within the process of flight testing my RV7 for range/endurance, i was interested in the efficiency of the prop alone (independent from the engine).
i thought that the lower you set the RPM, the more increases the propeller efficiency. i asked that question to Hartzell directly to get an confirmation but learned that this is not entirely true. many of us use these CS props so maybe it's also interesting for you.
here's the response from Hartzell tech support, i hope they don't mind posting here:
It is generally true, but not specifically true. The airspeed, altitude, and power will influence what RPM setting is the most efficient. For example, assuming 8,000 ft ISA, and a power setting of 55% on a stock 180 HP Lycoming IO-360-M1B, if your airframe drag is such that you’ll go about 140 KTAS, then the prop is most efficient at ~2200 RPM. However, if your airframe drag is such that you can go ~160 KTAS on that power, the most efficient RPM for the prop is ~1950 RPM. More power tends to shift the peak efficiency RPM higher, and less power lower. More speed for the same power (less aircraft drag) also tends to shift the efficiency peak lower.
At fairly low RPMS, 1800-2200, the efficiency curve is often fairly flat, so even though the peak may technically be at some particular RPM, there may not be much advantage over a different RPM. Again, for example, at the same 160 KTAS and 55% power, by reducing RPM from 2700 to 2200 increases the operating efficiency by ~5%; the peak is at ~1950 RPM but is only ~0.3% more efficient than 2200 RPM. And the engine may run smoother at a particular RPM, or the cabin vibration and noise may be more pleasant at yet another RPM, and the governor may not have the authority, or the propeller the pitch range, to govern at very low RPMs.
To truly determine the most efficient setting analytically would require a good model of the airframe drag, the propeller performance, and the engine performance. Even then, models have assumptions in them. The best way to determine it for your airplane is through careful experimentation and testing.
While there aren’t specific limits for low RPM operation, any propeller operating restrictions specific to your propeller and engine configuration must be adhered to.
i think Hartzell's answer is very interesting. some food for thought.
what i understand here is that if you run the prop in the lower regime (below 2200), the differences in prop efficiency (within that range) is almost NIL. if you lower the RPM to reduce internal engine friction, pumping losses etc., this will basically not counter balanced by poorer prop efficiency as the engine itself should have an much greater effect.
i thought that the lower you set the RPM, the more increases the propeller efficiency. i asked that question to Hartzell directly to get an confirmation but learned that this is not entirely true. many of us use these CS props so maybe it's also interesting for you.
here's the response from Hartzell tech support, i hope they don't mind posting here:
It is generally true, but not specifically true. The airspeed, altitude, and power will influence what RPM setting is the most efficient. For example, assuming 8,000 ft ISA, and a power setting of 55% on a stock 180 HP Lycoming IO-360-M1B, if your airframe drag is such that you’ll go about 140 KTAS, then the prop is most efficient at ~2200 RPM. However, if your airframe drag is such that you can go ~160 KTAS on that power, the most efficient RPM for the prop is ~1950 RPM. More power tends to shift the peak efficiency RPM higher, and less power lower. More speed for the same power (less aircraft drag) also tends to shift the efficiency peak lower.
At fairly low RPMS, 1800-2200, the efficiency curve is often fairly flat, so even though the peak may technically be at some particular RPM, there may not be much advantage over a different RPM. Again, for example, at the same 160 KTAS and 55% power, by reducing RPM from 2700 to 2200 increases the operating efficiency by ~5%; the peak is at ~1950 RPM but is only ~0.3% more efficient than 2200 RPM. And the engine may run smoother at a particular RPM, or the cabin vibration and noise may be more pleasant at yet another RPM, and the governor may not have the authority, or the propeller the pitch range, to govern at very low RPMs.
To truly determine the most efficient setting analytically would require a good model of the airframe drag, the propeller performance, and the engine performance. Even then, models have assumptions in them. The best way to determine it for your airplane is through careful experimentation and testing.
While there aren’t specific limits for low RPM operation, any propeller operating restrictions specific to your propeller and engine configuration must be adhered to.
i think Hartzell's answer is very interesting. some food for thought.
what i understand here is that if you run the prop in the lower regime (below 2200), the differences in prop efficiency (within that range) is almost NIL. if you lower the RPM to reduce internal engine friction, pumping losses etc., this will basically not counter balanced by poorer prop efficiency as the engine itself should have an much greater effect.
Last edited: