio
the perf.;,rmanc(! of the prcil81:ler is a function of only
the operating lift coefficient. 'rhe lift/drag ratio for the
given camber level C"perating lift. cClefficient is thus indepen ..
dent of the blade number ty factor.
In addition to the blade profile 66t&rmined by the
lift/drag ratiO, therl't are the induced dreg J.osses which are
dependent. on the total loading, blade number and advance ratio.
The induced losses are consider6.j to be indepeudent of the
lift/drag ratio and are determined on the a<:'l9umption that
the blades are operat,ing at the optimum load distribution.
the desired propeller will be one that aevelops peak per
formance, this assumption is
The basic development of the singlepoint method and the nec
essary charts for its application are in Reference
The charts can used to oalculate the performance of 2,3,
and 4bladed propellers using blades with integrated design
lift coefficients of 0 to .5 and activity factors 50
The charts for determining the lift/drag ratio of the blade
apply in the Reynolds number range above 500,000. Since mini
RPV propellers operate at Reynolds numbers below the 500,000
and it is necessary to be able to find the blade angle for
each power input, the singlepoint method must be modified.
1 Borst, et al.
53
(
"",
, I
"1'
METHOP FOR BPV
The singlepoint method for calculating performance of RPV pro
pellers is baaed on that given in Reference 1, modified to ac
cOl;Lnt for oper'a.tion at low Reynolds numbers and fixed blade
angles typical of RPV propellers. In addition, the procedure
is set ,up ,90 that the change due to interference losses of the
installation Clan be estimat.ed. The ba.sic:: calculation procedure
for singlepoint method is given in Table 1, with the
charts for finding tbe profile and induced losses 'ii'iven in Fig
Ures 22 through, 28. The drag/lift ratio, representing the pr.o
ftle l0384U, shown in F:l.q1lL"es through 28 are corrected fo.r
the effect" of Reynolds number Fic;r'.re 20, which was pre
viously developed for the strip analysis caloulations.
:rhe sillglepo:Lnt method of calculat:Lon for RPV propellers is
based on the prev1.ously described concept that the performantle
t.he threequart.ers blade statir:/n will represent that of the
entire popeller. Thus, to calculate the performance, it is
necessary to f:Lnd equivalent loading conditions for determining
the operat.ing lift/drag ratio and the cond:Ltions that determine
the :l.n.duced J.l:)8ding and, therefore, the induced efficienoy.
These "lUantities are basica],ly a function of Cp and JL' which
are calCUlated in steps 10 and 11 from the given input as in
dicated in Table 1. JL is based on the average local velocity
due to body interference as determined in a later sect:Lon of
this report. At this given advance ratio JLI the operating
lift coefficient is a funotion of the loading L01,
which determines the drag/lift an9le for a blade with a qiven
integrated design cLI ICLi and JL. Thus, LOl is calculated in
step 12 and the drag/lift angle is found from Figures 22
through 24 knowing LOl and JL' step 13.
The drag/lift anQle'Y , given on Figures 22 through 24, appl:Les
only for propellers operating at Reynolds numbers above 500,00l
When the Reynolds number is below 500,000, Y must be corrected.
To determine if this correction is needed and its value, the
operating Reynolds number is found usinc;; the equatiorl IlIhown in
step 14, Table 1. When the Reynolds number is less than
500,000, steps 15 through 22 are completed to find the true or
corrected value of Y. This is done by finding the operating
CL at .75x blade station, which can be shown to be a func
tion of a new loading parameter L02 defined by the equation 13
and also step 18
1 Borst, at ale
4000Cp sin.t'.75
B(AF)J2
54
(13 )
'if
, i
This loadln; parameter is used, instead of L01, as it nonnal
1z,e8 the effect of the parameter J. From EqUations (3) and (5)
dCp ___ CL('Nx)2 J2.[1+;(1 sin"']
..     sin ,S(l+tan Y 'tan .)
4x .' " .' sin _ "
(14) .
Since r = bB/yxD and AF = 1562 (b/D) for rectanqular blades
0L.75 = fr;;inlf] = (1102)
(15)
The variation of 0L , *.75 with L02 is shown on 25. In
determin:Ln; L02 for findin; the operating lift coefficient, it
to 'Jcnow the true wind an;le .75. Th:l.s angle can
'be knowing the apparent wind. angle 0 '5 and the in
duced efficiency. Th. induced efficiency "i is ea function of
0P . JL .ndB.The induced efficiency is efficiency of the pro
peller When the profile drag i8 zero, ,,= 0, and is read from
. Figures 26 through 28.
,To find the correct:l.on for Reynolds number to the draCdllift
angl.eY, fd :l.a read fran Fioure 20 know:l.ng the quantity
I(ICL:I. + 0.2  CLo)1 = I(CL:I. + 0.2  0Lo)1 (16)
With the corrected value of "corr' step 22, the true efficiency
can be calculated, step 23. The shaft efficiency is then
etep 24, along with the operating blade angle, step 25.
This is the value normally quoted as it is the quantity from
which the thrust is calculated, knowing the free straam
Since the foregoing calculation used the local velocity for de
termining the true efficiency, the loss of efficiency due to
body interference is found by repeatinQ steps 11 through 24,
us:l.ng Vo instead of VL. This loss A'1 is then
(17 )
55
',,.
!
f
f
!
TABLE 1. SINGLEPOINT METHOD FOR
1' ............ "':ENOY
steps ' Item
SymbOl
Example
1. Propeller Shaft Horsepower liP Input 4
2. Propeller MlM
N Input 5000
3. Air Density
P/po = " Input .81
4. Forward Velocity
Vo Input 126.7 fps
5. Ave,rage Local Velocity
VL Input fps
6. Propeller Diameter D Input
2.5 ft
I
7. Propeller Blade Number B Input 2
8. Blade Activity Factor AF Input
81 .
I
9. Blade Integrated DeSign CL
ICLi
Input .493
I
Piocedure
I
, ( N) D)S
I
10.
Op = (.OOOSHP) /" romr b:o Calculate .020
I
11. . JL '= 6OVr/(ND) Calculate .596
I
12. LOl = 400 op/a (AP') Calculate .049
13. y = tan
l
D/L
Read 2224 2
0
14. P.N = , (II sth )4AP' nJvot + .(. 7511'ND/60) 2 Calculate .307x lff
15.
'71 know1no B, Op & J Read ligures 2628 .95
16.
= tan
l
0.4244J Calculate 14.2
17.
= Calculate 14.9
i
18. L02 = 4000 Cp Calculate .355
r
r
19. CLO = operating C
L
Read Fioure 25 .360
t
20.
II eLi + 0.2 CLol
Calculate .333
I
I. 21.
fd = (Cncorr. for RN)/C
D
Read FiQUre 20 1.30
I'
22. Yeor = fdy Calculate
2.60
t.
23.
'IT
=
tan,fJ5Ih 75
Calculate
.80
r.
tan (,If. 75+ y)
I
24.
"s
:l
'I 'I' Vo!V
L
(Se. Eqs. 18 & 19) Calculate .82
..
= lOC
Lo
6.34 IC'Li + IJ. 75
25.
{; .75
Calculate
15.4
0
v
"
f . ' ~ IJJlllI
1
u;n
Itlll
IlIiWJ
ItttfJ!
fllilt
1
Inte;rated Deoi;n C ~ a 0
_ , . m.
.. ' '. I
:
.IM!'I!'Ii
:2 3
"
Advance Ratio
 J
Figure 22. Propeller Profile Draq/Life Characteristics _
IC
Li
o.
57
. ~ '
.4
.....
. . .
. .
;
;':
'" ;
.3_
"
lilt.
illlmi IHIHtlll1
1 2 3
,.
r
r. Advanced Rat:l.o  J
Figure 23. Propeller Profile Drag/Lift
Char'acteristios  ICLi . 25.
58
.
IU
4
\
'\
,J
1
,j
,
"
" .2
f
i
o
Integrated De81;n CL = .50
2
Advance Ratio  J
3
Figure 24. Propeller Profile
Characteristics  reL.t = .5.
59
J
,
:,
:j
,'If
\
"
\
j
'1
.'
....
(J\
0
  _._ ...  ._
Eo Fl. J::;I @ .. j.
0.8
It)
r0
o
U
)C
0.6
H
... y,= ....
0
r:
,,   .:.   r .... I . , __ _, .,. I , ,_ _
....
0.4
8
II Hlil 11:11,'11 :1:'i,I':I,
0.2 : ... :: .: ... : .. : ... : .. ! .. , ::1.;.: ::.: :: I !
o
o 02
Figure 25.
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
LO
Z
= (4000) {ep)sin 75
J2 BfAFJ
1.2 1.4
Integrated Loacling Farameter as a Function of
Operating Lift Coefficient.
1.6
....
'#.
>t
0
a:
0
~
IIW
~
iii
~
1
.....
0
.a
a:
H
..
tr
 _._
B;2 T= tP
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
AdvaDee Rati.o  J
Fi<;JIre 26. Efficiency at Drag;'Lit Ratio of zero as a Punct:.i.ClIl
of Advance Ratio  "rWob1aaed Propel.1er_
(J\
N
s::
..I
o
..I
OW
OW
iii
o
.a
s:
H.
rl
.,..
.. __._
B=3 T= 00
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Fignre 27. Efficiency at Draq/Li.ft Ratio of zero as a PttDction
of Advance Ratio  Threeb1.aded Pr'q)eller.
>
0
.::
0\
rt
W
0
rt
....
....
iii
'tS
0
.iJ
.::
H
.
....
5'"
B="
.,= fP
90
80
70
60
50
"!)
30
.5 1.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
".0
AdvaDce Rat:i.o  J
Figure 28. Efficiency at Drag/L:it Ratio of zero as a Function
of Advance Ratio  Fourb1aOed propeller.
.,:
..
. , ,
,'I I
'I'
;/:
t" '
I;. I
AIRlOIL SELECTION rOR PRQPILLiRS
The .election of the best airfoil type for application to RPV
propIIllers is hamperea by the lack of low Reynolds number test
data. The only available airfoil data for. the
normal operatiriq Reynolds number of RPV propellers iii that
qiven'in References 6 through 14. With the exoeption of one
telt these data do not cover the modern airfoil. of NASA and
others. further, muoh of these aAta are considered to. be un
rel:l.able .due to' telt:l.nq :l.n wind tunnels w:l.th, a b:l.gh tUJ\"bulence
factor. 'or th r ..... on. the .eleotion of the beat .:h:foil
type'mult \bi made b .. led on their operatinq obaracteri8tics at
Reynolds numberl above the oritical.
In addition 'to the more conventional NACA airloila, the 16 and
65 lerio. lectionsand the older propeller airloi1 type. inolud
inq the RAr 6, Clark Y and tho double cambered Cla:rkY, there
airfoil. that have been c!evoloped
by NASA and' otherl. Con.iderable and te.twork on the.
airfoil I hal been done by Whitcomb 23, 24, Wartmann 25 and
, '!" *3aoob. an4 She:rtn*ft.
7. Re1f, Jone. and Sell.
S Jone. and William
9 lIn.nicka.
10 Althaul.
11 SChmitz.
12 Col1aurierl.
13 LippisOh.
14 Lippisch.
23 Whitcomb, R.T.," CJ ark, L.R., AN AIRFOIL SHAPE FOR ErJ'ICIl!NT
FLIGHT AT SUPERCRITICAL MACH NOS., NASA TN Xl109, 1965.
24 Whitoomb, R.T., REVIEW OF NASA SUPERCRITICAL AIRFOILS, leAS
Paper No. 7410, Haifa, I.rael, Augult 1974.
25. Wortmann, F .X., A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS
OF AIRFOIL DISIGN AT LOW MACH NUMBERS, Inltitut fnr Aero
dynam:Lk U. Galdynamik, der univerlitat Stuttgart, publilhed
at the MIT Sympolium "Technology & Scienoe of Motorl
J'11Q'ht", Boaton 1972
64
,,'
, .,
,I
,
on
"
"
.,
,
.,
,
i
i,
\I.
: ..
Bocci. 26 The Bocci airfoil design. were developed e.pecially
for propeller.. T,he data of all the new airfoil types has
indicated that improved performance can be obtained in terms of
lift/drag ratio and maximum T.he new airfoils also have
betterstruotural characteri.tic. than the types, aue to
'increased thickne.s ratio and muCh higher l.ad and trailing
racUi.
With RJV propellers the profile drag 10 enoounter.d is a
hiQher of the total than with oonventional propel
ler.. !hi. i. caused by the higher drag encountered at low
Reynoldanumber.. T.hu., gain. in efficiency can be .xpected
for RPV propellers only if the performance advantage. of the
new airfoil ction. extend to the lower Reynolds number
Du. to the lack of this type of data, a evalua
tion of thele gains 1. not po.sible.
An important advantage of the n.w airfoil .ection. as applied
to propell.r. i. the improved structural characteristics due
to increaled thickness ratiol and greater loadingedge radii.
The.eadvantage. are pecially important When operating in a
ho.til. and are con.idered to be a lufficient rea
.on for their .election.
Th. twodimenliQnal airfoil data for the new NASA GAW leri
and the Booci 2e airfoill i. v.ry limited .0 that the eff.ct.
of Change. in oamber, Mach number and number needed
for the design of an optimum propeller cannot be det.rmined.
For this r.alon,it was n.c ry to design the optimum propel
lers using the .tandard propeller airfoil data and the oorreo
tion for R.ynolda number d.veloped and presented in Figure 20.
Th. propeller designs developed for suCh analysis oan be ex
pected to have the efficiency l.vel determined from the oalcu
lation. The teohnioal risk is low as the methods and data
have been checked against many tests of propellers. For these
reasons, the propellers for the RPV were designed using NACA 65
series seotion data.
Althouqh there ia a laok of both twodimensional and propeller
te.t data for the new airfoil seotions, the struotural and
po.,ible performanoe advantage I warrant their applioation to
RPV propeller blades. To do this, airfoils must be deSigned
and te.ted in the range of thiokness ratios from 21" to approx
imately With data a blade can be de.igned to be oom
petitive with those with conventional airfoil seotions.
268000i, A.J., A NEW SERIES OF AIRFOIL SECTIONS SUITABLE FOR
AIRCRAFT PROPELLERS, Alronautical Quarterly, Feb. 1977.
65
"
f; .
"
(.
, '
,J.
I( i
,,'
f,' ,
:
I
r I
! '
I I
\1
pmSIG" AND ANALYSIS OrpROPELLIBS rOR HlNI!px'
Theproaedure. for the design and analysis of small propellers
forRPV's bave been u d to determine six optimum confiQUra
tions and their perfol:'1'n!.nce . Three optimum pros;eller config
urations were developed for the optimized RPV confiquration,
referred to as the advanced RPV, and three for the MoCiel B
Aquila RPV.
OPIlRA1'ING CONJ)l'r IONS
The following operating conditions and engine aharacter1.tio.
for the acSvancea RPV were provided for the optimum propeller
study.
POWER CLIMB TRUE AIR
&I
gONt>IT.ON
RATE
lS'I:l!
Launch 4000 ft/g50r Maximum 610 fpm needea 60
Recovery
II
Maximum 200 to 610 fprn 60
Cruise
II
11 Shp 0 75 min
Dalh
II
Max:Lmum 0 100 min
Airoraft Gro.s wei;ht = 220 1b, Max:Lmum propeller D:Larneter =
30 in.
At the minimum oruise speed of 75 knots, operation at peak ef
f:Lo:Lency will result :Ln minimum power and maximum endurance.
When operating at peak power and efficiency, the cruise speed
will be a maximum.
Electric.l
The data also :Lndicated a required eleotrioal power for
operation of 0.55 hp in launoh, landing and dash, and 0.85 hp
in orui... The advanced RPV specificationa did not ;ive th:La
information, bowever, it was assumed that there would be an
electrioal load requirement, 80 the 8ame values were used for
the advanoed RPV.
The dra; cbaracter:Lstica :Ln terms of thruat horsepower (TV/550)
and the en;ine power as a funotion of rotat:Lonal speed used
for the analys:Ls of the advanced RPV are given in FitJUres 29
and 30. Although not furnished, the eng:Lne power to the pro
peller was reduced to acoount for the eldctrioal load as in
the case of the Aquila. This resulted in the power to the
66
. ,
. .................. _ .. _ .... ..t_
'"
,,'
" .. ,I'.] ".Iil
c
Ltl
Ltl
... , ..
~
II
a
rg
. ~
!
~
f
~
tl
~
GW =
220 lbs
18 Cond1t.10n14000 ft. ,. 95F
16
14
12
10
e
6
2
Velocit.y  V kt.s
Figure 29. Thrust Horijepower Required VB Velocity
for Advanced RPV.
67
. \ I' i
,', .
,II
,"
"
a
'.
I ~ . 0.
'l.
: , ~
,"
'I
~
'!
, 3 ~
,
.
~
~
. ~ ; I
~
,
,j
!
I
;'
"
I,
Engine and propeller RPM, 1000'e
:&'igure 30. Sbaft Horsepower Available for a Typical Advanced
RPV. (Electrical Load Not Included)
68
f
K
I
propeller. being
'hP
prop
.= hp fig 30  .55 (launch, dash, landing)
h
P
prop
.0 = 'hp fig 30 .85 (cruise)
The foilowing operating conditions were provided for tbe
Aquila RPVI
1181. eONblTlON
X.unch 4000 ft/95Or
erui.e
:Da.h
Landing
II
II
II
SETT%NG
MU:imum
MaXimum
Aircraft Gro.. Weight = 134 lbs
Maximum propeller Diam.ter = 21
CL:tMB TRUB AIR
BArril SPEED. K'l'S
667 fpm 60
75 req'd
peak
60
power characteri.tic. for the engine installed in tbe
Aquila are given in Figure 31. The electrical load. used for
the da.ign oondition. are
hp prop = bp :fig 31 .55 (launch, da.h, landinq)
bp prop = l\p fig 31 .85 (cruise)
Tb8 Aquila aircraft drag characteristics are given in Figure
32. The.e were derived from drag polars.
8P'l PItOPILLg PESIgN CONSXPliRATIONS
When con.idarin; propeller. tor miniRPV, the characteri.tic.
of the fixed pitch propeller al installed on a twocycle engine
are of primary importance. I'urther, at each of the design con
ditions the propeller li.e are different. Qen
erallY,larqe are ne.dld for the launch and landing
condition., Whereas at cruise and dalh .maller propeller. will
have .uperior performance. unlike a variable pitch propeller,
the fiX8d propeller will ohange rpm with changel in and
69
,
I
I
!
12r
11
10
9
8
7
6
s
Bnqine.
McCulloch 101le
Dual Walbro Carburetors
100/130 Aviation Gal/Oil
Mixture Ratio 15/1
T t Data Correoted
1" sel:voir gJ n. 76
.....
Engine and Propeller RPM, 1000's
pOO ft
LO, ft
15,000 ft
'\
I,ity Altit.ude
Figure 31. Shaft Horsepower Available for Model B
Aquila RPV.
70
,.,
p.r.1
,
.
s..
f'
r.
.. ,
'1::' i
fi
j
it
, ..
.
i
1
'\l.f I
h,;:1.
.. t
!
,
\'.'
,
f
\" 1 I
l""
I
lr
f
'll'
r:
iii
\
,hi'
1::'." ,
"I, I'
I' ;
." 1
M
I
"\
f: i
r
:
. tl:
,
ti
i.
j.:
".
1:1
L
,.
.'
i
,
{,',
'I,
ii
!!
\,.
"
V;
,\1.'
\,
)\;'
\'
GW = 134 lbs
Conditionl4000 ft .9SF
12 . ... ' .. > '::.::.:::::'::: ::Jl.: :.;: .<::<:::>:. :.:' :tJ::'
. . . .... '"n' fHiFf .. H.fl ..
.. .
# , ,
:: : .... ,,: : .' lJ . : .' :.':. ' . ... .
." . . . .. '. .
. . . . . . . . . .. " " " ... ,  ....
., ... .
, , '." ........ _ k. " ., ...... ..
....  " ". .. .,. ..  . '.' '" .. .. ..... , .. .  .... 
 ." ... _. _.. .... _ _ _, e ..... ,_ ,
 0._ ... " .... _.
10 ... :: : ... ,. "'1 ....
" ...... , '" .
.,. "" ..
'U LI, LLULU
M. _ _. ___ _
................
. . .... .. , . .. ;::rr: <:: <;:.;: :;:::::>::: ..
. .
.' :tC:::. <: :.:>:: :::::; ".:;::: ;;: :: :LL::'n :".ll.' 'U.11:: ..
: .. ;'.t.1: ..... :.:: ... :."::'::'.:' ':; .... ;
................ '., ........... "" ..... .
., ......... , ... _ .....  .. 
. .  .. .. , ... ,.,
___ . . _ . ". .. _ .I.IIID:J . .u:rLITJTl
6 ....... :: '.:.. ':""'.'.: ''':.::::.::::':;::: .......... '::;:'.:::': ........ :: ... :.: :
.. " ,::::.: ..... ...::.::. .. ::::l:t:: '.::. ::::.:' .:':' .. :" ,........ ....... ' ......... ..
... "It .:::' .. :
....... w, ............. .
.. l:W'!:!.thl:tlH::HHtjH:I ,.,..,r'f"I"M'1'"1  , .. , .
w'
4 ....... ..
2 .. _._ "N'
. .' ....
.   .... . .. " .  . . .. .  ..
' ,   .>  
20 40 60 80
100 120
velocity  V kts
Fiqure 32. T.hrust Horsepower Required va Velocity for
Model B Aquila.
.;
"
forward speed. At a fixedspeed condition, the rotational
speed will increase until the power absorbed by the propeller
equals that of the engine. If the thrust produced equals that
by the airplane at this speed, the aircraft bas
reached equilibrium. If the engine RPM is maximum the air
craft hal reached maximum speed. With a decrease of speed
due to an increase in aircraft drag or rate of climb, the pro
peller is capable of absorbing increased power. When full
throttle ia reached, the engine becomes overloaded and the
rpm decreaaes.
Based on the above it is seen that if a fixed pitch propeller
is to provide excess thrust for climb at a lowapeed
condition at full engine power, a speed increase of the air
craft will result in an increase of propeller rpm until the
engine power limit is achieved. With the fixed requirement of
a climb rate of 610 fpm at the 60knot launch, the performance
criteria for the aelection of the best propeller will be the
power, the rpm characteristics at the other flight conditiona,
and the efficiency. The operating rpm at full throttle de
termines the power level of the engine, so it is of importance,
as well as the efficiency in the selection of RPV propellers.
PRELIMINARX RPV PROPELLER plSIGN SELECTION
The performance of several propellers was determined for the
advanced RPV for the specified design conditions. The pro
pellers were analyzed based on wind tunnel data. Using thoae
data, the four basic designs were analyzed for the launch con
dition using 2 and 2.5footdiametar propellers operating at
a series of rotational speeds and full power for the specified
engine, FiQUre 30. For each propeller analyzed, the fixed
blade anQle for all flig'ht conditions is established by the
rpm at full power needed to meet the specified 610 fpm rate of
climb at the launch condition. The results of the analysis
for all eight propellers operating at the specified flight
condition are given in Table 2.
The most important design conditions for the Aquila are launch
and landing at a speed of 60 knots. Although the dash speed
required is to be a peak, the differences in performance pos
sible at this condition are relatively unimportant, so the de
sign emphasis has been placed on the launch and landing condi
tions. Using the above test data, the performance of two dif
ferent fixed pitch twobladed propellers of 1.625 feet in
diameter was determined for the Aquila operating conditions.
The operating blade angle was, established based on full power
at 8000 rpm at launch velocity. At this fixed blade angle,
the at the cruise end dash conditions was found
based on the test data. For the cruise condition, an rpm
72
.oJ
W
'.  '  ~   ~ .    .. . ... . ~ ...,. , .... ..   ~  .........  ... __ ..
TABLE 2.
PRELIMINARY RPV PROPELLER DESIGNS
.
Launch (60 kts)
Crui!re
Dash
Diam
R/c V :V
lBl.ade B AF (ft) RPM SlIP (ft"fnjn}"T
fJ RPM
SHP Gets)
~
RPM
SHp Ids)
1 2 128 2 6100 12.4 610 61 26 6450 10.8 114 77 7100 14.1 130


2 2 123 2.5 5600 11.3
67.5 15 6500 lL.O 105 61 7000 1 4 ~ 0 112
3 2 79 2 7000 14.0
54 23 7750 11.0 120 84 8050 14.0 135
4 2 79 2.5 5300 10.8
70 1.7.5 6650 1.1.1. 1.18 81 7300 14.1 132
5 4 90.3 2 5450 11.1 6B 23.5 6800 10.9 118 82 7500
14.6 130
6 4 90.3 2.5 4700 9.5 81 17
6650 11.1 109 72 7400 14.7
123
7 2 132 2 6700 13.5
56 22 7500 10.9 115 78 8500 14.8 133
8 2 132 2.5 5500 11.2 67.5 17
6900 10.9 113 73 7400 14.7 130
._.__._.._  _.  ....   _._
"IJ
78
59
~
84
BO
78
65
78
72
,I" I
;'. I
I
.
1
I
I
'I"
1
of 7000 was alisumed, this est.abl.ished the speed wheru t.he power
available power required. An rpm of 8000 was assumed
for the de.sh condition. TJi)e effects of a diameter increase to
1.75 feat were also determined. These results are given in
Table 3 along with the estimated performance of the existing
Aqnila propeller.
Improved performance was obtainod for all three propellers
over that of the existing propeller. The advantage of
increased diameter on performance at all the operating condi
tions is also noted. From the results, each of th. three
propellers was optimized for the launch and landing conditions.
OP'l'lMlJM PROPELLER DESIGN srUDY  ADVANCED .RpV
Based on the results of the preliminary design studies three
propellers for the advanced RPV were chosen for detailed blade
optim1zation ,tudies.
1. Twoblade, 81 AF, 2.5 ft diameter  selected for
best performance at launch and recovery.
2. Twoblade, 79 Al, 2 ft  beat confi;uration
at 11 hor.epower cruise condition.
3. Twoblade, 79 AF, 2.5 ft diameter  best maximum
diameter propeller for and dash.
Twobladed propellers were selected in preference to three or
fourbladed configurations because of the low solidity require
ment needed for operating at the lift coefficients for high
lift/drag ratios. With three or fourbladed propellers the
solidity required would result in blades with aotivity factors
in the range of 50 or less, which results in impractical blades.
The propellers studied were based on the assumption of
the velocity in the disk being equal to the freestream
This was necessary as the was not known. I If the
body of the vehicle is large relative to the propeller
a velooity reduction oould be which could cause a
loss of efficiency. This loss due to body interference can be
determined .a discussed on pa;e 107. The three propellers
chosen were optimized for the fligbt condition for which they
were .elected, in terms of bl
l
de an;le and desiQn lift coeffi
cient for the specified blade number and diameter. The optimi
zation procedure used is based on the theory of Calculus of
Variations to find the distribution of the cambor and blade
an;le for peak efficiency. In this study the profile and in
duced losses are minimized.
The blade characteristics of the optimized propellers for the
advanced RPV are given in Tables 4 through 6. An efficiency
74
i
.,
..,
I
'il
,
,,' I lJ '.' .' ", I I ' I. \ .. J ", I '
.oJ
UI
:TABLE 3. PRELllIIRARY ~ PRoPELLER DESIGNS
Launch (60 kts) Cruise

Diam R/c V
Blade B AF (ft)
RPM
SHP (ft/min) ~ JJ RPM S!IP (id:s) ..,
1 2 128 1.625 8000 8.85 714 61 24
0
7000 4.6 86 78
2 2 132 1.75 8000 8.85 742 62 22
0
7000 5.0 90 82
3 2 132 1.625 8000 8.85 663 58 2 ~ 7000 3.7 78 78
* 4 2 150 1.625 8050 8.85 561 53
20(l
1000 4.5 78 64
*
Eldstinq Aquila Blade
Dash
V
RPM
sap (kts)
8000 6.1 101
8000 7.0 105
8000 5.3 92
aooO 6.5 _ 92
..,
78
I
I
82
79
65
,
i
'Ji
~
)
';l
':r'
; ~
 ~
~ ~
,i
II
1
i
'
~
 ~ :
:l
=)
 ~ ;
; .
TABLE to. B:J:,AI)! :omS:r:ON CHARAcTmRIBrICS
.'
;
,
A!lvan:ct.cS 3812.5' No. of Blade. 2
propeller Opt:Lm:L.. a1: 60 'knot Launch' ConcSitions
Lift Coefficient .493
. 81.1
\ : .,
j" ., .'
Airfoil section NACA 65lCCX
I
I
. I ,.
\'
I
. ,
x
CLi h/b
bID
Ii
I
J
.20.0 0.0 .300 .0719 34.1
.300 0.0 .210 .0789 30.4
.400 0.60 .180 .0825 26.6
.500
0.65
.154 .0829 23.0
.600
0.65
"
.130 .0787 20.3
..
.700
0.6$
.110 .0709 , 18.1
.800 0.159
.098 .0595 16.3
.900 0.50
.. 089 .0448 14.5
.9S0 0.43
.085 .0365 13.9
.975 . 0.37
.084 .0320 13.5
Note. h 1:1
T,iCl'kne
x
=
r R
eLi =
Section Design CL
b
=
Chord
D
=
Diameter
Ii
=
Blade Angle
76
".,J.
I
l
t
,
I
i
,
, \
I
',.
TABLE
S.'
BLADE DESIGN,OHARACT;mRISl;'ICS
Advance'" RPV 2B792 No. of Ilaae.
propeiier' opt:Lm:Lzed a ' the 11 bp crui Oond:Lt1on .
Inteqrated'l)j.:l.;n t.:Lft: OoeffiCl:Lent . 405 . .
Aat:L v:L ty . 78.8
A:Lrfo:L1 Section NACA 6SXXX
x
Li
hlb bID
/I
.200
0.0
.300 .069 52.0
.300 0.350
.210 .069. 40.0
.400
0.575
.180 .OS9 35.5
.500 0.600
.154 .069 31.5
,"
.SOO 0.580
.130 .OS8 28.0
.700 0.550
.110 .065 24.5
.800 0.500
.09S .058
21.5
.900 0.390
.OS9 .047 19.0
.950 0.300
.OSS .043 18.0
.975 0.100
.084 .040 15.4
Nete. h
=
T,:I. c'kne II II
x
:::
r R
Li =
section Design 0L
b

Chord

D
=
Diameter
(j ::I Blade An;le
77
. , ... " ., ,',.' ,'" "'''., ,., '''' 'I ,.
2
,
\
,
I I
I
TABLE 6. BLADB DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
Advanc'dRPV pr.opeller 2B7.92.5 . No. of Bla4e.
propeller:optimizaClat cru:Ls. and Dash Cond:Lt:Lons
2
tnt.ore.ted Des:Lon L:Lft Coefficient .247
Aot:Lv:Lty 'actor 7B.8
A:Lrfo:Ll Seot:Lon NACA 65hXXX
X
C1,:L h/b biD
.200
0.0 .
.300 .069
.300
0.0
.210 .069
.400 .50 .lS0
.069
.500
.45 .154 .069
.600
.40 .130 .06S.
.700
.35 .110 .065
.800
.30 .09B .OSS
.900
.25 .089 .047
.950
.10 .085 .043
.975
0.0 .084 .040
Note. h
'l'h:i.a1cne.s
x
rip.
eLi
=
seotion nesi;n CL
b
=
Chord
D
=
D:Lameter
,
=
Blade Anole
78
39.0
38.0
34.2
2B.3
21'.9
20.9
17."
18.4
14.3
13.6
i
. !
'i
,,',
"
I.
I
map was prepared for each of these propellers usin; the re
vised 887 strip analysis oomputer program that applies at low
Reynolds numbers. From these maps, Figures 33 through 35, the
efficiency can be found at any operating condition of a fixed
or variable blade angle propeller. Thus, each fixed pitch
propeller be analyzed .t the other design conditions of
the adVanced RPV, and the effects of the use of variable pitch
and twoposition propellers could be determined.
PE8FORMANCE or QntMUM PRopELLERS  ADVANCED RPV
Foz' the important operating conditions of the advanced RPV the
performance of the optimum propeller designed for the launch
condition was determined and is given in Table 7. This 2.5
footdiameter propeller using two 8lactivity factor blades
meets the launch with an efficiency of 6SK When
operating at a blade angle ot 16
0
and an rpm of 5800. The
same level oi performance is obtained at the landing oondition.
When operating at the fixed blade angle of 16
0
the effioiGnoy
at oruise and dash is Due to the increased speed and
fixed blade angle, the rotational speed will inorease to 7250
rpm at cruise and 8200 at dash. This is a typioal operation
for a f:l.xedpitch propeller and illustrates the need for de
aigning the propeller to operate at low rotat:l.onal speeds at
the launoh oondition if a high clu!se or dash speed is re
qu:l.red. Th:l.a will not be enoQuntered using vari
,able pitoh propellers.
The performance ot the propeller optimized for the 11 hpcruiae
oond:l.tion of the advanced RPV is given in 8. This op
timum 2.5footdiameter fixedblade an;le propeller, using
two 79activity factor blades, has ftn efficiency at cruise
and 4ash of. The rpm for the cruise and dash conditions
are 7200 and 8000, reopectively. The efficiency of the op
timum propeller at launoh and landing is
A thrust horsepower of 4 is required at the 75knot, 4000foot
95
0
r cruise oondition ot the advanced RPV. At this condition
the efficienoy of the propellers designed for the launoh is
The efficienoy of the propeller designed tor the high
speed cruise condition ia also at the 75 knot oruise
condition. Since these propellers bave about the same
it .appears that the level of design CL is nearly oorrect for
peak effioiency. However, if the lowspeed cruise condition
becames important, a 2.5 fcotdiameter propeller should be
designed for optimum performance to determine the possible
improvement.
79
/
.35
.25
.10
05
,
PROPELLER 2881 2.5
2 BLADES
A.F. BI.l
DIAM 30 INCHES
DESIGN C
L
:493
.6 LO
'2 IA.
J. %D
Figure 33. pe.rformance Efficiency M a p ~ Propeller Optimized
for Launch  Advanced RPV Propeller 2B812.5.
1.6 1.8
12 114
J. %0
l1er Optimized
ro .. n, .. a ler 2 B 8 1  ~ . S.
l6 i8
, ... , ... ,..,,''''t
20
26 28
, i
~
' I
:;, I
,. ,
r'
i:
C
p
.35
.25
.20
.15
.10
PROPELLER 287925
2 BLADE.S
A.F. 78.8
D/AM 30 INCHES
DESIGN C
L
2469
25
22
20
.05 18
14
.2 .6 .8 LO
.
12 1.4
Ja ~ D
Figure 34. performance Efficiency Map, Propeller Optimized
for Cruise  Advanced RPV Propeller 2B792.5.
I
83
l6
LO 12 l4
Ja ~ n o
Propeller optimized
1:a .... "l!"111er 2B792.5.
1.6
l8 20 22 24 2.6 28
.35
PROPELL.E.R 28 79  2
2 BLADES
.30 A. F. 78.8
.25
20
C
p
./5
.10
.05
.2
D/AM lit 241N::HES
DESIGN q. A05
1.0 l2 1.4) Y., 1.6
\ "'0
Figure 35. performance Efficiency Map, Propeller Optimized
for Dash  Advanced RPV Propeller. 2B792.
85
I
l8 20
l2
Propeller Opt1m1zed
..., .... IiO... ler 2B792.
1.8 20 2.2 24 2.6 2.8
r. .
.:. 
CD
TABLE 1. CALCULATED RPV
 PIICPELrZR FOR. UWlEH , ....
Ro. of Blades 2 :Integrated Design Lift eoEeffjCieilt .493
Engine 15 BP 8000 RtH Diameter 2.5 ft Acti.vi.ty Factor _. 81
Prope11er 2B812.5 lI'nD(Takeoff) 760 (lJ=160) h/b @ Station x = .7S .10S
Engine Ve!.oci:ty JJ
I Condition Alt/te3l? HP"" RPM (kts) {decj) R/c THp J Reaarks
LamlCh 4000'/95 14.0 7000 60 J.2 62 726 8.34 .025 .347Requi.rement  610
12.0 5800 60 16 68 643 7.79 .037 .42 pm Rate of
11.0 5400 60 18 68 SU *"" 7.10 .().C,2 .45 Climb .60 ltts.
10.05 60 20 69 458 ** 6.6 .050 .49 .
Cruise 4000'/9s<' 11.0 7250 116 16 82  8.32 .017 .65 ReqQire:De:Jt ' 75
il.o 6800 U.7 18 84  8.50 .020 .70 kt mjnjmmn at
11.0 6250 116 20 84.3  8.56 .026 .75 11 SBP.
11.0 82:>0 106 12 73  7.4 .0117 .525
Dash 4000'/95 14.95 8200 131 16 82  li.8 .0166 .65  100
14.90 7750 J.35 :l8 84  12.1 .020 .70 kt.minim:ml at
13.80 6900 J.28 20 84.3  li.l .026 .75 JDaXiID':Dll p!JWI!!r.
Landing 4000'/95 14.0 7000 60 12 62 516 8.34 .025 .347 Re:J!.rl..reme:t  200
12.0 5800 60 J.668 433 7.19 .037 .420 to 6io fpa Rate
11.0 5400 60 18 68 331 7.10 .042 .45 of cii.b .60 leta.
10.05 4950 60 20 69 255 6.6 .050 .49
5.77 4800 60 16 77 131
"" Propel1er HP reduced by 0.55 Hp for Launch, Landing and as!!,
and by 0.85 HP for Cruise to allow for elect:rica1 load.
** Below Requirement.
CD
m
DBLB 8. PEiU'I mrrO!' RPY
 plKPELLEJl ClIJZSE

110. of Bl.ades 2 Integrated Design Lift Coefficient .247 _
EDg1De 15 lIP 8000 !:pIl Diameter 2.5 ft :Activity Factor

79
Propeller 28792.5 ..aD(TakeOf ) 916 ClJ=J20)
bib '. StatiO!l x = .. "75
.1.05
EDgi.ne Velocity /l
Conditioa A1t/te:Ip BP* RAt (kts) deg)
., 
RIc TBP Cp J RenarKs
Launch 4QOO'/9sO 14.00 7000 60 ,12 60 ,686 8.0"7 .025 .347
.
13.15 6500 60 U 62 U7 7.81. .029 .. 374 pat Rate of
1.2.20 6000 60 17 65 611 "7.5"7 .034 .405 C1imb .. 60 kt:s.
"9 25 4600 60 67 350 .05"7 .i53
CrUise 4000 '/95 11.00 7800 ill. 14 71

"7.82 .01.36 .577 Requirement  75
11.00 noo 116 17 83

8.42 .017 653 1tt: minirmI:n at
11.00 6000 118 22 86.5

8.78 .030 .80 11.SH?
11.00 8000 1.05 12 70

7.1 .01.3 53
Dash 4000'/95 11.05 8000 114 14 77
 8.1 .013 .58 Re.:r,rlre:ueut  10J
15.00 8000 134 17 83

12.0 .018 .67 1tt mjnjnnra at
13.00 64()() 1.28 22 86.6

10.8  .030 .81 maxiJll!lm power ..
U.OO 8000 105 70  .013 .53
,
Landinq 4000'/95 14.00 7000 60 12 60 476 8.07 .025 .347
13.15 6500 60 14 62 437 7.81 .029 .374 to 610 fpn Rate
12.2 6000 60 17 65 400 7.57 .034 .405 of Climb .60 ltts.
9.25 4600 60 22 67 135 5.8 .057 .53
3.85 4800 60 14 77 342 Glide Path 3. 'f'
5.6 4800 60 17 71 151 G1icJe Path 1.4
0
* 8P reduced by 0.55 HI> for Launch. tandf0i and Dasb.
an :'IV 0.85 B? for Crui.Se to allow for elect:ri.caI. cad.
 ._ 
ee=r .,..   _.  ..
. ___ . ..
k
CD
.0
______________________ .. _ __  .':i ';;.0,;;;:.::. :.;. ::3::..""::.,':::: .}.,.:=c.
.. ,     ",,
TABLE 9. OF ADVA!ICm lIPV
 CPrDIIZED msa
,.,
'

Ro. of BlaOes 2 Integrated Design Lift :eoefficie!lt: .405
EDqine 15 HI' 8000 rpa Diaaeter 2ft Activity Factor
"
79
PrcpeU,er 28792 ".nD (Ta1reoff) 838 ",=2(0) 1\/b StatiOD ][ = .75' .105

"
Engine Velocity II

COndition AU/temp BP* Rat: (kts) (deq)
"T
RIc Til!> Cp J Re:narks
Launch 4OOO'/9SO 15.0 BOOO 60 20 50 560** 7.23 .055 Req!liJ:e,"'Oe!lt  610
13.8 6800 60 25 50 ,'%9** 6.625 .032 .447
'Rate of
Climb @ 60 kts. I

..
I
Cruise 4000'/95
0
ll.O 8100 118 20 85.5

8.70 .037 .74 Reqairemertt  75
I
ll.O 6970 117 25 BS  8.63 .058 .85  kt mini.m!mt at I
11 SSP.' I
Dash 400()" /95
0
10.0 80:)0 115 20 85.5
 8.56 .038 .73
RequireJoent  100 I
15.0 SOOO 136 25 85.5

12.3,5 .055 .861 kt: minjmmn at
maxi_ill! 'p:JWer.
l.anding &000' /95
0
15.0 8000 60 20 50 350 7.23 .055 .38 Re:pirement  200
13.8 6800 60 25 SO 253 6.625 .082
."7
to 610 fpn Rate
of Climb'. 60 lets.
3.06 4800 60 20 83.5 Glide path L = .(.00
*
Prupeller liP reCbced by 0.55 HI' for LimDch, Tanding and Dash. _
and by 0.85 BP for Cruise to allow fer electric:a1 load.
**
Below requirement.
For best performance in dash, the initial analysis indicated
that a Qiemeter of 2.5 feet was too large. A 2foot.c:Uameter
propeller was, therefore, optimized for the cash condition.
Its performance is given for the range of conditions in Table
9. With this propeller an efficiency gain of only 2 to 3"
was obtained for the dash and cruise" however, this optimum
propeller design for dash not meet the climb rate
performance at launch.
From the stUdy of the three fixed pitch propeller designs it
appears that the launch rate of climb performance establishes
the design configuration. Further, for propellers of equal
dialneter the performance advantage is small, the design
is optimized for cruise Or launch. By selecting the lowest
value of camber consistent with high lift/drag ratios, the
performance differences between the launch and cruise are
minimized.
The performance of the optimized propellers for and
oruise is near the peak that could be expected for the stated
load conditi9n of diameter and rpm. At the 'cruise and dash
conditions high noise levels can to the tip
speed exoeeding 900 feet per second at the conditions when
using the fixed pitch propellers. To reduce,the noise level,
the propeller tip speeds must be reduQad. This can be accom
plished using variable pitch propellers of the constant speed
type or the twoposition blade angle type. other steps the,t
can be taken to reduce noise are, (1) reduc. the forward
speed at cruise and dash, (2) reduce climb requirement at
launch and landing, (3) consider the us. of gear reductions
bGtween the engine and propeller, and (4) select engines de
veloping the required power at lower rotational speeds. In
all cases the propeller size required will be increased.
As noted :Ln Tables 7 and 8, tWOPosition or variable pitch
propellers will improve performance at the dash and oruise con
ditions while me.1ntaininq the required performance at launch.
Consider the propeller designed for launch. at this condition
the climb rate is obtained with 160 blade anqle,
While the best cruise and dash per!ormance i. obtained with a
20
0
blade angle at a reduced rotational speed compared to
cruise obtained with a 16
0
blade angl.. By dropping down to
5400 even greater improvements in noi.e oan be achieved
with no loss in performance. Therefore, it appears that in
the case of the advanced RPV the qreat t advantaqe of either
the twoposition propeller ('Ir the variable pitch controllable
type would be the possibility of reduced rpm and, thus, re
duced noise at the cruise and dash conditions. performance in
this case would be of secondary importance.
90
r
\
1
\,
I
1 .,
Advanced BPV Propeller  supercritical sections
The best fixed pitch propeller for the advanced RPV is con
sidered to be the 2.5foatdiameter confiquration.
The blad.s of this propeller, designated 26812.5, have an 81
activity factor with an integrated design CL of 0.493 when
using 65 aeries airfoils. The design CL and blade angle
distributions of this blade were optimizod for the launch
condition.
As indioatedin the Airfoil Seleotion section, the new
critioal airfoils are reoommended for RPV propellers because
of potential improvement a and structural advan
tages. Because of the lack of airfoil data, especially at the
lower Reynolds numbers, it is not possible te determine the
optimized characterist.1cs of a b,lade using these new airfoils.
A blade with the new NASA supercritica1 airfoil oan, however,
be derived from the optimum 3812.5 blade by me.:Lntaining the
same load distribution and operating CL des:Lq.n CL relation
ship. The characteristios of such a blade are presented in
Figure 36 in camparison with the 28812.5 blade.
pucted Propeller. for bdyanced BPY
The optimized propellers for the advanced RPV discussed above
were d.siq,ned as free propellers, as the duots used were oon
sidered eo have a large tip olearance for protection of the
propeller and crew. To determine the possible advantages of
true duoted prop.11ers, studies were made for the advanced RPV
design conditions. A ducted fan with five blade. and stator
vanes deaioned for lowspeed operation was used. The ducted
fan was considered to be fixed pitch and operated at the
rotational speed as that of the engine. To reduce tip speed,
the duoted fan was sized for the lowest possible diameter con
sistent meeting the rate of climb requirement at launch.
The results of th:l.s analysis given in Table 10.
The 20inohdiameter duote4 fan develops the thrust necessary
6t an rpm of 5400 to aohieve the required 610 fpm rate of
climb at launch. Thi. resulta in a tip speed of 470 ft/sec
va 785 ft/sec for the open propeller. At the cruis. and dash
conditions, even larger reductions of tip are Obtained
with the ducted fan in comparison with the open propeller.
For inatance at cruise, a tip speed of 400 ft/sec in compari
son with 942 ft/seo for the open propeller shOUld result in an
important reduction of noise. Based on this analysis it ap
t'hat a true duoted fan or propeller shOUld be further
considered for the advanced RPV. '1'0 achieve the desired per
formance, the tip olearance must be reduced to the lowest
practical level and the entrance to the duct must be clean.
91
. __
   
:1
J
"
j ,!,
1
\
" .
1,
'0\
!'
.?
,}
I,
,j
J
.,
.,
i
1"" #;&5, A?.,ft.
1
i
f
i
'
" t
'
N
i
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
b/b
.28
bin.
3.0 .24
2.5 .20
Cr.i.
2.0 .1.6 .8
1.5 .12 .6
1.0 .08 .4
.5 .01 .2
o o o
o .1. .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
FractiOllal. Racli..us  X
Figure 36. Blade Characteristics for Configuration With NACA 65
Series Sections and NASA LS(1)  Thickness Airfoils.
1.0
_____
\0
(AI
..
'l'ABLE 10. CJW'XIIAftI) PJ:RI'CRIAICE OF 8P'T
IlUCrD C1"r1h'lHFU Ra CRJUIE
c
50. of Bl.ades 5
nrt:egrat:ed: Des1.gD Lift eoeffiCient . .4
Engine 15 BP 8000 RPI!l Diameter 20 in Activity Pactt:cr 160
Dacteci Pan :.rnD Ill( :;::3s<')
Dact DiaJ:Deter to Leiigth Riif10
1..2
Engine Ve1cx:.i.ty P
Concht:ion AI. t:/t:e:ap BP (kts) (deg)
'r
R/c THP
.Cp
J Remarks
La:mch 4000'/95
0
15 BOOO 60 21. 70 992 10.12 .136 .456
14 7000 60 26 ';3 948 9.82 .189 .521
12.2 6000 60 132 16 801 8.88 .26 .608
10.15 5000 60 37 75 555 7.20 .37 .73 (Does not: meet:
Ric Spec.)
11.0 5400 60 35 75 650 7.83 .32 .675 Se1ect iJ = 35
0
C.rui.se 4OO0'/9sO 11.0 6000 114 35 83

8.42 .227 1.15 Tip Speed 523 fps
450::> 77 35 86

4.U .255 . Lot Desired
392 fps
D:lSh 40OC'/9SO 11..25 5000 114 35 83

8.37 .225 1.16 520 fps
,
Landing 4000'/95" 540J 60 35 15 440 7.83 .32 6.75 .471 fps
..


!
I
I
I
I
onIMUM PROPELLER STUDY  AQUILA
From the preliminary desiqn study of the Aquila, three differ
ent configurations were to be ,optimized. Two 19.5
inchdiameter, twobladed propellers with different solidities
were analyze8 for the launch and landing condition at the
mumpower, rpm, of the en;ine. The procedure used for the
optimization study is the same as that used for th, advanced
RPV. '1'0 determine the effects of changing diameter, a. two
bladed 2linchdiameter propeller was also optimized a.t th$
launch condition. The blade characteristics for these opti
mized propellers are given in Tables 11 through 13.
With the B97 computer program, the performance of the three
optimized propellers was determined for a wide range of oper
ating conditions. From the results of these calculations,
efficiency maps were prepared and a.r:e presented in P'iQUres
37 through 39. The performance of fixed pitch, constant
speed, twoposition propellers can be determined using thele
maps for a wide range of operating conditions.
PROPELLER PERFORMANCE RlDSUL'l'S  AQUIIA
The calCUlated performance for the above three optimized RPV
propellers operating at the given design conditions of the
Aquila RPV are given 1n Tables 14 through 16. Due to the
clearance between the blade tip and the duct wall for
the it was assumed that the propeller performance
would be the same as that obtained with a free propeller.
tha duct in this case will not be effective, its drag
should be charged to the airframe.
As shown in Tables 14 and 16, propeller performance 1s im
proved at the launch and landing conditions using the blades
with higher design lift coefficients. This improvement would
be to the improved lift/drag ratio and maximum
li:t coefficients obtained with the high cambered airfoil
sections. At the cruise dash conditions the lower design
CL blades are better, as the loading is reduced,which gives a
better match between the operating and design lift coeffX3sts.
A comparison of the performance of the twobladed 1.625foot
diameter propellers with that of the twobladed 1.75foot
diameter propeller given in Table 15 shows that the higher
diameter propeller has improved performance at all flight
conditions. This improved performance would be expected due
to the reduction of the induced losses as a result of the in
creased diameter.
94
. ',. ... " .,.,;.," ': :. ... ." \_ '\1 ,.L, . " '_,'_
, ~ , 'or.'" _". ,.
. TABLE 11.
BLADE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
;
Aquiia propeller 221301.625 No. of Blades 2
Integrated Design Lift Coofficient .621
Activity Faotor 129.7
Airfoil Seotion NACA 65XXX
x
CLi bib
bID fJ
.200 0.0 .300 .115 40.0
.300 .30 .210 .126 39.1
.400 .65 .1aO .13:l 37.0
.500 .. 70 .154 .133 31.5
.600 .70 .130 .126 25.0
.700 .70 .110 .113 21.2
.SOO .70 .0ge
.095 19.0
.900 .70 .089 .072 16.5
.950 .70 .085 .058 15.2
.975 .50 .084 .051 14.5
Note.
h
=
Thicknesa
x
=
r/R
eLi 
Section DeSign CL

b
=
Chord
D
=
Diameter
S
=
Blade Angle
I
. ;
I
TABLE 12. BLADE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
Aquila Propeller 31271.75 No. of Blades 2
lntegx'ated DeSign Lift Coefficient .444
Activity Faotor 127.3
Airfoil Seotion NACA 6SXXX
, ,
x
eLi bib
bID IJ
.200 .700 .230 .100 55.0
,
.300 .700 .165 .100 42.0
.400 .700 .134 .100 32.0
.500 .700 .105 .100 ~ 6 . 0
.600 .6S0 .080 .099 '21.5
.700 .610 .061 .09S 18.5
.800 .525 .049 .095 16.0
.900 .400 .042 .086 14.0
.950 .2S0 .036 .074 12.6
.975 .200 .030 .062 12.0
Note I h
=
Thickness
x
=
r/R
eLi =
Seotion Design CL
b

Chord

D
=
Diameter
IJ
=
Blade Angle
i
I
\
I
i
!
I
I
I
I '
I
, !
, ,
,j
TABLE 13. BLADE DESIGN

.,'1,
Aquila propeller 2B1371.625 No. of Blades 2
Integrated Design Lift Coefficient .488
Activity Factor 137.1
Airfoil seotion NACA 65XXX
"
;X
eLi h/b
biD
fJ
'
.70 .215 .139 54.0
.300 .. 70
,
.175 .134 45.0
.400 .70 .140 .128 36.5
.500 .70 .105 .121 30.0
,
,.600 .70 .080 ,,113 26.0
.700 .6'7 .()60 .105 22.5
.800 .60 .049 .096 19.5
.900 .46 .037 .0850 16.5
.950 .32 .032 .0820 15.0
.975 .20 .030 .0810 14.5
Note I h
=
Thickness
x

r/R

CLi
=
Section Design CL
b
=
Chord
D
=
Diameter
fJ
=
Blade Angle
97
30
.25
.20
./5
.10
.05
. ~ 2
PROPELLER 28130 /625 "'.
2 BLADES I(
A.F. 129.7
DIAM /9.5 INCHES
DESIGN C
L
.62/
.4
.8 1.0 l2 /.4 /.5
J.%o
Figure 37. Performance Efficiency Map, Propeller Optimized
for Launch  Advanced Aquila Propeller 2B130L625.
/ 99
I.a
1.2 1.4 /.6
J.%o
Propeller Optimized
Propeller 2Bl301.625.
/.a 20 2.2 24
8
2.6
"
i
,i.
" .....
,"" i
J5
.30
.25
20
C
p
15
JO
.os
PROPELLER 2B /27 /.75
28LADES
A.F. = 127.3
DIAM :: 21 INCHES
DESIGN C
L
.4443
(1.40
.6 .8 1.0
1.2 1(.1. 1.6
J. %0
FiCdUre 36.
Performance Efficiency Map, Propeller Optimized
for Launch  Advanced Aquila Propeller 2B127l.75.
/
1OJ.
1.8
1.2 /r:J. 1.6
J %0
Propeller Optimized
Propeller 281271.75.
1.8
86
66
84
20 22 24
i
1
~
'I
,
I,
1
\
',t
,
J
I'
_or"""",,,'" '''.'
PROPELLER 281371625
2 BLADE.S
A.r. 137.1
30 D/AM 19.51NCHES 17.
' DESIGN C
L
4879
(3 .
. 25
.20
.15
.I
.05
.4 .6 .8 1.0 L2 1.4 /.6
Je ~ D
1i QUre 3'9.
Performance Efficiency Map, Propellet' Optimized
for Launch  Advanced Aquila Propeller 2B137 ... l.625.
103
I
1.8 20
:
I'
12
I A
1.4 1.6'
Ja
\, Propeller Optimized
,1e Propeller 2B1371.625.
"',
...... \ ..... .... , .." 1.0... , ... "."ou ........ .........
1.8 20 22 24 26 2.8
;,. '.
j !'
. ::l
, J,
. ",
, J
U'
,j ,
1
j
,j
j ,
I
I
"
I
( ,
':
o
UI
TABLE 1:&. CALCOLATBD PERFORIIUICE OF AQUZrA
I'ROPBLLER 0PrDIIZED FOR. LAlJlk:Il
50. of B1ac1es 2 Xntegrated Design Lift Coefficient .62
EDgiDe JIcCa.lloCh 101 =
J)j ... _t;er
1.625 ft Activity Factor 130
Propeller 281.301.625 .. nD ('l'alEeoff) 681( =18.sO) bib st:at:iCID x = .75 .105
EDgi.De Velocity II
I
Ccndition BP* RPK (1d:s) (deq)
"
RIc 'l'HP
J Remarks
LaQDch 4oo(P /95' 8.80 60 18.5 65 797 5.36 .085 .462 I
B.30 7100 60 24 63 679 4.88 .118 .53
I
7.05 5900 60 31 55 362 ** 3.58 173 .63 o  10,000 ft
8.75 7800 60 20.5 64 710 5.25 .095 .48
,
Cruise 4000'/95
0
6.15 8050 94 18.5 78

4.37 .059 .73
I
6.15 7000 95 24 80

4.48 .089 .846 120 Itt cruise I
6.15 6CIOO 94 31 79

4.42 .142 .977 speed. i
6.45 7600 92 20.5 78

4.37 .070 .75
Dash 4OOO'/9sO 6.15 8050 94 18.5 78

4.37 .059 .73
8.75 8000 110 24 80.1

6.57 .088 .86
7.8 6550 105 31 80

.141 1.00
7.05 8000 100 20.5 78

5.07 .069 .74
loandjng 4OCO' /9sO 8.80 8000 60 18.5 65 523 5.36 .085 .462
B.30 7100 60 24 63 406 4.88 .53
7.05 5900 60 31 55 88 3.58 .173 .63
8.75 7800 6C 20.5 61 496 5.25 .095 .f.B
2.55 4850 60
 24 77.5 Glide Slope 1.3
0
* Propeller lIP reduced by 0.55 lIP for Lanncb. Landing and Dash.
by 0.85 BP for Cruise allow for elact:rl.ca1 load.
**
Below :to
'l'ABLE 15. c::MnJLA'I'D PBRFQ!WR""E OJ' I40nA
 PROPELLER. OPTlMIZRlJ ftR LAtIIIICII
Bo. of B1ades 2 Integrated Design Lift cceffic1eut .444
BDg1De JIcCU110ch 101 If: Diaaeter 1..15 ft Activity Factor 12'7
Propeller 2BU71.75 wDD(Takeo) 733( =160)
bib station x = .75 .056
Eng1De Ve10city JJ
CClI:Jd1tial
BP* RPI!l
(kts) (deg)
.,
RIc Cp J Bemarks
LauDch .&QOOa/gsO B.B BOOO 60 16 70 89B 5.78 .060 .434 ReqUiraaeDt  661
B.6 7500 60 18 69 au 5.55 .072 .463
fpn cwerage ,
6.B 5700 60 27 61 41B ** 3.81 .127 .610 010,000 ft a1t. 1
8.65 7200 60 20 65 774 5.27 .081 .48
7.90 6700 60 22 66 672 4.85 .092 .52
Cruise 4OQO'/gsO 5.55 8000 91 16 81

4.05 .037 .660 Requ.1rement  75
6.1.5 7800 96 1B 82.7

".63 .045 .715 to 120 1d;. cruise
6000 96 27 82.8

4.64 .098 .927 speed.
6.45 7400 98 20 84

4.7 .052 .77
6.45 6900 98 22 84,
 4.7 .064 .82
 o
0'
Dash 4OQOa/gso
5.55 8000 91 16 81

4.05 .037 .660
6.65 8000 100 1B 82.6

5.03 .MS .72
7.85 6600 107 27 83

6.06 .096 .94 I
7.00 eooo 105 20 84

5.8 .065 .78
B.75 7900 11.2 22 8.f

6.9 .063 .82
!
J;andjDg 4l'QOa/950 8.8 BOOO 60 16 70 626
,
8.6 7500 60 18 69 569
,
6.8 5700 60 27 61 1"
I
8.65 7200 60 20 65 501
i
7.90 0700 fiG 22 66 398
1.91 4850 60 18 82.5 239 Path 2.3
0
*
Prapeller RP zedaced by 0.55 UP for I.atmcb. Landing and Dash.
and by 0.85 BP for Crui.ae to allaw for elect:rical. l.oad.
**
 
 ..
r
BBLB .16
CM.r;tILAftD OF AQCDA
 PROPBLLBR. oPf1)Ilt;BIJ ftB uu:a:a
VO. of Blac1es 2 rntegrat:ec1 Design Lift Coef:f:1deal: .f88
IUJg.ule .l.U.1. a.. ft ACt1.v1.ty Pactor 131
::!"l' 681 ( =20.5) b/b staticID ]I: = .75 .056
,
EDgi.De VeI.ocity If
CclDd:Ltian lit/temp BP* RPM (ltts) (43eg)
.,
Il/e '1'HP J
LauDc:b 4000'/95
0
S.8 8000 60 20.5 65 797 5.36 .088 .468
1.05 5900 60 31 Si
34S **
3.5l. .1.13 .63
8.6 7600 60 22.5 63 726 5.07 .100 .49 010.000 ft a1t:.
8.4 7300 60 24.5 60 675 4.86 .110 .51
Czui.se 4000"/95:' 6.15 8000 98 20.5 84.5

4.73 .060 .760
6.15 6000 95 3!. 80.5

51 .1.2 .988 t:o 120 crui.se
o 6.45 1600 97 22.5 83

4.65 .700 .796 speed.
6.45 7000 97 24.5 83

4.65 .089 .86
Dash 4000'/95 6.15 8000 98 20.5 84.5

4.73 .060 .760
1.8 6550 105 31 SO.7

5.85 .141 1.00
7.05 7950 103 22.5 83

5.4 .071 .81
8.05 7700 107 21.5 82.5

6.2 .090 .87
400C'/95
u
8.8 8000 60 20.5 65 523 5.36 .088 .468
7.OS 5900 60 31 Si n. 3.51 .173 .63
8.6 7600 60 22.5 63 452 5.07 .100 .49 I
8.4 7300 60 21.5 60 lOl. ".86 .llO .51
1.80 1850 60 20.5 83 259 Path 2.4
0
lIP redoced by 0.55 for Launch, landing and Dash.
by 0.85 BP far CrUise to aUOW' for eJ.ectrica1 1oad.
... Bel.ov"' .,
.
_.,._...:;: . ..;: ..... ...... .J..:._:.......,.._ ______ .... __ .... b
""";. ,",  '"  _.
.,. __ .. .. it>;:,ee
PROPELLER WING BODY INTERFERENCE
The interference losses between propellers and
ing wings have been studied by many investigators.. 
Much of the work done was in the early dBys of aircraft devel
opment. Although considerabl. testing was done, the data is
not suitable for predicting the interference corrections by
empirical procedures. Examples of typical test results from
Reference 29 are given in Figure 4 O. These results are mis
leading as they include all the changes due to the propeller
body interaction, including the increase of drag due to a
veloCitr increase. The best approach for considering the
change n of propellers is that of Glauert 28 and
Theodorsen.
2
IN'I'EarEBENCE OF WING AND BOPX' ON PROPELLER
The interference of a body and wing on the performance and
desi(JJl of IS. propeller depends on whether the propeller is a
tractor or pushel' and the relative 8izII8 of each. For in
stanae, if a large propeller ia operating in the tr.actor posi
tiol1 on a small body,the interference effectl will be very
small or zero. However, if a pusher propeller il installed
behind a large such as a lightarthaneir vehicle, the
interferenae effects can be very large with apparent levels of
efficiency exceedinq 100% beinq aChieved.
32
level of
2 Theodorsen.
27
Weiak, F.E., AIRCRAFT PROPELLER DESIGN, McGraWHill, 1930.
28 Glauert, H., AIRPLANE PROPELLERS VOL. 4 DIV. L OF AERO
DYNAMIC THEORY, Durand Editor, Dover, New York.
Von, Dr. G. Cordes, Dessau, DIE LUFTSCHRAUBE BEl GESTORTEM
ZUSTROM, Abgeschlossen am 10 January 1938.
30 Wood, D. H., TESTS OF NACELLEPROPELLER COMBINATIONS IN
VARIOUS POSITIONS WITH REJ!'ERENCE TO WINGS II  THICK WING
 VARIOUS RADIALENGINE COWLINGS  TRACTOR PROPELLER, NACA
TR 436, 1932.
31 Stickle, G.W., Crigler, J.t., & Naiman, EFFECT OF BODY NOSE
SHAPE ON THE PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY OF A PROPELLER, NACA
TR 725.
32 McLemore, H. Clyde, WINDTtlNNEL TESTS OF A 1/20SCALE
AIRSHIP MODEL WITH STERN PROPELLERS, NASA TN D1026.
108
'1= 59
65 .'"
v
...
Propellers in Pusher Position
'1 = 66,62,61"
v
'7 = . 65,63"
Iropellers in Traotor Position
Fig\lre 40. Effect of propeller Location on Efficiency_
109
:'., .
.. 'I .
of a wing and bodf on the performance also depends
on whether the losses charged to the airplane drag or to
the propeller thrust. Thus, if the increase of velocity due to
the propeller wake results in a drag increase on the body this
could be charged to the propeller thrust or the aircraft drag.
The following definitions of terms are used and have been found
to avoid confusion in oonsidering the installed propeller
performance. .
TS = Propeller shaft thrust, tractor or pusher
TN = TS  AD (Net Thrust)
AD = Change in airoraft drag due to propeller
propeller shaft efficienc:y' = '7 B =TS Vo
550 HP
Vo =
HP =
True
The freestream velocity, ft/sec
net .shaft horsepower to the propeller
TS VI,
propeller ef:f.:l.ciency = '7 T = 550 HP
Tbe average velocity in the plane
of propeller
Propulsi.on Efficiency = '7 P =
(18)
(19)
(20)
The propeller shaft thrust is often the value measured and is
actually the force on the sbaft due to the development of the
pr.opeller thrust operating in this local environmel'1t. It is
the actual thrust produced by the propeller and is calculated
by strip analysis using the actual local velocity at each
blade section as influenced by the body and wing. If there is
a large gradient of velocity between the leading and trailing
edges of the propeller, & pressure change will exist causing
a buoyancy force to be developed. This must be added to thrust
calculated by strip analysis to find the shaft thrust.
The shaft efficiency, Equation 18, is the value usually quoted
for propeller performance. This definition is used as the
shaft thrust is easily determined fx'om '7 s knowing the power
input and the free stream velocity. The shaft thrust is the
quantity used to find the performance of the alrplane.
If the interference of the body causes a large reduotion in
the axial velocity in the plane of the propeller, the shaft
efficiency will be higher than the true efficiency. It is not
110
. .'
uncommon to have shaft efficiencies over for both tractor
and pusher propellers operating in conjunction with large
bodies. Theae high apparent values of shaft efficienoy are ob
tained due to t'he velocity decreaee Whioh results in an in
orease of propeller thrust. The true propeller efficienoy
equation is never over it is found based on the inte
grated average velocity. This efficienoy is to the
shaft efficiency the blockage is zero.
The change in efficiency due to the blookage of a body can
best be illustrated by an example. Consider a propeller oper
ating at a J of .6basea on the freestream velocity. The
power coefficient of this pt"opel1er is equal to .1 and the '
body blocks the flow so that the av'erage velocity in the plane
of the propeller is 0.5. From an map' the
ance of the 'Would be
L i
, .5
.6
.1
.1
.66
.74
.132
.1233
.2L
79.2
74.0
In the above case's is based on the free stream of' 0.6.
Thus, a 5point increase in Shaft efficiency is obtained due
to the body blockage even though the true efficiency
goes down by e percentaoe points.
The prOl,ulsion efficiency and net propeller thrult are deter
mined f:.om the increase in drag due to the pr opeller' inter
ference on the airplane. The drag of airplane is in
o.r:eased by the propeller due to the increase in slipstream
velooity and thUS skin friction, due to changes in preesure
drag al!d due to separation from the rotatiol1 of the wake. A
wing operating in the propeller wake can actually remove some
of the losses due to Slipstream rotation and X'esult in an
efficiency increase.
INTERFERENCE VELOCI'IX  TBAC'roB POSITION
Body
'!'he interference velocity ratio due only to the presence of
the body relative to the propeller is defined as the ratio of
the actual velocity VI.. to the f:t:'ee.stream velooity Va. The
axial velocity induced by the propeller u adds to VI..' but is
not considered to be part of the interference velocity. Ths
ratio of vLlVo is needed to calculate the forces at each blade
station by strip analysis. If the body is larqe and complex,
measurements of VI.. Should be made for best results. With nor
mal types of streamline bodies, VL can be estimated by poten
tial flow theory with good accuracy.
ill
"
. ;
Ulling t.he ,J!otential flOW t.heory,33 a cornputer.program was set
'and VLfVp was determined as a function of radial distance
at two pt'ope1ler locations for a series of prolate
sphero.ids. The lenqth..t.odiameter ratio of the bodies covered
was 3, 5, 6 and Tha result.s of the calculations are pre
sented 1n ll'iqtlres 41 and 42 in terms of VLlVo as a function of
r/Rb. This can be converted to the r/Rp value, needed
for strip analysis caloulations, with the equation
r/Rp = r/Rb RbiRp (21)
From t.he data given in Figures 41 and 42 the velocity ratio
due to the body can be estimated by determining the prolate
Spheroid t.hat ia the nearest in shape to the bod or fuselage
being oonsidered.
The wing int.erference velocity on a propeller operating in the
traotor pOlition is generally small, especially for a lingle
engine airplane. If the propeller is mounted on the wing, the
upwalh velpoity can change the angle of flow into the propel
ler and this can be important in determining tne
on the bla4e. As the blOCkage of the wing is arnall,
dUe to the low relative thickneSS to diameter ratio,
che.nge of efficiency i&:1l small and :La neglected .
"UUpi'RPv Chang, pua to pr9,peller WAke
',' . .
The wake of a propeller operating in the tractor position
cause. an increase in drag on the fuselage due to the axial
velocity inc.reas. compared with free stream. This inc:rease
in drag ia the result of the increase in dynamic presaure,
the drag coefficient change ia usually not significant. The
rotational component of velocity in the wake of a propeller
can also Change the fuselage draq by causing separation at
the wing juncture orasimilar component. This drag increase
can easily be reduced by a change of the blade load distribu
tion. The drag due to the wake on a fusela9,e is generally
as it is small.
A wing operating in the wake of a propeller will often im
prove the overall efficiency due to the recovery of the rota
tional 10SS8S in the propeller slipstream. Incre8seein effi
ciency as high as 1 to 2% have been measured in a wind tun
nel. Since this gain tends to offset the losses due to the
increased q in the wake, it is usually neglected in calcu
lating propeller performance.
33 Durand, AERODYNAMIC THEORY., Vol 1., Dover, N. yo", pp 277285.
112
I'
l
.',;
~
r
0
....
i
.....
w
>.
~
.....
0
0
....
:
....
"
.....
~
0."9
0.8
0.6
0.4 0.6
::T
L / D ~ 1 6
O.B 1.0 1.2 1 .... 1.6 1.8
Radius Ratio  rl'l\,
Figure 41. Axial Velocity Change at Propeller Plane Due to
Bcdy Size for Tractor and Pusher Locations,
F/L = .05 or .95.
j!
5>f+++i
2.0
"
_ :, __ .....
)'
" t
,I'
"
" i
i
INTERFERINCE VELOCITY  PYSHER POSITION
Body
When a propeller is mounted behind a large body such as an
airship hull, larqe chanqes in efficiency are obtained. For
instance lin Referenoe 32 the sbaft effioiency measured was
This value of effioiency is caused by the propol
ler operating in the reduced velocity field of the large boay.
At tbe lower local velocity the tbrusttopower ratio of tbe
propeller increases, 80 When this is multiplied by tbe bigher
freestream velocity tbe efficienoy can 100%. The true
efficiency ill of ,.,ourse less tban When tbe actual velocity
in tbe plane of tbe propeller is used.
When, finding the looal axial velooity in the propeller plane
for the pusher oase, the effect of separation on the
boC and the relieving action of the propeller sbould be con
sidered. For instance, with the bogy alone the flow will
tend to separate sooner than in tbe oase Where tbe propeller
is actinq as a sink and is reducing the adverse pressure gra
dient on the body. This trend has been observed in the wind
tunnel tests of pusher propellers mounted on large bodies and
in the flight test of a qeneral aviation aircraft w1th tractor
and pusher propellers. Fram this it appears that the potential
floW solution discussed for the tractor case can also be used
for the pusber propeller cas., Figures 41 and 42.
If there is a large protuberance in front of the propeller,
such as an engine cylinder, the velocity in the propeller
plane must be modified. The ratio of loss of head (A H )to the
freestream q due to such a body is of the order of magnitude
as the draq coefficient for the p,rojected area. Averaging
this loss over the disk and adding VLI determined from Figures
41 and 42, will give net looal velooity at the propeller
32 MoLemore.
" .. .l r .,
In addition to the velocity chan;e encountered due to opera
tion in a potential flow,the skin friction developed on the
bogy will further reduce the velocity in the plane of the push
er propeller. This reduction of velocity aft of the body will
reduce the total head. The average local velocity over the
wake are. can be determined'knowing the drag coefficient of the
body from the equation
whete
(22)
VLa = the average velocity in the wake of the b o ~
Ow = the diameter of the wake
Db = the bodi diameter
= the dra; coefficient of the body based Ofl
frontal a r e a ~
The wake diameter, Dw,for a streamline body can be estimated
from the eqUation given by Hoerner
(23)
where L = the body 1en;th
RN = the Reynolds number
The drag of a wing resulto in a decrement in velocity in its
wake,which will influence the velocity in the propeller plane.
In the tests of two ..d:l.,mensional wings, th6 drag is measured
from wake survey measurements. Typical meaaurements of the
wake behind the wings are given in Figures 43 through 45.
Since the distribution of AH across the wake of the wing can
be read from Figures 43 through 45, the variation of the local
velocity can easily be found. Thus
(24)
rhe propeller will tend to avere,qe the local wake velocity 80
that if VL is the average ln the wing wake having a width Ww
116
I
.
!
J
!
,
\
I
,1
I:
It
CIt
" ..
!
I
....
.... r '"
... :
"
ri
, .. '
s
S
II I
'i. E.
II "
,f"'
IS
;
I
....
rot
0
I
!
"il
I
B
J
II
. 0
....
I
I
jj
'tI
i
f'I')
'III'
:a
et
i
rot
rat
117
... ".' .' __r.: ,": ,:;
,
Airfoil 1'" R == 2 x 10
6
FCECed '1'adlul.ence
n .Co = <p/q IQo}, Ii "!IT!!! !'llmmilllimnm
Iii::, :.' ,1. '" ",,,,, "" ," .".,1
I ,...
tJ' ",::
S
: .20 I I I I J : ; i : .. J : ; i' i ! : ; I * i i ; i
Jo
...
III
! .1. i j' I! I:: i: ttl:"1! iii 111m! !WIIIIHIII IIIIIIN
1
;
: il,IIL,',!' : I:, '''"""TlniTtf
eIo
! "lllmi:!!!!!I:i:!iill.
o
..i
...
II ooJ ,,"
IIC
o .!:i2 .56 .00 .61 .68 .72.76 .80 .M
Fi.gure .
ltatio o Yerrti.cal. __ Dl.......,.t:o A1Efo1l. a.ac4  b/c
Pressure Loss in the Wake of an Airfoil
'lhickness Ratio =
'..;..._.....
I
I
\
M
, 2
. ,
,,, ..... ,.J_
,
: ' .. .', ' : .:, .... ,:' . " ,.: " , " :  '"
..... , ["10 , ' ':,: ':""
._ " . L ... '" " _ ...
" : .. .::, II 1/ , '." .' ..... , : N
1:1 . t, .. Jt.1 ..
0,.
I
II
,.," '.
, .... ..
 ... .
.... _ L ,
11' .
0'
'Sill
. ':
/I /I""
. ,
,ell" ,
.U' .. 
119
18
, .
..  .: .
.., . 1
rI
)
'1"1
0
a
tIC
:;j
B
J
tI
+I
II
I
. 0
'1"1
I
SUl
:!
1/1
....
'1"1
Ik4
,,'I ...... (,' ":'
at a blade station x then the effective local velocity is
VLo = VL ( rXD  2Ww) + vi: 2Ww (25)
Where
=
"2CD
the local velocity at the propeller influ
enced by the central body
local Vjlocity influenoed by the wing
V
Le
= effective, looal V.loo1ty at propeller
120
. I' ," ",") ,,' i . I .
, I
I
I
I
1
!
!
I
"
I
j,
I
PERFORMANCE SENSIWIVr;X OF RPY PROf ELLERS
With conventional propellers in the 8 to 19footdiameter range
chanqes in performance due to manufacturing tolerances were
difficult to measure, apparently due to the small differences
of efficiency encountered. Many attempts were mede to find
changes in performance due to changes of the blade aerodynamic
shape from that specified. Thd in efficiency were
apparently within the accuracy of measurement. In the
case of conventional propel1ers,the induoed losses are predom
inant with losses due to profile drag being only 2 to of
the total. Thu8, the effeot of manufacturing tolerance. in
fluencing 108ses due to changes in the blade chord and
profile shape will have a small influence on the overall re
sults. A ohange of in the profile 108ses due to the ef
fects of manufacturing tolerance. would change the efficienoy
by a maximum of only 2%.
MANylACTUBINg TOLEBANCIS
The ohange in performance due to shape on the blades
of RPV propellers are potentially more important than for con
ventional propellers, as the profile losses are a muoh larger
percentage of the total. For instance, the profile los.es at
the launch condition are of the order of 20 to 25 percentage
points in efficiency and the corrasponding losses in cruise are
15 percentage points. Thus, a 20% 1088 in drag could mean an
efficienoy differenoe of 3 to
Blade Section Shape and ghorq
In the low Reynolds number ranqe a specification can be formu
lated for the surface finish and profile shape from Hoerner 34
that should prevent drag loss over and above those predicted.
For a blads section in the 2 to 3inch chord lIIize, the surface
finish should be the same as an aircraft &heet metal surface.
That is, th6 equivalent grain size would be of the order of
.1 mil. Such a sur.face should easily be obtainable even on a
wooden surface, if reasonable care is exercised.
The camber surface shape of the airfoil section should be main
tained 80 that When a straight edge ia worked over the surface
no discontinuities will be noted from the 0.4 to the The
34 Hoerner, S.F., FLUIDDYNAMIC DRAG
1
published by the Author,
1965.
121
'I " ! .,' I
f 1,,1
, ,.,' ..... 'j.
. I
,
i
I
, I
surface wavinesl Should be within .001. The overall tolerance
on thickness and Chor.d can be .02 without influencing the
efficiency witbin measurable accuracy. i8 the result of
are; blain; l:elatively to Changes in srnall, changel
of tbickness and oporat1ng CLe The radiul should
blendsmootbly into tbe upper and lqwer blade surface. The
radiul'lbpuld not be lell than the drawing, but can be up to
.02 inch ;reater al long as no looal bumps are encountered.
B11d! Angle pi'tribution
Studies of'cbanqe, in blade an;le distribution indicate that
tbe efficiency does not change aa long aa it il within
:t .2 de;ree from tbe ' .5 'station to the tip, and : .5 deoree
;f'rom tbe .5 station inboard. In considering the accuracy
n.eded on the blade an;l.,a Chan;. of .5 degre. over the en
tire radius will result in a power Change of Thisw111
cause an efficienoy Chan;e of .5" in cru:Lse and 1" in. launoh, ..
CONCLUSIONS
1. Usinq the procedures and data de'v.loped, propellers with
improved performance can be designed for mini remote pi
loted vehicle$.
2. ~ . operating ReynoldS number is an important desiqn para
meter in the design and performance analysis ofminiRPV
propellers.
3. Corrections to drag as a function of Reynolds number must
be applied to conventional high Reynolds number airfoil
data to find the profile losses at the operatinq con4iticns
of min.iRPV propellers.
4. ~ . induced losses ana corrections predicted by theory are
not affected by propeller size and can be found with satis
factory accuracy.
5. The performance of propellers operatinq at low Reynolds
numbers can now be predicted with satisfactory uccuracy
for the ranqe of operating parameters expected with mini
RPV's.
6. Due to the low speed operation of RPV's, the skin friction
and profile d.rag of the shroud of a ducted propeller im
low relative to the gain of induced efficiency of the
rotor. As a result, the efficiency of an optimized ducted
propeller installed on RPV I s wil:!. be higher than that of
an open propeller.
7. The rotor diameter of a ducted propeller will be lower
than that of an open propeller when installed on identical
engines, resulting in reduced tip speeds with a correspond
ing reduction in noise level.
S. The new computerdesigned airfoils appear to offer blade
structural advantages along with possible improved per
formance. Further basic data are needed before propel
lers can be designed to use these airfoil sections.
9. Propellers with variable blade angles, either of the two
position or constant I!Ipeed type, will have performance
advantages.
123
Baaed on of this effort, it 18 reoommended that.
1. New canputerdea1;ned a:Lrfo11a be developed with
ness ratios in thi to 21" range for a range of
ca'snl:iera along with wind tunnel teat data covering Mach
numbers to the critioal ana Reynolds numbers down to
at least 200,000.
2. A' aeries of optimutn ducted fana be deai;ned and
in comparison with open prop&llers for
m:LniRPV. '
124
, !
" I
i
'\ :
I', '
"
r
CITEP
1. Borst, H. V ., at al, SUMMARY OF PROPELLER DESIGN PROCEIllRES
AND DATA, Vols. I, II and III, Report
7334A,B, and C, H.V. Borst & Associate.,
ate, U.S. A.tmy Air Mobility Research" DeveloPlJ\8nt Labor ...
tory, Fort Eustis, virginie, Nov. 1973" AD 774831, AD
774,836, ana AD 776998, November 1973. , '
2. Theodorsen, T., THEORY OF PROPELLERS, McGraw 1948.
3. Del.no, James B.; and ,Camel, :t;rwo.:"
BLADE PROPELLERS IN THE LANGLIlY 81'001" HI08.sPEED TUNNEL
TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT ON, A "
MODIFICATION OF INBOARD PITCH NACA TN 2268,
Langley Aeronautioal Langley Field, Virvinia,
Februa.cy 1951, Washington.
4. Pendley, E., E!'FBlar OF PROPELLIlRA.XIS ANCiLE';"O' AT
TAOK ON THRUST DISTRIBUTION OVER THE PROPELUU(,nISJ( IN "
RELATION TO WAXESURVEY 01' TI$:U'Ir., AP ,No.. "., \'
'LSJ02b, NACA, Wa"hinqton, Wartime ',,',
5. Maynard, J.D., and steinberg, S., EPPEC'l' or'
THlCKNESS RATIOS ON AERO.. CHARAarBlRISTXeS' or
SCALE PROPELLERS AT MACH NOS. UP TO NAOA ttpt.. 1126"
1953. ' '
6. Jacobs I E.N., and Sherman, A., AIRFOIL SECTION OHARACTER
ISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER,
TR 586, 1937.
7. Relf, iSlaF., Jones, R., and Sell, A.H., TE81'S OF SIX AIR
FOIL SECTIONS AT VARIOue REYNOLDS NUMBERS IN THE CQtlPRES
SED AIR TUNNEL, Rpts. & Memoranda No. 1706, April 1936.
I
J
8. Jon.sl' R., and Williams, D.H., THE EFFECl' OF SURFAr'f!l
t . ROUGKlDSS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TRE AIRfOILS NACA
[ 0012 AND RAF 34, Rpts. &I Memoranda 1708.
I
I 9. Lnen.i,olca, Jar.slay', tlNPUBLISHlLD TEST 01' A NACA 4412 AIR
Ii FOIl, AT REYNOLDS N'UMBIlR 20,000 to 25{),000, Letter to L.K.
I Loftin of NASA, 19 Maroh 1974.
10. D., EXPERIMiNl'Alo! REStJItrS iRQo1 THE IAMlNAR WIND
TUNNEL OF THE INBrITtJ'l' FUR AERO AND GASDYNAMII< D!lR UNI ..
VERSITAT STUTTGART, stuttgarter prof:llkata1og I, 1972.
llS
}
"
,
( I
, ,
i
\
'I
\ ,'.
, I
" .
, ..
LI'tIRATYM errED (Continued)
11. Schmitz, F",W., AERODYNAMICS OF THE MODEL AIRPLANE, PARt' 1,
Translated by Translation Branch a.astone Scientific In
formation Center ae.earch & Development, Directorate, U.S.
Army'Miasila aedstone Arsenal, Ala., N703900l.
12. Deslauriers, E.J., BLADE PERFORMANCE AT LOW REYNOLDS NUM
BERB, General Electric, apt. No. a54AG'l'605, Ciated 11455.
13. . Lipp:Lsch
,
A., UNSl'ETIGl<Et."'l'EN lM VERLSUr DES PROFILWIDER
, , Messersc'hrnitt, A,G. Au;aburg, March 1941.
'14 . 'Lipp:Lsch, A.M., WING "SEC'l'IONS FOR MODEL PLANES,
, " . T!j',:Ll,Pictorial, April' 1950. ' '
1.5. "aenun:', S.F., and Borst, DYNAMIC LIF'l', pub
. "Iisbed by Hoerner rluid Dynamics, Br:Lck Town, New Jersey
. . ..
'\
,,16. Reid, E.G., THE INFLUENCE OF BLAI>EWIOl'H DIS'rRIBU'rION ON
',1', ' PROPELLER CHAPAa.t'IRlSTICS, NACA ''tN NO. 1834, March 1949.
,11
17. Re:Ld, E.G., WAXE STUDIES OF MODEL PROPELLERS, NACA
',' TN No. 1040, July 1946.
1.8. Reid, E.G., S'l'lJ'J)IES or BLADE SHANK rOp.M AND PITCH DISl'RI
FOR CONSTANTSPEED PROPELLERS, NACA TN No. 947,
January 1945.
1'3. Grose, R.M., and '1'aylor, H.D., WIND TUNNEL Sl'UDIES OF THE
EFFECTS OF BLADE '1'HICKNESS RATIO, CAMBEa AND PITCH DIS
'1'RIBUTION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF MonEL HIGHSPEmD PROPEL
LERS, Hamilton Standard Rpt. No. HS1352, June 1955.
20. Grose, R.M., an,a, Brindley, D.L., A WIND TUNNEL INVES'1'IGA ..
TION OF THE EFFEC'I' OF BLADE ACTIVITY FACTOR ON '1'IiE AERO
PERFORMANCE or MODEL PROPELLERS AT MACH
NUMBERS FRQ( 0.3 '1'0 0.9, Hamilton standard Rpt. No.
HS1125, 1954.
21. Abbott, Ira H., and Von Doenhoff, A.E., THEORY OF WING
SECTIONS, Dover publications, Inc.
22. Lindsey, W.F., Stevenson, D.B., and Daley, Bernard N.,
CliARACTERIBrICS Oll' 24 NACA SERIES AIRFOILS
AT MACH NUMBER BETWEEN 0.3 AND 0.8, NACA 'rN 1.546.
23.. Whitcomb, R:LchardT.
1
and C1al"k, Larry R., AN AIRFOIL
SHAPE FOR EFFICIENl' FLIGHI' AT SUPBlRCRITICAL MACH NUMl3ERS,
NASA, TM Xll09, 1965.
126
i,
"
,
,,.
"
Pi "
,
\
"..,...,. .... _""HI_l ... ."' ,\oI .... ..... ., ',,,.. ....... .. ,., . .... " .... , ... "p'" ...... .,.., ... , "." " .... " , 11 , I '. . ,,, .. ' . .".\",' ",_: I . ,'. "",. ," """"''''1 ,,,,..
i
1
(
,
I
I
1
! .
!
I
,
24.
25 ..
26.
27.
28.
29.
Wh1.toomb, Riohard T., REVIEW OF STJP,lllRORITlCAL AIR
FOILS, lCAS paper No. 74"',10, pre.ented at the Ninth Con
gressofthe Intern"tiona1 counoi1,Qf,t;h_ Aerpnaut:Loll1
Set_noe., Haifa, tat"'., Auqu.t ,1974.
\ I "" 1\' ,\., ' :'.': . , : ',;! : '. '. I;" . \ " .. ' " .,"
Wortlntlnn, I' .X. A CRI'l'ICAL !tIlVXIW oj' '.[ItiE PliYSlCAIJ ASPEt."'l'S
, 01' AIRIOIL DESIGN AT LOW MACH NUlElIlRS, fUr AerQ
, UII ':PUb ... '
, at, the MiT "r;reQhnQJ.,oGY of" '
"otor18 Plight", Boaton 1972. '" ' "
Boooi, A.iS., A NlW SOlES OF AIR:FOX,L SECTIONS SUI'rABLE
J'ORAXRCRAPT .. ut:ic'lQUart!;lY, Feb. 1977.
weick, AlltCMJ'T DESIGN" ... H:Lll, 1930.
. .' '. ,'. ; II' :\\ " '\I'j. '. " " '" I. . :\,," :' .', , .' "
, Gle.uert, H., .,4:DIV. ' L of ABRO
DYNAMIC TH$Oat" Durand Selli I Dover, N.w Yor'kii',
. ,. '::',J/ .' I ., I ;:' '.'
,,' . ".'" .' \'.'"
Von. Dr,. G. 001"de8, DIm .JU, GESTORTEM
Zt1S'l'ROM, Abgeaehlo.8en am ,Janue.ry 19,38." , ,,'
, ' ,
, , '
30. Wood; I).H .. , TESTS OF COM!lXNAT:IONS IN.
WITH REFERENCE TQ WINGS It  'l:'HICK WING
 VARIOUS RADIALENGINE OOWLINGS  TRACTOR PROf ELLER, ,
NACA T.R 436, 1932.
31. stiokle, G. W .. I CX'iq1er I J. L. & I EFFECT OF Bom NOSE
sHAPE ON THE PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY OF A PROPELLER, NACA
TR 725.
32. McLQmore, H. Clyde, WINDTUNNEL TESTS OJ' A 1/20SCALE
AIRSHIP MODEL WITH STERN PROPELLERS, NASA TN D1026.
33. Durand, AERODYNAMIC THEORY, Vol 1, Dover, N.w York,
pop. 277285.
34. Hoerner, s.r., FLUIDDYNAMIC DRAG, pub1iahQd by the
Author, 1965.
35. Durand, W.I'., TESTS ON THIRTEEN NAVY TYPE MODEL PROPEL
LERS, NACA TR
36. MOLemore, AERODYNAMIC INVEBrIGATION OF A FOURBLAnE PRO
PELLER OPERATING AN ANGLE OF ATTACK RANGE FROM
0
0
to 180, NACA TN 3228.
1 Z7
" :
AI'
B
b
CD
CJ)p
CL
CLi
CLo
Cx.,x
Cp
I'M
GW
LIST or BXMBOLS
" blade . activity factor
blade number
blade chor4, in. or ft
c!ra; coefficient
dra; coefficient
lift coefficient
seotion design lift coefficient
operatinQ lift coefficient
maximum lift ooefficient "
power coeffioient
pre.sure coefficient
coefficient
thrust coefficient
draQ, lb.
propell$r c!:Lamater, ft
body diameter, it
wake diameter, ft
4:Latance, ft
propeller axial location, ft
Reynolds number correction for dr.; =
CDLow R.N./
C
DH1;h R.N.
fi;ure of merit
oros. weiObt, lb.
H total pres.ure head, lb/aq ft
128
'1
". " It.'
__ __ 1111
i
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
h
HP
J
K(x)
L
L
M
MeR
mph
N
n
p
P
Q
q
R
Rp
Ric
R.N.
LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued)
maximum blade thickness, ft
horsepower
advance ratio = V/nD
circulation function  single rotation propellers
lift, lb
body length, ft
unit loading parameter = Cp 400/B(AF)
integrated loading parameter =
4000 Cp sin0.7S/J2B(AF)
Mach number
critical Mach number
miles per hour
propeller rotational speed, rpm
Reynolds number
propeller rotational speed, rps
power, ftlbs/sec
pressure, psf
torque, ftlbs
dynamic pressure, psf
propeller radius, ft
body radius, ft
propeller radius, ft
rate of climb, fpm
Reynolds number
129
r
Shp
T
Thp
TN
TS
U
u
v
v
w
w

w
x
Q
LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued)
propeller radius at any station, ft
shaft horsepower
thrust, lb
t i ~ s t horsepower
propeller net thrust, lb
propeller shaft thrust, lb
freestream velocity, fps
induced axial inflow velocity, fps
airplane velocity, fps
integrated average velocity in plane of propeller,fps
freestream velocity, fps
velocity in final wake, fps
induced radial inflow velocity, fps
true wind velocity, fps
displacement velocity, fps
displacement velocity ratio = w/V
fractional radius at any station = r/R
angle of attack, deg
induced angle of attack, deg
blade angle, deg
drag lift angle = tan
l
cn/c
L
, deg
propeller efficiency
130
, .. ," ,
.. J> .... '" '.1.< ~ . , "./ ., " , '.
LIsr OF SYMBOLS (Continued)
).
advance ratio = Jfo
p mass density of air, slugs/cu ft
U'
propeller solidity
<P
helical pitch angle, deg
4>0
apparent wind angle, deg
w rotational velocity, rad/sec
SUBSCRIPTS
ref reference
.75 conditions at x =.75
i incompressible; induced
p profile
c calculated
T true
t test
131
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.