Usaamrdl TR 77 45a

--' ,\
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY POSITION STATEHENT

This report provides a reasonable insight into the complexity
involved with the design of small diameter (approximately
24 to 30 inches) free propellers for mini-remotely piloted
vehicles (mini-RPV). Modifications to airfoil data used in
the propeller blade design were generated to enable the pro-
gram to be used for both conventional and low Reynolds
number RPV propeller designs.
Mr. James Gomez of the
Applications Division,
effort.
Propulsion Technical Area, Technology
served as Project Engineer for this
DISCLAIMERS
The findil1[ls in thIS "mort arc not to be construed as an offIcial Department of the Army pOSition unless $0
by other nuthorized documents.
When Government drawings, specifications, or other data arc used for any purpose other than in connection
wl,h a deflllltely rcintpd Government procurement operation, the United States Government thereby incurs no
responSibIlity nor any ohfogatlon the fact that the Government may hnve formulated, furnished,
or III any wax supploed the s.md dr<lwlngs, specIfIcatIons, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or
otherWIse as In any manner licensing the holder or iJnX other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or
flcrmlsslon, to manufacture, use, or sell any patented IIIventlon that may in any way he related theleto.
Tr'Hle names in this report do not constitute nn of!icinl endorscl1lent or apploval 01 the use 01 such
hnrdware or
DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS
Destroy this repon when no longer needed. Do 110t return it to the originntor.
READ INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
GOVT ACCESSION NO.3. RECIPIENT'S CATAL..OG NUMBER
AND OF #0
"15ELLERS J.?,lLOl'ED ..AiR
r , ..fen iropelleYs.
(e) I
Henry V. Borst,
t. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Henry V. Borst & Associates /
203 W. Lancaster Avenue
II. CONTROL..LING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Army Aviation R&D Command
P.O. Box 209
st. Louis Missouri 63166
MONITORING AGENCY NAME II ADDRESS(II dill.,.,., lrom Con/,ollln, Oil/e.)
Applied Technology Laboratory
U.S. Army Research & Technology
Laboratories (AVRADCOM)
Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604
la. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (01 /hI. R."or')
IS.. DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (01 the ab.tract ent.l.d In Bloele 20, It diller,,", [rom Report)
II. SUPPLEM'ENTARY NOTES
Volume I of a two-volume report.
19. KEY WORDS (Continue on fe"., /de II n.e .". and Identity by block number)
propellers, Remotely Piloted Vehicles, Aerodynamics,
Reynolds Number
0, ABSTRACT (Conflnue on ,..y., Itt. " .,.,. .. d Identl", by brock nUDfb.r)
report presents the design and analysis of propellers applie
to mini-remotely piloted vehicles. Modifications to the airfoil
data used for predicting the profile drag losses were necessary
to account for operation at the low Reynolds number encountered
by mini-RPV propellers. Due to the lack of two-dimensional air-
foil data, the correction to the drag coefficient is only a
function of the design lift coefficient and Reynolds number.
FOR ..
, JAH 7l 1473 DO
EDITION OF I NOV III IS OBSOLETE
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W/'t ... v.,.
.
_/,l
I
k,
I.
"
,.
f
l
!, 'j
r
"
20. Abstract, Continued
This correction was deterRdned from the available airfoil aata
and low number propeller teat data. using tt. new
oorreotion, the existing computer for oaloulating per-
fo:mance was modified so. as to apply over the full range oondi-
tion. of both oonventional and RPV propellers. The ahort single-
point method wa. alao modified BO as to apply at the low Reynolds
number oondition. encountered with RPV propeller
The of advanoed type airfoils was considered for applioation
to RPV propellers. It appears that these airfoils will offer
.both structural and performance advantages over
airfoil types. Additional airfoil data are needed befot'e a pro-
peller of this type oan be and analyzed for this
applioation.
U.ing the revised methods of propeller analysis, six optimum pro-
peUers were and analyzed for two different RPV's. Tlie
analy.is showed that improved performance can be with
the new desiq,ns. A ducted propeller with luffic:Lently low bl.d.
tip olearanoe. w .. al.o analy'zed. This appears to
haVQ superior performance to the open type propellers oonsidered,
as well a8 a potential for reduoed noi.e. propellers with vari-
able blade angle. also appear to advantage. from both the
noise and performance
Volume II p ........ duc'ed-propeller ... ign for the
Unclosdfied
'"
H
TABLE OF ,ON'l'EHT
Page
-
LIST OF ILLUS'I'RATIONS

5
LlST OF TABLES

9
I

10
CONVENTIONAL PROPELLER 'l'ECHNOLOGY

11
RANGE OF OPERATION

13
METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND THEORY

14
ACCURACY OF STRIP ANALYSIS PROGRAM

17
PROPELLERS FOR MINI-RPV VEHICLES

22
LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER CONDITIONS

22
"
AVAILABLE LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER DATA

23
Airfoil Data

23
LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER PROPELLER TEST DATA

32
ANALYSIS OF LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER PROPELLER TEST DATA 36
\ :
"
PROPELLER TEST DATA REDUCTION

40
i

, ,

Lift
43
Data from PropeJler Wake Survey

Drag from Propeller' Test Data

45
"

LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER CORRECTION
49

Ducted Fans

49
,
CHECK OF 'IRE REYNOLDS NUMBER fd CORRECTION 51

n

RANGE OF OPERATION

51
i,
I
SINGLE -POINT ME '!HOD
to'

53
j,
t
THEORY

53
,-
SINGLE-POINT ME'lHOD FOR RPV PROPELLERS

54
)
:
"
AIRFOIL SELECTION FOR MINI-RPV PROPELLERS

64
,\'

!
,
3
(J
(-

',-
f.:
I;
.\ .... '., , .. . , , H." ......... ,..S ... ........... ,.. ... ..... ",lo.r.I... J .... .... '' .., ... , ....,, ... " HUll'" ,I " .. " .. - "' ,.".! , t '" "
I'.""
TABLE OF CONI'ENt'S
I
Page
'.I
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF PROPELLERS FOR MINI-RPV'S
-
\

66
I
I
OPERATING CONDITIONS

.. ..

66
'1
i\
Electrical Load 66
','

..

':i

'I
RPV PROPELLER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 69
;l!

i
,
;1 PRELIMINARY RPV PROPELLER DESIGN SELECTION 72
'"

L\!
,\
,'I
OPT IMUM PROPELLER DESIGN STUDY - ADVANCED
Rr)V
14 ..

, i
PERi'ORMANCE OF OPTIMUM PROPELLERS -ADVANCED RPV

79
";'\
Advanced RPV propeller - Supercritical Sections. 91
Ducted propellers for Advanced RPV ..

91
'I
:;1
OPTIMUM PROPELLER STUDY - AQUILA
94
,.;

..

'Ii
".:1
:1
;1-'<
PROPELLER PERFORMANCE -AQUILA

94
)
':1
"

I
PROPELLER WING BODY INTERFERENCE

..

107
I

"
107

')
INTERFERENCE OF WING AND BODY ON PROPELLER

..
"
1:1/
"
:!
,Ii
INTERFERENCE VELOCITY TRACTOR POSITION 110
"

Body

..

110
Win;

..

111
'I:
r
, \
Efficiency change Due to propeller Wake

111
,1
i

,
INTERFERENCE VELOCITY PUSHER POSITION 114 '"

(
.11
Body
114

.. ..

..

"
Win; 115

..

to

..
II
PERFORMANCE SENSITIVITY 0:9
1
RPV PROPELLERS 120

MANUFACTURING TOLERANCES

..

.. 120

Blade Section Shape and Chord 120

Blade Anqle Distribution

'.

121 ,II

,I'
CONCLUSIONS 122
1

.. .. ..

..

..

It
,)
RECOMMENDATIONS

'.

..

123
L!TERATURE CITED

..

LIST OF SYMBOLS

..

127
4
i\
,
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LIST OF ItLYSTRATIONS
Propeller Velocity and Force Diagram -
Single Rotation Propellers

Comparison of Calculated Propeller Performance
With Wind Tunnel Test Results
Comparis,on of Calculated Propeller Performance
With Wind Tunnel Test Results.
Difference Test and Calculated
ler Efficiency at High Reynolds Numbers
Two-dimensional Airfoil Data Run in the NACA
Variable Density Wind Tunnel as a Function
of Reynolds Number - NACA 0012 Airfoil
Variable Density Wind TUnnel a9 a Function
Variable Density Wind Tunnel a Function
Two-dimensional Airfoil Data for NACA 4412
Airfoil as a Func't.:ion of Reynolds Number
Two-dimensional Airfoil Data Run in a Low
Turbulence Wind Tunnel FX 63-137

Variation of LID and the Lift and Jlrag Coef-
ficients with Reynolds Number for
Airfoil at a Constant Angle of Attack of 6
0
Lift and Drag Coefficients as a Function of
Reynolds Number for N-60 Airfoil Tested in
a wow Wind Tunnel
Difference Between Calculated and Teat
Efficiency as a Function of Operating Lift
Coefficient - Airfoil Data Uncorrected For
Reynolds Number
5

Page

15

18

19

21
26
27
28
30
31
33
34
37
. I
i
I
I
Figure
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Comparison of Calculated Propeller performance
Data With Test Data at Low Reynolds Number -
Airfoil Data Uncorrected for Reynolds Number
Comparison of Calculated propeller Performance
Data With Test Data at Low Reynolds Number -
Airfoil Data Uncorrected for Reynolds Number
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Load
Distribution - Airfoil Data Uncorrected for
Reynolds Number
D:l.stribution - Airfoil Data Uncort'ected for
Reynolds Number
Comparison of Lift Coefficient Calculated
From propeller Test Data With CL From TWo-
Airfoil Data, B-87 Propeller
strip Analysis Program - Reynolds Number
= 1.24 x 10
5

. Comparison of Lift and DraCJ Coefficients
Calculated Fram propeller Test Data With
Two-dimensional Airfoil Data, B-87 propel-
ler Strip Analysis program - Reynolds
NUmber = 1.24 x 105

comiosite Airfoil Characteristics With
Mod fications. Reynolds Number = 120,000
Correction to Drag Coefficierlt for Reynolds

Comparison of Test and Calculated Proptiller
Efficiency With and Without the Reynolds
Number Drag Correction

Profile DraQ/Lift Characteristics -
lCti = 0 ."......
23 propeller Profile Drag/Lift Characteristics -
Page

38

39

41

42

44

46

47

50
S2
56
lCLi" .25 57
24 Propeller Profile Drag/Lift CharacterilStj.cs -
lCLi = .5
58
6
Figure
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
' .
. '
34
35
36
37
OF (Continued)
Integrated Loading Parameter as a Function
of operating Lift Coefficient
Eff1c1ency at Drag/Lift Ratio of Zero as a
Function of Advance Ratio -- Two-Bladed
Propeller
Eff1c1ency at Drag/Lift Ratio of Zero as a
FUnction of Advance Ratio -
propeller
Efficiency at Drag/Lift Rat10 of Zero as a
Function of Advance Rat10 - Four-Bladed
propeller "

Thruat Horsepower Required va Veloci for a
Typical Advanced RPV
shaft Horsepower Available for a Typical
Advanced RPV (Electrical Load Not Included)
Shaft Horsepower Available for Model B
Aqu1la RPV

Thrust Horsepower Required vs Velocity for a
Model B Aquila.
Performance Efficiency Map, Propeller
Optimized for Launch - Advanced RPV
propeller 2B8l-2.5
Performance Efficiency Map, propeller
Optimized for Cruise -Advanced RPV
2679-2.5
Opt:.imized for Dash -Advanced RPV
Propeller 2B79-2
Blade Characteristics for Configuration
With NACA 65 Series Sections and NASA LS
(1) - Thickness Ail'foils
Optimized for Launch -Advanced Aquila
propeller 2B130-1.625
7

Page
-

59

61

62

63

67

68

70

71

81

83

85

92

99
.:; ,
)l.i
,: I
} \
!: I
\
t.
.
.'t
'"
t,
o,-i:
;{;
j\
'.' ,

';-:

'f

'i'r
IIi
.
i::
j
I
[I

.'\',
ii:{' ,
I
" \
1:'
,f'
:f: I
"i I
I( I
"I I
':: i
(
"I
,\ I
,!
1:'.
f. '
!
t:: '
I'
:', i
"
"
,,'
I

LIST OF I LLUSTRAT IOHS
Figure
Page
i
!, 38 Performance Efficiency Map, propeller
I Optimized for Launch -Advanced Aquila
I
Propeller 2B127-1.75 101
i

I
39 Performance Efficiency Map, propeller
Optimized for Launch -Advanced Aquila
Propeller 2B137-1.625

103
40 Effect of Propeller Location on Eff:Lciency

108
41 Axial Velocity Change at propeller Plane
Due to Body Size for Tractor and Pusher
Locations, F/L = .05 .95 112 or

..

42 Axial Velocity change at propeller Plane
Due to Body Size for Tradtor and Pusher
Locations, F/L 0.1 .90 113
=
or

43 Pressure Loss in the Wake of an Airfoil
Th:Lckness Ratio =
13"

..

116
I,
Th:Lckness Ratio
=
17"

117
Thickness Ratio = 21%

118
8
'... '." ," 00 , I. ',..,., ,"', 0' ,
"
"
"
,i

til
'" ",/

1
:\
'J
"

;'"
"l

'_il!
"
..

"I
,:l
..

]

Jf
.'!}
"
!
':1
.l.j
'i

i
"
r
\,
,
I'

LIST OF TABLES
';\;,
Table
Page
'

1
Method
for Caloulating Effioiency

56

I"
-
2 }?reliminary
RPV Propeller Desi91!s
73
il

"
It,
3
preliminary Aquila
Propeller
Designs
75

4 Blade
Design Characteristios

76
I"

..

,t
r
5 Blade Design
Charaoteristics

77
I jl
he
;?':.
6 Blade
Design Characteristics

78
I';,
r;.'
:1;
7
;'111
Caloulated Performance
of Advanoed RPV
f'
-
propell.er
Optimized
for Launch

87

8
Calculated Performance
of Advanoed RPV
"
propeller Optimized
for Cruise
aa
r - ..

,',
9
Calculated Performance
of Advanced RPV
-
Propeller Optimized
for Dash

89 tf

10
Caloulated Performanoe
of Advanced
RPV
f:
.'
."
-
Ducted Propeller
Optimized for
Cruise
93
"

11 Blade Design
Characteristics
95
.>

't
,
,
"
12 Blade Design
C"M.racteristics
96
,.
,',

..

','
, ..
13 Blade Design
Characteristics
..

97 ,'0,
(
14
Calculated
of Aquila
r
-
propeller
Optimized for Launch
104-

..
(,
15
Calculated performance
of Aquila
{I; .
-
Propeller
Optimized
for Launch

105

"
16
Calculated performance
of Aquila
r
'0
-
Propeller
Optimized
for Launch
106

..

!

.)'
9
~ .
I N'l'RODtlCT:t ON
Remotely piloted vehicles (RPV) are currently beintd developed
for many applications. The smaller sizes, mini-RPV's, are
powered wieh two-cycle reciprocating engines, usually drivin;
two-bladed fixed-pitch propellers. The propellers used are
less than three feet in diameter and operate in the subsonic
speed range. As a result of the small blade chord and the low
forward speed, the propeller sections operate at a Reynolds
number of less than 300,000. At these low values of Reynolds
number, little is known about the performance characteristics
of propellers or how to desitdn them for peak efficiency. Be-
cause of the need to maximize the performance of the mini-
RPV s, a program was initiated to investigate the character-
istics of small propellers and to develop the necessary pro-
cedures and data for determining their design and performance.
The study was to review the existing propeller theory and cor-
responding data to find the necessary corrections and modifi-
cations needed for the design and analysis of RPV propellers.
All the available test data on small propellers was to be
reviewed and analyzed.
10
1
).
I;
,1
..
. I
CONVENTIONAL PROPELLER 'I'ECHNOLOOY
The technology of propellers used on conventional aircraft
ranoino in size from those used in general aviation to the
largeat transport has been developed over the years and is
generally well understood. For propellers in the
l
subsonic speed range, methods and data have been developed
so that it i8 possible to design for peak performance and to
accurately determine the efficiency over the entire speed l:I!U'lge.
Three general methods are available for determininq the char-
acteristics of propelJ.ars I
1. A strip analysis procedure for calculatinq performance
from known conditions, given the propeller qeometry.
2. A .inqle-point analysis for calculatinq performance,
also fram known operatinq conditions and
geometry ..
3. A strip analysis procedure for finding the optimum pro-
peller qeometry and performance for any set of oiven
operatinq conditions.
Both strip analysis procedures determine the lift and drag
characteristics at each blade station, and these are then re-
solved into the differential thrust and components.
Integration of these components over the blade span results in
values of total thrust and torqpe. efficiency may then be
from the forrrula
wher9
T =
Vo =
lIP =
',} =, TVo/550 HI?
the total thrust, Ibs
free-stream velocity, ft/sec
propeller shaft horsepower.
(1 )
With the strip analysis procedure, forces are usually deter-
mined at ten blade stations. To find these forces, the local
velocity conditions, as determined by rotation and the free-
stream components, must be 'known. When the propeller is oper-
ating in a flow field where these velocity components are in-
fluenced by external bodies, this change is taken into
lsorst, H. V., at. al, SUMMARY OF PROPELLER DESIGN PROCEDURES
AND DATA, Vols. I, II and III, USAAMRDL Tecnnical Report
73-34A,B,& C, H.V. Sorst & Associates, Eustis Directorate,
U.S. Army Air Mobility Research & Development Laboratory,
EustiS, Virginia, Nov. 1973, AD 774831, AD 774836, and
AD 776998.
11
To reduce calculation time, tbe strip analysis procedure for
anal'yzinq a propeller has been prograrcrned for a hiqh_speed
oomputer. To run the strip analysis computer proqram it is
necessary to know the local axial velocity at each blade sta-
tion, the rotational speed, all the physical characteristics
of the propeller, the power input, and the atmospheric condi-
tions. The propeller physical characteristics include
number of blades and diameter, as wall as the distributions of
thickness ratio, blade anqle, camber, and blade chordw
Althouqh the actual computer time required to analyze a pro-
peller is small, time is required to set up the input. Fur-
ther, the propeller characteristics needed for qood perform-
ance may not be known. For these reasons, simplified methods
of pr'opeller analysis have been developed that can be used to
find the efficiency in a minimum of time. methods,
known as single-point procedures, use the inteqrated character-
istics of activity factor and integrated de3ign lift coeffi-
cient for describing the blade properties. The single_point
methods can be used to determine the of a larqe
number of propellers in a very short period of time, using a
desk calculator, and are usefUl for establishing the general
properties of the needed. By analyzing a number of
using the single-point method at the important oper-
atinq conditions of the airplane, the general size required
can be determined.
When the best propeller and blade must be
established for a critical operating condition, the optimum
strip analysis procedure is used. this procedure,l the
blade characteristics are found that will give the peak effi-
ciency for any operatinq conditiQn. Usually, the results of
the single-point method establish the general range of param-
.It e r s for high performance, then, the optimum method is used
to establish the blade details that will give the peak effi-
ciency. The blade number, propeller:, diameter, and thickness
distribution, as wall as the design operating condition, must
be specified for determining the optimum propeller and its
performance. The thickness ratio distribution of the blade is
established by structural and fabrication considerations.
From the results of this calculation the detailed geometry of
the blade is established, including the distributions of chord,
blade angle, and section camber (design CL).
In calculating the detailed characteristics of the optimum
blade, the planform becomes very wide inboard,resulting in an
impractical blade configuration. For this reason the blade
1 Borst, et ale
12
.'3
!
W''''
,.
. \.
f:
I
chord and its distribution is also specified prior to the cal-
culation. This is generally done on the basis of single-point
analysis. Then, with the ohord and thickness distribution
the diameter and blade number, the optimum distributions
of camber and blade angle are determined for any given operat-
ing condition. The efficiency determined is the peak for that
condition within the restrictions of blade number, diameter,
and chord' for the airfoil section type chosen. This desiqp
procedure, using the theory of Calculations of
determines the best distrihution of the blade angle and sec-
tion camber for peak efficiency. '1;his is done by finding the
optimum distribution Which minimizes the combination of the
profile and induced losses.
RANGE OF OPERATION
The two-strip analysis procedures described above and given in
Reference 1 apply to propellers with

fixed blade angle
variable blade angles
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 blades
activity factors 10 to 300.
.
To use the strip analysis prooedures, airfoil data correspond-
ing to the operating condition and airfoil sections are used.
nle airfoil data used in the computer program corresponds to

NACA 16 and 6S series airfoils
ft,ickness ratios 1.0 to .02
Design lift coefficients 0 to at thickness
ratios of .06 to .18. At other thickness ratios,a
reduced deSign CL range applies. 6
Reynolds numbers .5 x 106 to 6.0 x 10
Mach numbers .3 to 1.6.
The strip analysiS program can be used with any set of two-
dimensional airfoil data with suitable modifioations.
The sirlgle-point method 1 applies to propellers with

variable blade angles
2, 3 and 4 blades
activity factors 10 to 300
integrated design CL blades of 0 to ,S
Reynolds number .5 x 10
6
to 6.0 x
Mach nunmers below the critical
I'
t 1 Borst, et al.
13
,
1
1
I
I
I
i
"I
i
.. ,
AS indicated previously, the airfoil data used in the strip
analysis is not valid at the low operating Reynolds numbers of
RPV' propellers. It is, therefore, neeesMery to analyze the
existing design procedures and data and modify Where necessary
so that they can be u5ed for the design and analysis of mini-
RPV'
tqmD OF ANALYSj;S ANI? THEORY
The strip analysis used to calculate the perlormance
and design of the propeller depends on the Theodorsen vortex
theory of propellers. This theory is used to find the three-
dimensional flow effects induced by the propeller so that two-
dimensional airfoil data can be applied for finding the cor-
rect lift and profile drag at each blade station. The change
between the apparent relative velocity and that induced by the
entire propeller represents the induced losses. This loss is
similar to the induced drag loss on a wing. Once the lift and
drag of each blade section are found they can be resolved into
the thrust and torque planes and integrated to find the thrust,
power, and efficienc:y developed by t,he propeller. This resolu-
tion is illustrated in Figure 1, Where the velocity components
and forces of a typical blade section are given.
The induced velocity WI at each blade station is airectly pro-
portional to the blade represented by the term eL'
the blaaa sOlidity times the section operating lift coeffi-
cient. When finding the induced velocity by the vortex theory,
it is assumed that a rigid wake is shed by the propeller. This
is the same as assuming that the loading on the blades is an
optimum. Similar assumptions are made in wing theory for de-
termining the induced drag. When calculating the induced vel-
ocity at each blade station, independence of blade sections is
assumed. Knowing the blade angle and velocity triangle at
each station, Figure 1, the true wind angle can be found using
the procedure given in Reference 1. ,For the blade section
being considered, the following equation must be satisfied:
fJ = + Q
The lift coefficient corresponding to the two-dimensional
angle of attack must be the same as that Which determines
the true wind angle based on
tan = (1 + w)tan
1 Borst, et ale
2
Theodorsen, T., THEORY OF PROPELLERS, McGraw Hill, 1948.
14
:""; ,
(2 )
(3 )
I
i
J" 1 ,.,',\
! '.
I
!
!
I
I
, .
,
t
Differential Thrust
irfoil Ref. Line
Differential c!Q
Torque -_
r

Section Rotational -,
Velocity
dQ/r
=
Section Torque
dL
=
Section Lift
dO
=
Section Drag
:
=
Blade Angle
= True Wind Anqle
cIb
=
Apparent Wind Angle
w/2
=
Displacement Velocity
W
= Apparent Velooity
w'
=
Induoed Velocity
u
=
Induced Axial Velocity
v
=
Induoed Radial velocitr
y
=
Drag Lift Angle = tan- CD/CL

w' w
2'
v = Forward
-----1-
Figure 1. propeller Velocity and Foroe Diagram -
Sinqle Rotation propellers.
15
"
..1
J
"
I
.. I
!
, :
I
I
, I
I
. I
After the lift coeffioient at eaoh blade station is found that
satisfies the above oriteria, the drag ooefficient is deter-
mined from two-dimensional airfoil data. The induoed drag is
already aocounted for by the difference between the apparent
and the true wind angles "0 and", Figure 1. The two-d:lrrenedmal
airfoil data used to find. the drag coefficient has been ob-
tained at Reynolds numbers above 800,000, which is generally in
exoess of the oritioal. Sinoe the blade sedtions of 'oonven-
tional full-soale propellers generally operate at Reynolds num-
bers abov. the, oritioal, the two-dimensional airfoil drag aata
is not corrected for these effects. When the thickness ratio
is above as in the oase of the inboard blade
Reynolds number effeots on both the lift and drag ooeffioients
areenoountered. These effects are aocounted for in the con-
ventional strip analysis .procedures.l Because the
effect of the blade shank is small fran performance
considerations, these Reynolds number corrections have little
influence on the efficiency.
The equations for the thrust and torque coefficients, derived
from Reference 1, are
1.0
err =Jf1' CL"""';
o
-
w 2
J 2[1 + 2. (1-Sin
2
!d)]
sin j (sinp +
tan r cospJ)dX
- 2
[
1 +
J2 (oos" - tan r sinpJ)dX
sin (6
Since
Cp = 2'11'C
O
the efficiency may be found from the equation
TV
'I = -
-
- p
cp
1 Borst, et ale
16
\ I ;. ,< I.
(4 )
(5 )
(6)
(7)
I
Another useful in determining propeller efficiency is
tan
= (8)

OF STRIP ANALY'SI S P ROO RAM
The procedures 1 and data for calculating the propeller per-
fOI'1nance 'have been programmed t.o run on high-speed computers.
A camparison of the calculated efficiency, using the B-87 Pro-
peller Strip Analysis Program, with the test results of Refer-
ences 3 through 5 is shown in Figures 2 through 4. The pro-
pellers analyzed had a diameter of at least four feet and
operated at blade section Reynolds number above 400,000. Fig-
ures 2 and 3 illustrate typical comparisons of the Variation
in the thrust, efficiency as a function of advance
ratio for propellers operating at a constant blade angle. Be-
cause power is a major parameter influencing the induced effi-
ciency of the propeller, all comparisons of the efficiency and
the thrust coefficient are made for the case where the calcu-
lated and test power coefficients are within t 3%. To accom-
plish this the blade angle is adjusted from the measured value
until agreement is reached. For a controllable blade angle
propeller such an adjustment automatically takes place, so
that such a procedure is considered valid. This comparison,
shown in Figures 2 and 3, shows reasonable agreement between
calculated and test values of the thrust coefficient and effi-
ciency. The nominal operating Reynolds number at the 0.7 ra-
dius blade station is between .4 x 10
6
and 1.06 x 10
6
Gener-
ally at the higher loadings, i.e., high Cp, the agreement
the measured and test is excellent. The error in the calcu18l::ed
efficiency increases with decreased loadings, which indicates
that the drag used in the calculation is low.
1 Borst, et ale
l Delano, J.B., & Carmel, M.M., TESTS OF TWO-BLADE PROPELLERS
IN THE LANGLEY' 8-FOar HIGH-SPEED TUNNEL TO DETERMINE THE EF-
FECT ON PROPELLER PERFORMANCE OF A MODIFICATION OF INBOARD
PITCH DISTRIBUTION, NACA TN 2268, Langley Aeronautical Lab.,
Langley Field, Va., Feb. 1951, Washington.
4 Pendley, R.E., EFFECT OF PROPELLER-AXIS ANGLE OF ATTACK ON
THRUsr DISTRIBUTION OVER THE PROPELLER DISK IN RELATION TO
WAJ<E-StIRVEY MFASUREMEN'1' OF THRUST, ARR No. LSJ02b, NACA,
Washington, Wartime Report.
5 Maynard, J.D., & Steinberg, S., EFFECT OF BLADE SEX:TION THICK-
NESS ON AERO. CHARACTERISTICS OF RELATED FULL-SCALE
PROPELLERS AT MACH NOS. UP TO 0.65, NACA Rpt. 1126, 1953.
17
12 .2'
,08 .16
04 .os
o 0
.16 .32
.OS .16
.04 .OS
o o
1.e
1.87
Calculation
t
I
T.at Datil
Iff

Cp

I. ...... ....
-.
TWo Blade Propeller
-
""1\
Ilade '-{3 9 (07).03.fr51
1\
\
I
CT
,
/J.75
26
0
1\ I
I..

p
'I

l.a

Advance aat10 v/nD
1.00
"'"

"
"

c
"'0

i-. :::... Ir-
...,
r-'
, ....

,
\
'"
AiIt< "

..
53
,
\
....-
'\
,
AiIt<,
,
\
1
1\
,
-
1\ 1\
2.6 3.0
Advance Ratio V/no
"
1.0
.8
.6

.2
0
,
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
Figure 2. Comparison of Calculated propeller performance
With Wind Tunnel Test Results.
18
'. I"" "'1 "1'
.,
-
-\',
,
"
...
"
'I
'1

"
:i 'I,
'.'.j
'II

ij
,I
"

. i'"
Ii :

I
.12 .2
,.
Cor Cp
.08 .1 g
CI
'.#1"
''''-
,

I""'"
,-
r-
b...
'\ ..
,
"t
I'rom
I:i7. l't.t I!!t.
o
C
A
75 3 0
1\
\
,
lief --_
Cp
-----
I
r--..
ro... ...
l :
..

..
--
1-"' jC."'..
,
C'l'
_ 4
I
"
J 1 ,0
.J
, ..... ...
III
I'

e
\
,
"'''
1\

6
, ,
11

"
f-c,
I--
.... " \
,
M .0.2 I
,

RN
"'11.\1
I x 7 1\ 2
0
"
I I I I
..
o
1.2 1.6 2.0
2.8
Advanced R.tio - V/nD
.12 .24

"
\It
75 40
0

1.0
IN
,
....

-C'l'
\. 1\
1\#.75 SOO
f--
-.
\
I--
\
- C
p
11\
J
f- 1--

\ \
\
-Or

\
IS
--.

I

.l. ...
--
.-. ..-
\'
.08 .16
.04 .08
.8
.6
.4
.2
'l,.
'.1\
o
o 1.6
2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
3.6
Advanced Ratio - vine
Figure 3. Comparison of Calculated propeller performance
With Wind Tunnel Test Results,
19
,
,
'"
I
' .
...
"
J
I
1
I
,
, I
, ,
" I
'I i
I
. ,
I
'\ i
,
,
i
A more extensive comparison of the efficiency difference
tween that calculated and determined by test is given in Fig-
ure 4. Based on this camparison, the calculated efficiency is
generally within 51"'. Because of the random type of error in-
dicated, the changes necessary to improve the computer proqram
accuracy .are not: apparent. 'l''hls it iQ believed that the method
and Qata for calculating the performance of propel-
lers is accurate and with1n the same range of reliability as
test data. Unt:1.l more accurate test data becomes available,
further attempts to improve the full-scale propeller perform-
ance calculation methods are not considered to be warranted.
Full-scale propellers are considered to operate at Reynolds
numbers above 500,000.
20
I
I
I
I
I
....... --.",-. .. ;.- ...-_- ..... - .... -:-;oo... __ .. -:-.... .-:-'"""'__ ,"- - ......."!'!0-:=:e' .
s:-
<l
>t
0
s::
....
0
....
'1-1
'1-1

s::
II.J
--l

tJI
s::
III
.s::
()
.3
I
I
.2
.1
0
V
-.1
0
11'1 = ca1 -"Test

High Reynolds Numbers
.400 to 1.0 x 10
6
I
[
r"I
JU
[]
"'1
1
iv[ PI'
rr

,..rL.l
[
'0
+

,.!.:

+
n
V
.,.

..
I
.2 .4 .6
'I::l
,V
.
:9-
"'jj
.8
B1ade
+ 4-(3.9) (07)-0545B
o 4 t Diameter
010-(3) (062)-046A
V 10-(3) (05)-045
I
0
b
V
--
1.0 1.2
Operating Lift Coefficient @ x =.7 = C
L
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 MINI-RPY VEHICLES
propellers used on mini-RPV'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 mini-RPV'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 mini-RP, 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 mini-RPV
propeller analyses.
In Referenoe 6 the results of tests of NACA four-digit 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 variable-density 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., N70-39001
Des1auriors, E.J., BLADE PERFORMANCE AT LOW REYNOLDS NUM-
BERS, GeneraJ. Electrio, Rpt. No. R54AGT605, dated 1-14-55.
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
four-digit 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
-Hc-H_t-++++++-+-r-H- ++++-H-(:
1+++++-+--I-cI-H-+++++-!-H-H- .
.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.
1-1-1 0 3,180,000
..
H-I-++++-H-IIIW-1-++. .
_ .. --
:24 I- A-- --2,380,000
j )(---,-,1,340,000
- +-"-' 660,000
- 0-- 330,000
0-----170,000 .. .. .: ..
H-1H--1-t-1 +++++-1--' L -f-+-++++-t-H-+-+-t-t- .

I
. - - ...
t--I7I"'-I!III'If-I-- .. .. _... .. .... _.
- - __ 4. .1 '4
o I-HH--I.++,....=+++-+-H+ .- .. - - ... ++H-H
t-t-.H-- .. - - .

.4 .8 1.2 1.6
L:l.ft Coeff:l.cient - CL
Figure 5. Two-dimensional 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--+-++-H--f"+-f"
f'-f--j-+-H---j-+"j-'j ..
'1 j .i(,

-t---t--H1j-"I''I:
+"'++ ..
'. II
I l rl.+t--1-+A-+H-f-H-l-lrIlI"
.' 'I--f':' ,.:!" .. i-
' ",,'t-.t._, .++.+'" .. ,,,.,_"" frf
t--t-t-"j .. 'I-I-H"'I-++' ++-t---t-+H- .. LH'H-j"'H-H'-H-++-1
o .4 .8 1.2
t--l-H-I'-t ++++-t--t-+-t-I--t--t-H--1"+-t.-t-t--t- . - 1;11'" . -H-+-+++ -H-t-+-I-t-+++t-H-H-H
o .i .s 1.2
Lift Coefficient - CL
Figure 6. Two-dimensional 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. Two-dimonsional 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 63-137 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 award-winning 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 super-oritical
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 mini-RPV pro-
pellers. The variation of the arag with Reynolds number thrcuc;ah
the critical range is illustrated in Figure 10 for the N-60
airfoil. The N-60 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. Two-dimensional Airfoil Data for NACA 4412
Airfoil as a Function of Reynolds Number.
30

31
,------.... '. -_ ......... .
..... --.... ..... , . ~ . . ., ........ ".' "
\ l
" I
,
The trends illustrated for the N-60 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 N-60
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 mini-RPV
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 mini-RPV 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 two-bladed propellers tested by
NACA in tho 8- and l6-foot high-speed tunnels
3
,5 are unsuit-
able for use in evaluating propellers for mini-RPV'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
4-1
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
N-60 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
;; I-e
1.2 .:,'
,
I:
. '
-rI ,
o '
..-I
11-1
'8 0.8
o

11-1
-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
N-60 Airfoil Tested in a Low Wind Tunnel.
__ 'w'?'ti&!--r-mt'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. 16-1B These tests were run w.ith three-bladed pro-
pellers with. diameter of 2.8 feet in the Stanford 7.S-foot
wind tunnel. The Reynolds numbers of these tests cover a
large portion of the operating range expected with mini-RPV
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 BLADE-WIDTH 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 CONSTANT-SPEED 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 HIGH-SPEED PROPEL-
LERS, Hamilton Standard Rpt. No. HS-1352, 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. 8S-1125,
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 two-dimensional 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
.1.1:1-1:1:1
. ,
, 1111IJHI:l-III: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
two-dimensional 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
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. two-dimensional airfoil data used in the
dard strip caloulation 8-87 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 B-a7 two-dimensional 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 B-87 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 :... . :t-I: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 Two-dimensional
Airfoil Data, B-a7 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 B-87 program, it to be suitable for the
analysis of mini-RPV propellers. This is apparent When one
compares the CL reduced from the model test data of Reid with
that of B-87. 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 8-B7 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 mini-RPV 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
TWo-dimensional 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 two-dimensional data of B-87 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 propeller-induoed
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
, ,.-;-: r-rrr-,
: 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!'. . ,
B-87
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
Two-dimensional Airfoil Data, 5-87 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 B-87 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 B-87'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 two-dimensional
airfoil data was not available for ca1oulatino the performance
of mini-RPV propellers, it is neoessary to find a Reynolds num-
ber oorrection !or airfoil data. In
oorreetion,the available low Reynolds number data from both
two-dimenlional 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 i-a7 computer data app1ie. (as previously shown).
In determining the correction to the dra; data of the i-87 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 B-87 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 two-dimensional 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 two-d1mensional airfoil data are used for the an-
alysi. of ducted fans, the fd correction to the corrected B-87
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 B-87 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 B-87 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
mini-RPV 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
B-87 Blade
R.B Cor. 8-87
-
.......-..
!
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
::
SINGLE-POINT HEmop
For preliminary desiqn studies the sinqle-pointmethod 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 single-point method
only for variable pitch constant speed propellere operating at
high Reynolds numbers. To be useful for the analysis of RPV
propellers the single-point method must be modified to apply
at low Reynolds numbers and for propellers with a fixed blade
angle.
THEORY
'rhe theory of the sinlj1le-point 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 single-point method and the nec-
essary charts for its application are in Reference
The charts can used to oalculate the performance of 2-,3-,
and 4-bladed 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 single-point method must be modified.
1 Borst, et al.
53
(
"",
, I
"1'
METHOP FOR BPV
The single-point 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 single-point 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 sillgle-po:Lnt method of calculat:Lon for RPV propellers is
based on the prev1.ously described concept that the performantle
t.he three-quart.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 22-24 2
0
14. P.N = , (II sth )4AP' nJvot + .(. 7511'ND/60) 2 Calculate .307x lff
15.
'71 know1no B, Op & J Read ligures 26-28 .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 1-1:11,'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 - "rWo-b1aaed 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 - Three-b1.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 - Four-b1aOed 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 X-l109, 1965.
24 Whitoomb, R.T., REVIEW OF NASA SUPERCRITICAL AIRFOILS, leAS
Paper No. 74-10, 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 loading-edge 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. two-dimenliQnal 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 two-dimensional 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 mini-RPV, the characteri.tic.
of the fixed pitch propeller al installed on a two-cycle 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 g-J 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 fixed-speed 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 over-loaded 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 low-apeed
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 60-knot 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 2.5-foot-diametar 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 two-bladed 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. Two-blade, 81 AF, 2.5 ft diameter -- selected for
best performance at launch and recovery.
2. Two-blade, 79 Al, 2 ft -- beat confi;uration
at 11 hor.epower cruise condition.
3. Two-blade, 79 AF, 2.5 ft diameter -- best maximum
diameter propeller for and dash.
Two-bladed propellers were selected in preference to three- or
four-bladed configurations because of the low solidity require-
ment needed for operating at the lift coefficients for high
lift/drag ratios. With three- or four-bladed 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 free-stream
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 381-2.5' No. of Blade. 2
propeller Opt:Lm:L.. a1: 60 'knot Launch' ConcSitions
Lift Coefficient .493
. 81.1
\ : .,
j" ., .'
Airfoil section NACA 65-lCCX
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 6S-XXX
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 2B7.9-2.5 . 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 8-87 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 two-position 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-
foot-diameter propeller using two 8l-activity 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.xed-pitch 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 2.5-foot-diameter fixed-blade an;le propeller, using
two 79-activity 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 75-knot, 4000-foot
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 low-speed cruise condition
becames important, a 2.5 fcot-diameter 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 2B81-2.5.
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 2879-25
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 2B79-2.5.
I
83
l6
LO 12 l4
Ja ~ n o
Propeller optimized
1:a .... "l!"1-11er 2B79-2.5.
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. 2B79-2.
85
I
l8 20
l2
Propeller Opt1m1zed
..., .... IiO... ler 2B79-2.
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 2B81-2.5 lI'nD(Take-off) 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.
L-anding 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 mrr-O!' 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 2879-2.5 ..aD(Take-Of ) 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 - 10-J
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
12.2 600-0 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. t-andf0i 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 2879-2 ".nD (Ta1re-off) 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 2-foot.-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 two-position 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, tWO-Position 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 two-position 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 2.5-foat-diameter confiquration.
The blad.s of this propeller, designated 2681-2.5, 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 381-2.5 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 2881-2.5 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 low-speed 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 20-inoh-diameter 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 4-0OC'/9SO 11..25 5000 114- 35 83
-
8.37 .225 1.16 520 fps
,
Landing 4000'/95" 540-J 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-
inch-diameter, two-bladed 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 2l-inch-diameter 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 B-97 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, two-position 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 two-bladed 1.625-foot-
diameter propellers with that of the two-bladed 1.75-foot-
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 22130-1.625 No. of Blades 2
Integrated Design Lift Coofficient .621
Activity Faotor 129.7
Airfoil Seotion NACA 65-XXX
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 3127-1.75 No. of Blades 2
lntegx'ated DeSign Lift Coefficient .444
Activity Faotor 127.3
Airfoil Seotion NACA 6S-XXX
, ,
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 2B137-1.625 No. of Blades 2
Integrated Design Lift Coefficient .488
Activity Factor 137.1
Airfoil seotion NACA 65-XXX
"
;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 2B130-L625.
/ 99
I.a
1.2 1.4 /.6
J.%o
Propeller Optimized
Propeller 2Bl30-1.625.
/.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 2B127-l.75.
/
1OJ.
1.8
1.2 /r:J. 1.6
J -%0
Propeller Optimized
Propeller 28127-1.75.
1.8
86
66
84
20 22 24
i
1
~
'I
,
I,
1
\
',t
,
J
I'
_or"""",-,,'" '''.'
PROPELLER 28137-1625
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 2B137-1.625.
"',
...... \ ..... .... , .." 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 281.30-1.625 .. nD ('l'alEe-off) 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 .14-2 .977 speed. i
6.4-5 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 2BU7-1.75 wDD(Take-o) 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 0-10,000 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 0-10.000 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 6.4-5 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 2-1.5 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 2-1.5 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 lightar-than-eir 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, McGraW-Hill, 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 NACELLE-PROPELLER COMBINATIONS IN
VARIOUS POSITIONS WITH REJ!'ERENCE TO WINGS II - THICK WING
- VARIOUS RADIAL-ENGINE 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, WIND-TtlNNEL TESTS OF A 1/20-SCALE
AIRSHIP MODEL WITH STERN PROPELLERS, NASA TN D-1026.
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 free-stream 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 free-stream 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 5-point 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.o-diameter 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 277-285.
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 tbrust-to-power ratio of tbe
propeller increases, 80 When this is multiplied by tbe bigher
free-stream 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
free-stream 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

r-I
-)
'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 19-foot-diameter 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 3-inch 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., FLUID-DYNAMIC 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 ofmini-RPV
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.i-RPV 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 computer-designed 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 canputer-dea1;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:Lni-RPV. '
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
73-34A,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 8-1'001" 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 PROPELLIlR-A.XIS ANCiLE';"O' AT-
TAOK ON THRUST DISTRIBUTION OVER THE PROPELUU(,nISJ( IN "
RELATION TO WAXE-SURVEY 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., N70-3900l.
12. Deslauriers, E.J., BLADE PERFORMANCE AT LOW REYNOLDS NUM-
BERB, General Electric, apt. No. a54AG'l'605, Ciated 1-14-55.
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>E-WIOl'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 CONSTANT-SPEED 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 HIGH-SPEmD PROPEL-
LERS, Hamilton Standard Rpt. No. HS-1352, 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.
HS-1125, 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 X-ll09, 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 RADIAL-ENGINE 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, WIND-TUNNEL TESTS OJ' A 1/20-SCALE
AIRSHIP MODEL WITH STERN PROPELLERS, NASA TN D-1026.
33. Durand, AERODYNAMIC THEORY, Vol 1, Dover, N.w York,
pop. 277-285.
34. Hoerner, s.r., FLUID-DYNAMIC 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 FOUR-BLAnE 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, ft-lbs/sec
pressure, psf
torque, ft-lbs
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
free-stream velocity, fps
induced axial inflow velocity, fps
airplane velocity, fps
integrated average velocity in plane of propeller,fps
free-stream 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

Usaamrdl TR 77 45a

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Usaamrdl TR 77 45a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

--' ,\

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY POSITION STATEHENT

You might also like