of 56 inches (1422.

4 mm); the other two

blades and a diameter of 72 inches
(1828.8 mm) The difference of perfor-
mance of these two propellers is sur-
prisingly small.
The study is made possible by a 30
kbyte propeller analysis code. ELICA
A COMPARATIVE STUDY (the Spanish word for propeller, cog-
nate with "helix") written in Pascal by
James T. Grimes to run on an IBM per-
72 inch diameter two blade and 56 inch diameter sonal computer. He translated it from
three blade propellers designed for 200 mph an earlier code HELICE (the French
word for propeller), written in Fortran by
airplanes with 100 horsepower engines. Susan Elso French. Both codes depend
on algorithms developed by the author
and his former student, Mark Drela, now
an Assistant Professor at M.I.T. The al-
gorithms take advantage of approxima-
tions associated with Betz-Prandtl ra-
by E. Eugene Larrabee diameter for flying boats and amphi- dial loading, which is to propellers as
Emeritus Professor, M.I.T. bians such as the Sea Hawker. Tractor Munk's elliptic span loading is to wings.
525 Victoria St. engine airplanes, on the other hand, An account of the theory will be found
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 can easily swing much larger propellers in references 1, 2 and 3.
whose size is limited by transonic blade Figure 1 compares blade planforms
Airplanes such as the VariEze and section drag rise and excessive fly-over of the two propellers and their radial
the Prescott Pusher, designed to noise associated with tip speeds near pitch distributions. The pitch distribu-
maximize laminar boundary layer de- sound velocity. The following study tions given assume that the body carry-
velopment through pusher propeller in- quantifies the relative aerodynamic per- ing the engine has negligible effect on
stallations, tend to be penalized by un- formance of two fixed pitch propellers the flow through the propeller disc. Al-
dersize propellers necessary for ground matched to a common design point: ternate PRACTICAL pitch distributions
clearance during nose-up rotation at they absorb 100 hp (74 570 W) at 2700 are sketched in for a typical tractor in-
take off. Limitations on pylon height rpm at sea level and 200 mph (89 m/s). stallation for the two blade propeller and
places similar restrictions on propeller One has three blades and a diameter a typical pusher installation for the three

absorb a+ sea

90

80

effect re
V/n = 77.

in
\
O
t" 2O 'in, 3O
for-
SPORT AVIATION 31
 0.10 r 1

blade propeller. The idea in adapting a flow velocities near the center. The celled by the increased buoyancy drag
propeller to the body flow field is to re- inner portions of the propeller will then of the body in the axially varying pres-
duce the inner radius pitch enough so produce more shaft thrust with the sure field of the propeller; a tractor fuse-
that the design radial lift distribution will same lift, because the blade path helix lage feels increased aft positive pres-
be preserved, even though the body angles have been reduced. The in- sure, and a pusher fuselage feels in-
disturbance field reduces the axial in- creased shaft thrust will be nearly can- creased aft suction pressure.
The calculated pitch distributions are
based on blade angles measured be-
S> —
T
' X» _
-£)
"
tween the chord lines joining the leading
(.7. = —J — (- D =» ————— and trailing edges of the blade sections
Oes/gn />o/'*r/ and the plane of rotation; for Clark Y
profiles this angle is about two degrees
42 y ^^
more than for a tangent to the flat under
V • ayo«/' *^
___ ^*\
,P = 74.57 IfV ffoafie) surface. All airfoils are assumed to have
r enough camber to develop a lift coeffi-
t ^^-C \ 2?OOrpm cient of 0.4 at zero angle of attack, for
N >v C example, the NACA 44XX airfoil series.
F --'"" "/ \ ^ y P \ V- &m/f(f99./w,)
It will be noted that the three blade pro-
/ C
r\ \ 1 peller, having the higher disc loading,
(ses /'MS/J requires a higher geometric pitch for a
0.1 O.S / given effective pitch; its "slip" is inhe-
\ \ rently greater. Propellers designed by
\
ELICA would have radially constant
\\. 5fco.;A-f geometric pitch if all blade sections had
sufficient camber to develop their de-
\\\ ' "** sign lift coefficients at zero angle of at-
tack in two-dimensional flow.
a.t> o.e ( <z Figures 2 and 3 present the esti-
a ^ i . \\ . mated variations of thrust coefficient,
y
<f. f0.2 A #3 n% 0.4- 0.f A6 t[/s-lr-W power coefficient and efficiency of the
two and three blade propellers, respec-
Fin. 3 Three b/dc/e prope//€r ch&scferisficf tively, as given by the versatile ELICA
code, which even predicts blade stall
32 JULY 1986
 to

0.2 r/g 4.4- 46

.4 c/iord

realistically as the advance ratio is de- blade area and the profile losses at the 0.65 presents no problem with the three
creased. It will be noted that propeller design point, leading to a lower design blade propeller, which can have blade
efficiencies greater than 90% are pre- point efficiency. sections as much as 12% thick right out
dicted for both propellers at the design Figure 5 presents the radial variation to the tip. The blade tip Mach number
point, which is probably optimistic be- of blade section Mach number at the of 0.8 for the two blade propeller is more
cause ELICA tends to underestimate design point. The tip Mach number of challenging, requiring thinner blade tip
the induced velocities (or the "slip")
slightly, and also because the blade
section profile drags may be slightly op-
timistic. Nevertheless, it should be
noted that the two blade propeller has
consistently higher efficiency at all ad- 0. 8-,
vance ratios, mainly because it is larger
and the energy left in its slipstream is
less, even though the slipstream vel-
ocities are more periodic, there being
two blade vortex sheets per revolution
instead of three; more would make the Mo.
slipstream more uniform.
In either case blade stall, shown by 0.4.
saturation of the thrust co-efficient,
tends to occur at about 64% of the de-
sign advance ratio. The stall advance
ratio could be decreased by increasing
the estimated blade maximum lift coef-
ficient of 1.2, which may or may not be
appropriate to the blade Reynolds num-
bers shown for the design condition in
Figure 4. Alternatively the blade design
lift coefficient of roughly 0.5 could be 4-2 0-8
reduced, which would increase the stall . -5 number
margin at low advance ratios. A lower
design lift coefficient would increase the
SPORT AVIATION 33
 80^
P

. so

to

20 -
- 20

4000 rpm 20oo 3006

fit. £> fa// engine
sections to avoid transonic drag rise dimensional near the tips, and because blade propellers are usually made of
caused by shock-induced boundary the Mach number decreases rapidly as duralumin in spite of the weight penalty
layer separation. Nevertheless the flow one moves inward. The thin tip sections and fatigue sensitivity of the material.
around propeller tips is much less liable — say less than 10% thick — are much Because of the unpredictable effects
to cause drag rise than that around easier to obtain with duralumin blades, of blade section radial boundary layer
wings because it is so strongly three which explains why larger diameter two growth on airfoil characteristics (not
given in THE THEORY OF WING SEC-
TIONS!), and because of the equally
hard to estimate fuselage interference
effects, it would seem prudent to make
go . separate blade-and-hub ground adjust-
able pitch propellers for prototype in-
p /ere/ stallations on new machines. Commer-
cially available one piece two blade
duralumin propellers can be repitched
by brute force for a price.
Although little propeller efficiency is
lost through running duralumin propel-
lers at tip Mach numbers of 0.9 (or even
4o • 1.07 for the Curtiss-Reed propeller on
the Curtiss 1925 racer!), the fly-over
noise level is very objectionable be-
cause the sound pulses propagated
along the line of hearing by high tip
&rfr*me speed propellers stay organized into
s/toir highly structured waves, spaced at
too m/vt blade passage period times sound
speed, straight from the blade moving
20 V 40 H>/f 60 SO 100 toward the auditor to his ears. The in-
tensity of the sound one hears is a
.7 strong function of the component of
blade Mach number along the line of
hearing. It is a maximum when the line
34 JULY 1986
 8 Disturbance ef a 2 6/at/e pusher

of hearing coincides with the plane of speed in radians/s); R = radius neces- pulse like increases of blade angle of
rotation — when one is broadside on to sary to absorb the power from Figs. 2 attack and forward bending of both
the airplane flying past — and what one and 3. The corresponding airspeeds are blades. There are, of course, simultane-
hears is the blades coming towards given by ous anti-symmetric excitations of blade
one, the sound of which quite over- in-plane bending due to the associated
whelms the engine exhaust tone. Tip V = X (ftR).
torque disturbances. These distur-
Mach numbers of 0.6 are almost inaudi- The propeller efficiency at these ad- bances have a good chance of produc-
ble, but tip Mach numbers of 0.8 create vance ratios, when multiplied by the en- ing resonant response in solid duralu-
the typical "airplane noise" which airport gine power absorbed, then gives the min blades, which ring like a bell, and
neighbors dislike so much. "power available" as a function of the are notoriously susceptible to fatique.
Although Figures 2 and 3, which airspeed. Consistent units must be Two blade wooden or plastic propellers
show propeller performance in standard used in calculations. are more fatique resistant. A three
dimensionless coefficient form, give the Figure 7 also includes a typical blade propeller should be better yet,
impression of very different characteris- "power required" to maintain straight since only one blade encounters the
tics for the two and three blade propel- flight for a small airframe such as the wing wake at a time.
lers, when these characteristics are VariEze or Lancair configurations. It will
united with the full throttle engine be seen that the high tip speed two
characteristic, given in Figure 6, to pro- References
blade propeller-engine combination is
duce engine-propeller combination slightly better at all airspeeds, giving 1. Larrabee, E.; "Propeller Design
properties, the overall "power avail- both a higher top speed (power required and Analysis for Modelers"; 1979 NFFS
able", as given by Figure 7, shows a = power available) and a higher rate of International Symposium Report,
very marked similarity for the two en- climb (more difference between power Bakersfield, CA, pps 9-25. Parallel En-
gine-propeller combinations. To derive available and power required at all glish and French text; detailed al-
the "power available" curves on Figure speeds below top speed). It does so at gorithms given.
7, it is necessary to calculate several the expense of more fly-over noise. 2. Larrabee, E.; "Five Years Experi-
values of the power coefficient: Figure 8 shows why the two blade ence with Minimum Induced Loss Pro-
Cp = Power/pn3D5 ; p = air density; propeller might not be suitable for Vari- pellers — Part I, Theory' Part II, Appli-
n = rpm/60; D = diameter Eze. Every time the propeller becomes cations"; SAE preprints 840026 and
for several engine speeds at full throttle. horizontal the two blades simultane- 840027.
These values then determine corres- ously encounter sharply defined wing 3. Larrabee, E. and Drela, M.; "De-
wakes. The wing wakes momentarily sign and Analysis of Efficient Propel-
ponding propeller advance ratios:
deprive the blades of a large fraction of lers"; manuscript submitted to AIAA
X = Speed/ilR; il = 2-irn (shaft their inflow velocities, leading to large, Journal of Aircraft, December 1985.
SPORT AVIATION 35