elippse

Well Known Member
Let's say you had two cylinders 2" diameter and 3" long, and you attached one on each side of your plane. Assume that these cylinders have a drag coefficient of 1.0. 2" X 3" X 2 X 1.0 / 144 = 0.083 sq. ft. Now let's say your RV has an equivalent parasite drag area of 2.2 sq. ft. When you add those cylinders your EPDA goes up to 2.283 sq.ft. a 3.8% increase. That's going to slow you down 1.2%, so if your plane would have gone 200 mph TAS before adding the cylinders, you are now down to 197.5 mph TAS. Let's say you have a CS prop on your plane that the manufacturer says has 84% efficiency. That means that 84% of your engine's power is converted into thrust, so a 200 hp engine will put out 168 thrust horsepower. But when you attached those cylinders on your plane the increased drag was the same as adding to the thrust requirement from the engine and prop. so basically you reduced your thrust horsepower 3.8%, leaving you with 161.9 hp. That would be the same as if you had a prop that was only 80.9% efficient. Do you know where I'm going with this? Are you one of those guys who competes in the SARL races? Would you like to reduce your speed 1.2%? 'Doesn't sound like much, does it? So if your propeller is one that has 84% thrust conversion efficiency, but the blade roots are this God-awful cylindical shape that you see on so many CS props, you got shafted! Think how much worse it would be if it was a three-blade prop. That's why multi-blade props got this reputation as being not as good in cruise. It had absolutely nothing to do with any so-called tip loss; it was all in the root shape. But there is a silver lining to this cloud. Some enterprising individual among you could make up a streamlined carbon fiber boot or glove to attach to the blade root as they did on the P-51 and B-29. If it's done with the correct amount of twist and airfoil shape, you could end up a prop that's more efficient than originally, and almost as efficient as mine! Actually, the latter was too much of a stretch, but what the Hades. Prop shops around the country know how to attach these glove sections to a blade, and you might talk to one of them.
 
Are there any test results in better efficiency after adding the blade cuffs to the P-51? Were the efficency improvement confirmed?

Interesting thread!
 
Last edited:
On a P-51, where the blade roots are (for the most part) out in the free air (the front of a P-51 is pretty darn narrow relative to the blades) I could see how this would help. On an RV, where a fair bit of the increased "thrust" would just blow into the engine intakes, i'm not so sure.

Remember that both the chord and the angle of attack on the blade at the root need to increase as you approach the spinner, in order to maintain efficiency. I suspect even the root fairings on the P-51 propellor are a compromise.
 
But when you attached those cylinders on your plane the increased drag was the same as adding to the thrust requirement from the engine and prop. so basically you reduced your thrust horsepower 3.8%, leaving you with 161.9 hp. That would be the same as if you had a prop that was only 80.9% efficient.

Paul,

It makes sense that the relatively round blade roots would be contributing drag rather than thrust. However, I would have thought this was already factored into the overall efficiency of the prop? How is the efficiency actually measured?
 
The blade cuffs on the Mustang were added to get more air into the doghouse for better cooling during ground ops in hot conditions. Lower than 15K the blade cuffs actually slow the airplane down and above that altitude is when they help with cruise speeds. Its pretty rare nowadays to see the cuffs installed on a flying Mustang.
 
I will stand by and watch

One cannot help but respect your accomplishments with propeller design for Reno racers, especially biplanes, but I will stand off to the side and observe on this one. The interaction of several things at the front end of an RV mean changing one thing affects others so changes often need to be made in other areas to establish a new optimum. If I were going to start down that trail I would think of trying a larger diameter spinner to cover the exposed prop shank drag.

Bob Axsom
 
Now I see why...

...my -10 is quite a bit faster than a buddy's -10, even though he has a James cowl and plenum. He has a three-bladed MT with big, exposed, round
roots, while my -10 with the blended Hartzell two-blade has airfoil shaped roots.

Interesting,
 
...my -10 is quite a bit faster than a buddy's -10, even though he has a James cowl and plenum. He has a three-bladed MT with big, exposed, round
roots, while my -10 with the blended Hartzell two-blade has airfoil shaped roots.

Interesting,

Pierre,

In talks with Mark (F1Boss) and Tom (Mr. Fastest F1), your BA Hartzell is faster than my Hartzell D-twist and the MT 3-blade (in that order). Tom said that his prop change was the most measureable speed mod he's done (Tom, hope I'm quoting you correctly!)

I've been saving my pennies for a Hartzell BA like yours (wanna trade? ;)), but have also had some intersting conversations with Paul about 3 and 4 blade FP props, during which we discussed the root shape.

Trying a cool Ellipse prop is very inviting, as rolling up with a 4 blade just sounds sexy...and if its faster... :rolleyes:. However, I'm a bit intimidated by the swap from CS to FP (in terms of other work that goes with that...crankshaft, etc). Alternatively, I could put Hartzell BA blades right in my current hub, or do a complete hub and blade swap...and in either case, still use my spinner.

Either COA takes a commitment in time and $$, and as Tom, Mark and Bob Ax will tell ya, you never know till you do it and test it.

Paul, as others have said, you have some fascinating ideas on props and wingtips (hope you got my e-mail reply on your triangular tip recommendation). Fun discussion here!

Cheers,
Bob
 
To be specific, Bob....

...my buddy has a 300 HP IO-540 and the MT 3 blade, a Sam James cowl and plenum and told me at SnF that he enjoys his 168 knot cruise. When I quipped that 175 knots is better, he raised his eyebrows and said, "Yep, I was told that the two-blades are faster." Looks like I have about 8 MPH on him and his airplane is really slick and built straight. It was the Bo Derek maroon one that I posted on here.

This prop is also smooth as silk,
 
The blade cuffs on the Mustang were added to get more air into the doghouse for better cooling during ground ops in hot conditions. Lower than 15K the blade cuffs actually slow the airplane down and above that altitude is when they help with cruise speeds. Its pretty rare nowadays to see the cuffs installed on a flying Mustang.

Strega, Dago Red and Voodoo all use cuffed blades.
 
Paul, how about ellipse blades for retrofit to a Hartzell hub?
I don't know of anyone who is ready to make blades for CS props yet; Craig thinks that once he gets his NC machines up to snuff he may want to get into that again.
As to the other comments, anytime you have a prop, CS or FP, that has really poor aerodynamic shape in the root region, it's not only going to add drag to both the engine and airframe but it will also slow down the air going into the cooling inlets, requiring them to be larger.Think about this; the prop in the root region not only has the forward speed of the plane but also some additional speed due to rotation. At 200 mph and 2700 rpm, the 8" radius has a total velocity of 238 mph. Taking into account the design blade CL, the zero-lift alpha, and the induced angle-of-attack, there is a particular angle that the blade should have at any station relative to its helix angle that the blade makes during rotation. Any departure from that angle, including in the root region, will have a negative effect. The drag coefficient for a laminar-flow airfoil will be about 0.004 to 0.006 depending on Re, and for a turbulent flow airfoil will be about 0.006-0.008, but for a klunky shape its going to be a whole lot more. It's obvious that the klunky shape and/or incorrect pitch angle is going to impede the airflow into the inlets. Only when every radius of the prop is operating at the same thrust/torque ratio will the prop be efficient. For those of you who have seen my props or pictures of them you can see that the pitch in the root area is very high. These props allow very high airflow into the inlets and also produce thrust, so that those who have used them comment about how much cooler the engine runs. I have two 4" X 1.5" cooling inlets for 200 mph for my 125 HP O-235. Using that area-speed-HP ratio a plane with 160 HP at 185 mph should have 8.3 sq. in. / side or about 4" X 2.1". How do yours compare?
I also have users of my design seal the prop to the spinner on FP props. Those CS props with their huge holes around the blade root have much higher drag. How do I know? At my suggestion one of the Reno racers made a rotary seal from his CS to the spinner and picked up 5-6 kts. That was about a 1.8% increase! Not bad, huh! If you notice the blade roots on new turbo-props you will see that many of them, with 5 to 8 blades, no less, also have a rotary seal to the spinner.
Take some modeling clay and make up a nice airfoil shape with proper twist and angle relative to the rest of the blade on your prop, then use this to make a mold for a glove/boot/fairing and give it a try! More experimenters ought to be like Bob A. who tries lots of stuff to improve his speed. By the way, if one of you is willing, do a side-by-side comparison with Jim Smith in his 150 HP RV-6 with the three-blade prop!
 
...By the way, if one of you is willing, do a side-by-side comparison with Jim Smith in his 150 HP RV-6 with the three-blade prop!
I show this picture for those of you who might not know what Paul is talking about.

DSC02345.jpg
 
It seems to me that all engine and propeller combinations operate at 100% efficiency. I fill my tanks with fuel costing x dollars run the engine till it quits and the tanks and my wallet are empty.
 
...my buddy has a 300 HP IO-540 and the MT 3 blade, a Sam James cowl and plenum and told me at SnF that he enjoys his 168 knot cruise. When I quipped that 175 knots is better, he raised his eyebrows and said, "Yep, I was told that the two-blades are faster." Looks like I have about 8 MPH on him and his airplane is really slick and built straight. It was the Bo Derek maroon one that I posted on here.

This prop is also smooth as silk,

Pierre, I think Tom said he gained 7 knots in the switch to the Hartzell BA (again, Tom hope I'm not misquoting!). Seems consistent with what you are seeing Pierre...though in this case you are talking different airplanes, which introduces many other factors. With respect to smoothness, I've been told by Mark and others that the BA is faster than the D-twist, with the smootness of the MT...pretty nice combo!! Hmmm, with cuffs...oh the possibilties! :rolleyes:

Paul, how about ellipse blades for retrofit to a Hartzell hub?

That's what I'm talking about!! Paul has mentioned before that it may be coming someday, as he said in his recent post above. More possibilities!

Take some modeling clay and make up a nice airfoil shape with proper twist and angle relative to the rest of the blade on your prop, then use this to make a mold for a glove/boot/fairing and give it a try! More experimenters ought to be like Bob A. who tries lots of stuff to improve his speed.

Agree with you on "being like Bob Ax"...I'm making some efforts in my feeble way. The words in red are the rub on making a cuff. Paul, you know anyone that can figure out the right twist and angles? ;)

Cheers,
Bob
 
Bob
In going from the three blade MT to the two blade BA Hartzell I gained between 5 and 8 knots depending on altitude. I base my speeds on a chase plane. It is important to note that at my normal cross country power settings, 55 to 60%, there is NO difference between the MT and the Hartzell on my aircraft. Only at power settings above 2400 rpms did I see a significant difference. I do however, see a significant difference in the difference in propeller price at all power settings You can pay for a lot of gas with the difference in initial price. Smooth is subjective but it is very good, much better then the older style Hartzells.
 
I show this picture for those of you who might not know what Paul is talking about.

DSC02345.jpg

I'm working my way through is Jack Norris's book on propellers. I've wondered why I'm not seeing designs similar to what he advocates (a canoe shape). This seems to be more along those lines than most.
 
Norris designs

I'm working my way through is Jack Norris's book on propellers. I've wondered why I'm not seeing designs similar to what he advocates (a canoe shape). This seems to be more along those lines than most.

The new Whirlwind (the 200RV for which there was a group buy on this forum) is a Norris design
(specific to the 200 HP RV8) . There is no fixed pitch Norris design in production although there are 1 or 2 in use at Reno. You can write to jack at the address on his website : www.PropellersExplained.com or you can email me and I will forward it/them to him. Our favorite makers of fixed pitch props would, I am sure, be willing to license a design from Jack and he is willing. There just has to be some demand.
prop_main_200rv.jpg


Jack's props will not necessarily be any faster at the top end than Paul's, but from what I have read they will be much better as all-around props and likely equal at the top end on an RV. They will likely climb or accelerate much better. I hope to be flying a FP Norris design later this year on my 7A.
When that happens I will report.
 
Our favorite makers of fixed pitch props would, I am sure, be willing to license a design from Jack and he is willing. There just has to be some demand.

prop_main_200rv.jpg

Oooh... Pretty....

Jack's props will not necessarily be any faster at the top end than Paul's, but from what I have read they will be much better as all-around props and likely equal at the top end on an RV. They will likely climb or accelerate much better. I hope to be flying a FP Norris design later this year on my 7A.[/SIZE][/FONT] When that happens I will report.

If they are affordable I'd be happy to take a shot at one when I get to that point.
 
Ground Adjustable Whirlwind

Whirlwind make a ground adjustable prop with the same blades as the 200RV for a lot less money. See thread here.
 
Just a note about the WW prop

Whirlwind make a ground adjustable prop with the same blades as the 200RV for a lot less money. See thread here.
I did not know about the ground-adjustable one. That's great news. But I could not find it on their current web site.

However, be aware that while it is an excellent blade design, it was designed, using Jack's computer program, specifically for a 200 HP RV8. It is probably an excellent prop for other applications, but if it were designed for the specific application (such as a 180 HP -6 or -7 or a 160 HP -9) then there would be differences. It is not just the pitch that would be different. Just a piece of info for your consideration.
 
All around prop



Jack's props will not necessarily be any faster at the top end than Paul's, but from what I have read they will be much better as all-around props and likely equal at the top end on an RV. They will likely climb or accelerate much better. SIZE]


I guess I'm in the dark on where you have read what you say about Jack's "all-around prop" design vs mine, and I know of no definitive tests that have demonstrated this. It seems to me to be nothing more than idle conjecture! I would refer you to pages I-28 - Bk II and I-29 - Bk II of Jack's book where Jack, comparing the B-G-T ideal to my blade configuration, in his own words, claims "... we would logically lose less off the tip, , better than the B-G-T Ideal. With a wild looking prop, we can beat the Classic Betz Ideal!" I do know from my own tests with the three-blade prop on my plane, that the efficiency in a climb at 2400 rpm, 105 mph IAS, 1350 lb, 1550 fpm, is at least 82%, and a very respected aviation writer-experimenter, when given the data, pegged it at more like 84%-85%. This is more than most FP props have in cruise, and my cruise efficiency is at least 90%. Note that Jack on I-29 writes that "Now we can get over 90% efficiency, (eta), maybe 92, 94..." My design has a very flat high-efficiency curve that extends from about 140 mph TAS to over 200 mph TAS and the effective pitch calculates out to 75"-76" at these speeds. Keep in mind that I only have an O-235 rated at 125 HP! This climb and speed efficiency being the case, does that somehow mean that only in a climb or at top speed is my design efficient, and that at all other speeds in-between it isn't! That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it. My design will outclimb any FP prop that has the same top speed on a given plane, HP, and rpm. The only drawback with my design is lower static thrust due to the minimal outboard area, which extends a take-off run about 10%. But once the plane is up to about 20% of the design speed, from there on out nothing will touch it! You only have to ask those race pilots such as Tom Aberle, Jeff Lo, and Leah Sommer who have flown behind one of these props for their impression, and they will tell you that once the wheels leave the ground it's like an AB cut in. I'd really like to see what has been written about comparitive tests of my prop design with others; I really hope this hasn't just been speculation on their part! So what, exactly, defines an "all-around prop", what book on propellers has defined such, and can there be a prop that has the best take-off, climb, and top-speed? It really frosts me when someone quotes someone else who quotes someone else who quotes someone else who didn't know what they were talking about in the first place!
 
my calcs...

...tell me it's virtually impossible to get a propellor efficiency above 92% (plus or minus a fraction). That's not taking into account high-mach compressibility issues either, which will presumably degrade efficiency as well.

Maybe I've got my numbers wrong... :confused:
 
Paul,

Do you have comparative tests demonstrating your design's performance against several other props on the same airframe, particularly an RV? I'd be very interested in anything of that nature.
 
Comparative tests

Paul,

Do you have comparative tests demonstrating your design's performance against several other props on the same airframe, particularly an RV? I'd be very interested in anything of that nature.

Yes, Kyle. Jim Smith has a three-blade I designed and which was made by Fred Felix on his 150 HP RV-6. He has run several tests of it vs his previous two-blade Aymar deMuth and a special bi-camber two-blade made by Fred. Please ask him to send you the data from these tests as I don't like to give comparative data of other makes of props on this forum.
 
High efficiency

...tell me it's virtually impossible to get a propellor efficiency above 92% (plus or minus a fraction). That's not taking into account high-mach compressibility issues either, which will presumably degrade efficiency as well.

Maybe I've got my numbers wrong... :confused:

I guess you'd have to show me how you arrived at that number. I've never claimed more than 90%, just at least 90%; the 92%-94% was from Jack Norris' book in the quotation I gave. I've found that there are several things that effect efficiency. First, having equal thrust-torque ratio at every radius, as opposed to the majority of propellers which have most of the thrust in the outer 25% of the blade, so that the inner portions are just along for the ride, contributing nothing but parasite drag. Along with this goes having an elliptical lift distribution just as shown by Prandtl in connection with a wing. Hey; if it works for a wing, why wouldn't it work for a prop? When the elliptical distribution is in place, the chord must go to zero at the tip. If there is zero chord, there is zero lift, zero induced drag, zero parasite drag, zero tip vortex, zero noise!
With a 62" diameter prop spinning 2800 rpm at a TAS of 200 mph at 8000' baro altitude with an ISO +15C OAT, the tip speed will be M0.728 and the dynamic pressure at the tip corrected for compressibility will be 665 psf. I don't see any problem here, since with the very narrow chord required to achieve the elliptical lift distribution with the very high dynamic pressure, there is very little parasite drag. And it is mainly the parasite drag that decreases the efficiency when using an ELD.
The other thing that reduces efficiency is a non-aerodynamic shape in the root region which has a very high drag coefficient. Then by sealing the prop to the spinner to eliminate air flow out of the prop-spinner gap which disturbs the smooth flow from the spinner to the cowl, you've got high efficiency!
And if you are going to calculate air slowdown in front of the cowling, it is only correct if you do this with the spinner in place, not just the cowling alone! RVs have a 13" diameter spinner; take that away and you have a 13" flat plate greeting the oncoming air. Not conducive to correct slowdown calculations.
 
I guess I'm in the dark on where you have read what you say about Jack's "all-around prop" design vs mine, and I know of no definitive tests that have demonstrated this. It seems to me to be nothing more than idle conjecture! I would refer you to pages I-28 - Bk II and I-29 - Bk II of Jack's book where Jack, comparing the B-G-T ideal to my blade configuration, in his own words, claims "... we would logically lose less off the tip, , better than the B-G-T Ideal. With a wild looking prop, we can beat the Classic Betz Ideal!" I do know from my own tests with the three-blade prop on my plane, that the efficiency in a climb at 2400 rpm, 105 mph IAS, 1350 lb, 1550 fpm, is at least 82%, and a very respected aviation writer-experimenter, when given the data, pegged it at more like 84%-85%. This is more than most FP props have in cruise, and my cruise efficiency is at least 90%. Note that Jack on I-29 writes that "Now we can get over 90% efficiency, (eta), maybe 92, 94..." My design has a very flat high-efficiency curve that extends from about 140 mph TAS to over 200 mph TAS and the effective pitch calculates out to 75"-76" at these speeds. Keep in mind that I only have an O-235 rated at 125 HP! This climb and speed efficiency being the case, does that somehow mean that only in a climb or at top speed is my design efficient, and that at all other speeds in-between it isn't! That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it. My design will outclimb any FP prop that has the same top speed on a given plane, HP, and rpm. The only drawback with my design is lower static thrust due to the minimal outboard area, which extends a take-off run about 10%. But once the plane is up to about 20% of the design speed, from there on out nothing will touch it! You only have to ask those race pilots such as Tom Aberle, Jeff Lo, and Leah Sommer who have flown behind one of these props for their impression, and they will tell you that once the wheels leave the ground it's like an AB cut in. I'd really like to see what has been written about comparitive tests of my prop design with others; I really hope this hasn't just been speculation on their part! So what, exactly, defines an "all-around prop", what book on propellers has defined such, and can there be a prop that has the best take-off, climb, and top-speed? It really frosts me when someone quotes someone else who quotes someone else who quotes someone else who didn't know what they were talking about in the first place!

Ya know...the easiest way to put all this to rest is to buck up and do a good objective test! Send a prop to any number of people that'll do an independent test and report back. It's that simple and honestly I can't figure out why you don't want to do it. If the tests come back positive, you'd have people beating down your door for props! :) Again, I'll offer gas money to the right person if you offer up a prop.

Just my 2 cents as usual, but until the RV crowd sees a real world independent objective test, claims by anyone will still be claims.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Prop testing

Ya know...the easiest way to put all this to rest is to buck up and do a good objective test! Send a prop to any number of people that'll do an independent test and report back. It's that simple and honestly I can't figure out why you don't want to do it. If the tests come back positive, you'd have people beating down your door for props! :)

Cheers,
Stein

But I do want to do it; I'm not sure why you wrote that. Actually my original two-blade prop was tested on several airplanes, such as Tom Aberle's biplane racer, which is why he had me design a three-blade prop for him that gave him a speed increase from 220 mph to 240 mph on 7.7% less power, and then a four blade that got his speed up to 252 mph!
Unfortunately for me, the last time I loaned my two-blade was to Jason Newburgh to try out on his Pitts biplane race plane, "Jamaica Mistaka". He installed it on the flange which is used for a metal prop which has no 2 1/4" center locator nor lengthy drive lugs, and used a piece of sheet metal for a crush plate. The prop sheared all of the prop bolts and came off and fell into the Florida Everglades. Fortunately for him he was close to the airport and was able to land. When I asked him to compensate me for the prop, he said it was my fault for not telling him how to install the prop and I should pay him for the damage to his plane!
It was tested by the owner of an RV-9 at Santa Maria and was better than his Sensenich 70CM659-0-77 metal prop. I don't do any of the testing, so I can't be accused of bias; I only tell the plane's owner how to do the test using a GPS to determine TAS. I recently loaned the two-blade Great American prop which I modified considerably to a Lancair owner to replace his three-blade IVO prop and his speed went from 148 k to 163k and his ROC from 900 fpm to 1300 fpm!
As I've written before, it would be nice if a test was done like the one R.vG. did with a number of props back in the late 80s or early 90s, which was written up in Sport Aviation. I'm sure Jim Smith would be willing to loan his three-blade for such a test. He has done several tests against two other props on his RV-6, and the three-blade is better in ROC and speed. Keep in mind that for every 1% speed increase it takes 3% more efficiency.
There are a number of people that I am designing props for - UAVs, Lancairs, Europa, Velocity, Formula 1s, T-6s, Pitts aerobatic, A new metal kiplane, but unfortunately for my design's reputation, there are those who go around saying that my prop is only good for top speed and that it's not a good "all-around" prop, whatever that might be. Of course, before someone makes a statement like that, they really should be able to back it up with test data that proves their case! Even Jack Norris in his book says that my design is better than the B.G.T. Ideal!
 
Last edited:
....but the blade roots are this God-awful cylindical shape that you see on so many CS props, you got shafted! Think how much worse it would be if it was a three-blade prop. That's why multi-blade props got this reputation as being not as good in cruise. It had absolutely nothing to do with any so-called tip loss; it was all in the root shape.

But there is a silver lining to this cloud. Some enterprising individual among you could make up a streamlined carbon fiber boot or glove to attach to the blade root as they did on the P-51 and B-29. If it's done with the correct amount of twist and airfoil shape, you could end up a prop that's more efficient than originally, and almost as efficient as mine! Actually, the latter was too much of a stretch, but what the Hades. Prop shops around the country know how to attach these glove sections to a blade, and you might talk to one of them.

I am pleased to report that Craig Catto has the "boots" built into his 3 blade prop. The roots are not cylinder shaped but air foil shaped.

For the buck ($$), the Catto is a best buy. The only down side is take off performance at 2200 rpm but with an RV even that is not a huge deficit. I get off in about 1000' while the CS guy can break ground in 500'. But once the prop is turning 2300-2400, it does not matter.

What all this means in terms of an efficiency number, I don't know. But for the guy not out to set race records, you can not go wrong with this prop. The price is right and the performance is very satisfactory.
 
What Jack Norris really said (interpret for yourself)

...Even Jack Norris in his book says that my design is better than the B.G.T. Ideal!

Pages 158-II and 159-II of Jack's book. (capitalization as in the book, but bold and underline omitted)

"...as such it [Lipps's prop] does have the potential to do even better than the BGT loading."
...
"Now, if you reread the Introduction on Lipps Props, or if not, you should be able to easily enough, by now, see that the very fundamental flaw of the basic prop, and unfortunately still the Lipps prop, is that all rotary props effectively have No Center Wing, effectively have two separate outer halves, almost only two separate outer wings, connected to the engine by two ineffective, low q inner halves. That's fundamentally Poor!"
...
"So, with the Lipps Elliptically loaded outer half Prop, what we're potentially doing is practically opening up the possibility of getting Propellers to their Ultimate Possible Efficiency"..
...
"CAUTION: FIXED, HIGH PITCH, IT MAY TAKEOFF MORE POORLY!!!"
 
Last edited:

Pages 158-II and 159-II of Jack's book."Now, if you reread the Introduction on Lipps Props, or if not, you should be able to easily enough, by now, see that the very fundamenetal flaw of the basic prop, and unfortunately still the Lipps prop, is that all rotary props effectively have No Center Wing, effectively have two separate outer halves, almost only two separate outer wings, connected to the engine by two innefective, low q inner halves. That's fundamentally Poor!"
...
"So, with the Lipps Elliptically loaded outer half Prop, what we're potentially doing is practically opening up the possibility of getting Propeller to their Ultimate Possible Efficiency"..
...
"CAUTION: FIXED, HIGH PITCH, IT MAY TAKEOFF MORE POORLY!!!"

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Jack's "No Center Wing" statement. I have seen nothing that shows that the pressure does not carry through the way it does for a wing-fuselage combination, which also does not have a center wing. Is the spinner in such a situation so very different than a fuselage? When I design a propeller, I take the prop chord-pitch distribution each inch and pass that through another program that shows the speed, efficiency, drag, ROC, RPM, and LOD over a range from 50 mph to 300 mph for given airplane. I correct the engine power for inlet dynamic pressure and temperature as well as fuel evaporation temperature drop. From this information I predict the performance of the airplane at three different density altitudes at ISO +15C; 2,400', 7,900', and 13,400'. The better the input data I have based upon the airplane's equivalent parasite drag area, EPDA, with a drag coefficient of 1.0, not to be confused with flat-plate area, the closer will be my predicted results to the aircraft's actual performance. Those planes which used my two-blade prop for their tests gave me a very good estimate of their EPDA. So far my predictions with my own plane and other L-235s have been exact. Now if what Jack states were the case, then my mass-flow rate through the propeller disc would be in error and my performance predictions would be off. I think that this is another case where long-held opinions about propellers was shown to be incorrect, such as the one about multi-blade props not being as efficient as two-blade props because of mutual blade interference.
When I analyzed the data from Jim Smith's RV-6 with my two-blade prop, I told Jim that his O-320 was only putting out 150 HP and not my assumed 160 HP, to which he responded that it IS a 150 HP on auto gas! My estimate of his EPDA came out at 2.15-2.20 sq/ft., which is close to CAFE's RV6-A estimate of 2.32 in the 1993 Dec. SA. Again I will ask, can these predictions be this close if the mass-flow rates are off? NO!
There were so many opinions about propellers back in the days before computers that were based on their design parameters of advance ratio and so-on that were in turn based on integrals that had higher-order terms that didn't allow for an accurate estimate. Now we can number-crunch with iterative routines that allow us to estimate lift and induced AOA and downwash with high accuracy!
I'm not interested in selling propellers; this is something I do to support those who are interested in more performance. With me it is a hobby just as the electronics I design. I'm not trying to make a bundle from it. It's just that this airplane stuff piques my curiosity, just as did my researches and accomplishment in total modeling and simulation of the Atlas Space Launch Vehicle and its autopilot in connection with the ground-based guidance radar and computer, atmospheric refraction. radar tropospheric noise models, computer programs and hardware modifications and hardware modifications to the radar. I only got into propeller design because when I talked to various propeller makers about having them make a prop based around the performance of my friend's Lancair, they told me it couldn't be done, that they would make a prop and send it out and we would see how it performed and send it back and they would modify it. When I asked them if they couldn't just design a prop for a given plane they said that there was a lot of sort of "black magic" that went into a prop known only to a select few. Apparently they didn't want to reveal the secrets of their incantations and the moon phases that were required. Since I knew from electronics that I could take a tube manual for a 12AV6 and design a circuit around it that would perform exactly as predicted, I felt the same thing could be done with propellers! And it can! It's like making a cake from a recipe, you have to know all of the ingredients!
 
Say Paul, are you up for a real challenge?

I'd give up takeoff and climb performance if you'd crank out a fast prop for my -10. Speed is primary,

Best,
 
Agree with you on "being like Bob Ax"...I'm making some efforts in my feeble way. The words in red are the rub on making a cuff. Paul, you know anyone that can figure out the right twist and angles? ;)

Cheers,
Bob
it's really not that complex, Bob. I'd be happy to do it for you, and when Panzera gets the latest Contact! out soon there are three articles in there about Pitch, Multi-blade Props, and Propeller Planform that probably contain enough informatio to DIY.
 
All-around prop

Back on 5-07 I posted a response to someone that said he had read that my prop was probably not a good "all-around prop". I challenged anyone to give a really good definition of what this "all-around propeller is, and how it could be measured, and so far, no one has taken up the task. I think that in the absence of any good definition, and how it was determined that my designs fall short of this mythical, ideal propeller, I think that whoever posted this remark should either name their source, or, at least, as Rich Blumenthal has said about his Vietnam experience, maybe admit to having "mis-spoken"!
 
Last edited:
It was I..

Back on 5-07 I posted a response to someone that said he had read that my prop was probably not a good "all-around prop". I challenged anyone to give a really good definition of what this "all-around propeller is, and how it could be measured, and so far, no one has taken up the task. I think that in the absence of any good definition, and how it was determined that my designs fall short of this mythical, ideal propeller, I think that whoever posted this remark should either name their source, or, at least, as Mark Blumenthal has said about his Vietnam experience, maybe admit to having "mis-spoken"!


Paul, you knew it was I who said it, not "someone". I could not recall where I had read that your racing props did not "get going" until 100 mph or more. I did, however, quote chapter and verse from Jack Norris's book. I thought that took care of it.

I admire your work, as does Jack. You are an original thinker and were the first, as Jack has said on more than one occasion. Please don't take what he said, or what someone else whose name goes unremembered said, to be a derogatory statement. We all make progress better when the dialogue is free and open. Nobody can argue with your success at Reno. Please keep up the good work. How could I not like a guy who looks like me (only better)?

That said, I am concerned about three aspects and I will say it simply because I am just not engineer-qualified. This is just layman's perception talking.

ONE: Your designs - at least the ones I've seen on this forum and in "Experimenter", are often quite different from each other. Experimenting is good, but if we knew the correct math solution, the variations between props might be much less. Edison made a lot of light bulbs because he did not have a math model of the right answer.

TWO: Some of your designs, but not all, have sharp changes in the shape. To me this makes no sense. No, I cannot demonstrate either mathematically nor scientifically why I feel this way, but I don't believe that air or any fluid works that way.

THREE: You have not really dealt with Jack Norris's theories by dismissing the work that was done before modern computers (e.g. Goldstein and Theodorsen) as thus inherently weak. There is a lot of complex theory in Jack's book and I know for a fact that his computer program (actually Andy Bauer's program) is exquisitely sensitive to small differences in input. While I do not claim to understand it, I have worked with it; I have run the numbers. Jack says that by using "BGT" concepts and, especially, math, we can perfectly optimize the prop. Please note that he is saying "optimize". That's a little like what Van does with the RV family of designs. Jack defines his optimization in his book. www.PropellersExplained.com

Oops, one more: I think you were wrong about propeller effective pitch versus propeller efficiency. I think I did demonstrate that. I just don't know if that's an error of theory of the result of complex interactions between prop and fuselage while angle of attack changes.

Let's take a hypothetical Norris prop. Andy's program produces a design that maintains a constant coefficient of lift from spinner to tip and it's the coefficient that you choose, but typically 0.5 for maximum efficiency. If I understand what you are doing, you are using different tactics to get the prop to do what you want it to do. Is perfect elliptical lift distribution the correct, optimal goal or are other parameters best used? I don't claim to know.

Andy's program, and probably yours, design for a particular thrust, air density and RPM (and diameter). Any FP prop suffers when it is running at different conditions than it was designed for. That's why many pilots prefer C/S props.

As can readily be seen on his book's cover, Jack's designs vary in shape only when applied to different conditions (the illustration goes from a Luscombe to an RV to a Reno racer). His results at Reno were also successful and demonstrated not only improved top speed but also very noticeably improved acceleration from a standstill. Without trying to further quantify "all around", that fits.

In closing, I'll point out that first you were taking as a good reflection on you that Jack Norris said something favorable about you in his book (he did, but the quote was not accurate). Then, when I posted the exact quote you chose to disagree with Jack. Disagreeing with Jack is certainly OK (I do it, too) but in this case I don't think you can have it both ways.
 
Rebuttal



Paul, you knew it was I who said it, not "someone"
I didn't think it necessary to bring names into this discussion, but what I was mainly referring to is who the nameless person was who wrote that statement.

I could not recall where I had read that your racing props did not "get going" until 100 mph or more.
And that is totally a mis-characterization of how my prop designs perform. I even mentioned that with the three-blade prop on my Lancair that it is at least 82% efficient in a climb at 105 mph and 2400 rpm, my estimation, and by another's estimation it is more like 84%, either of which is more than the majority of FP props and a lot of the CS props are in cruise.

I did, however, quote chapter and verse from Jack Norris's book. I thought that took care of it.
Please don't take what he said, or what someone else whose name goes unremembered said, to be a derogatory statement.

But it is a derogatory statement and must be defended, and was followed by the idea that it is not an "all-around prop" which is the kind of statement that will put off a lot of people who would otherwise be interested in obtaining one of these!


ONE: Your designs - at least the ones I've seen on this forum and in "Experimenter", are often quite different from each other. Experimenting is good, but if we knew the correct math solution, the variations between props might be much less.
Again, not true! My math model always produces the exact same lift distribution and the same thrust-torque ratio at every station along the blade, so your observation is incorrect. The only thing I may change is the planform relative to where the maximum chord occurs, closer or father from the spinner, and the tip shape. But this is only planform, not any other characteristic

TWO: Some of your designs, but not all, have sharp changes in the shape. To me this makes no sense. No, I cannot demonstrate either mathematically nor scientifically why I feel this way, but I don't believe that air or any fluid works that way.
Well, again, I must say that your belief is based on something other than facts. Feelings have no sway here, only objective data.

THREE: You have not really dealt with Jack Norris's theories by dismissing the work that was done before modern computers (e.g. Goldstein and Theodorsen) as thus inherently weak. There is a lot of complex theory in Jack's book and I know for a fact that his computer program (actually Andy Bauer's program) is exquisitely sensitive to small differences in input. While I do not claim to understand it, I have worked with it; I have run the numbers. Jack says that by using "BGT" concepts and, especially, math, we can perfectly optimize the prop. Please note that he is saying "optimize". That's a little like what Van does with the RV family of designs. Jack defines his optimization in his book. www.PropellersExplained.com
Never have I dismissed the work by BGT, but even Jack admits in his book that my work goes even farther. I have the benefit of a high speed computer that they didn't have. Where they used incomplete integrals I can rapidly do numerical integration to a convergence.

Oops, one more: I think you were wrong about propeller effective pitch versus propeller efficiency. I think I did demonstrate that. I just don't know if that's an error of theory of the result of complex interactions between prop and fuselage while angle of attack changes.
Actually you failed to demostrate that in a real world sense since you didn't use test data from one of my props flown at different speeds and rpm. You based your conclusions on data from an airplane's handbook. I don't speak for other's prop designs, only mine, and I can tell you that with mine the thrust-torque ratio along the blade changes very little over a wide range, giving an almost constant effective pitch.

Let's take a hypothetical Norris prop. Andy's program produces a design that maintains a constant coefficient of lift from spinner to tip and it's the coefficient that you choose, but typically 0.5 for maximum efficiency. If I understand what you are doing, you are using different tactics to get the prop to do what you want it to do. Is perfect elliptical lift distribution the correct, optimal goal or are other parameters best used? I don't claim to know.

I also design to a given constant CL, but I also take into account the influence of Mach number on the apparent lift slope above M0.65, and also Re in determining minimum CD. 0.5 CL does not give maximum efficiency under all design conditions.

Andy's program, and probably yours, design for a particular thrust, air density and RPM (and diameter). Any FP prop suffers when it is running at different conditions than it was designed for. That's why many pilots prefer C/S props.
I don't think you have any basis for making that statement. I must repeat! My design performs at very high efficiency over a very wide speed range! When I do a design, it isn't finished until it gives the same design speed and rpm as it does in a separate program that models the airplane on which it is to be used. For this I must take into account all of the various factors that change engine power with density, stagnation, and temperature, along with induced and parasite drag. If this doesn't match, I must take into account the difference and use this to re-iterate the prop design program, along with changing the tip shape to get the lowest airfoil critical Mach at a given chord percentage. Some use 25%, whereas Hoerner says to use 50%. I doubt that any of the prop designers that I know of do anything even remotely close to this!

As can readily be seen on his book's cover, Jack's designs vary in shape only when applied to different conditions (the illustration goes from a Luscombe to an RV to a Reno racer). His results at Reno were also successful and demonstrated not only improved top speed but also very noticeably improved acceleration from a standstill. Without trying to further quantify "all around", that fits.
What fits? That because his design has a little better acceleration that makes it a better all-around prop? I don't know how you can reach such a conclusion! I asked for and you have yet to provide a concise definition of what constitutes an "all-around prop". Until you do give some means of measuring this somewhat mythical parameter, I think you should refrain from using this phrase!

In closing, I'll point out that first you were taking as a good reflection on you that Jack Norris said something favorable about you in his book (he did, but the quote was not accurate). Then, when I posted the exact quote you chose to disagree with Jack. Disagreeing with Jack is certainly OK (I do it, too) but in this case I don't think you can have it both ways.
My disagreement was solely with the statement that the lift falls to zero at the hub. On mine it doesn't but continues across the spinner as it does with a wing and fuselage.

I don't like to engage in verbal fisticuffs, but when my design has been defamed based upon a vague, unremembered statement, I have to demand that only factual information be presented to back up the argument presented.
 
No "fisticuffs"

OK, I tried to give a candid answer, warts and all. You take issue with some of it. From my point of view, it's a useful discussion. I agree that statements, especially those that may be seen as critical, should be backed up or with-held. I consider using the Norris book a reasonable source. It is also reasonable that you disagree with all or part of the quote.

Paul, I only want to go back to the efficiency vs pitch discussion. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but you appear to be saying that the efficiency is at max when the effective pitch is at max. You also appear to state it as a general rule, not just for your airplane. If I am reading you wrong, then end of discussion. Otherwise, if you intend it as a general rule, then my analysis of the C-152 strongly suggests that it is not universally true. You said:

.........................................................................
Let's look at the results from the post which started this thread. Calculating the effective pitch by TAS mph X 1056 / rpm gives:
rpm kt EP"
1800 101 68.2
1900 109 69.7
2000 117 71.1
2100 124 71.8
2200 131 72.4
2300 138 72.9
2400 144 72.9
2500 151 73.4
2600 157 73.4
2700 162 72.9
As can readily be seen, the effective pitch increases until it peaks at 73.4" at 151-157 kt, then begins to decline. It should be obvious that at the 1800 rpm value it takes more 7.6% more rpm to get the speed, whereas at the peak EP, the maximum speed vs rpm is obtained. Since rpm equates to horsepower, it requires more power to produce the speed at the lower rpm values, showing that the efficiency is less. This is generally the result of the twist and span-wise thrust distribution being less than optimum.
........................................................
The above, sans actual HP measurement, tells us nothing. Efficiency is or should be defined as the relationship between power in and power out. The C-152 data demonstrates that the RPM delta cubed does not accurately predict the HP delta. The same data demonstrates that the changes in EP do not correlate well to changes in HP. It is what it is. You can argue that Cessna's data is wrong. You can argue that the Norris-Bauer data on C-152 drag curves is wrong. You can argue that my math is wrong. If you don't use at least one of those arguments, then the general proposition fails.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~n17hh/Models/C152PropEfficiency.xls

Just a final note: my reason for not taking this discussion off-line is that I think others may benefit. I hope that is correct. Thanks for your patient participation.
 

Paul, I only want to go back to the efficiency vs pitch discussion. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but you appear to be saying that the efficiency is at max when the effective pitch is at max.http://home.cogeco.ca/~n17hh/Models/C152PropEfficiency.xls

Just a final note: my reason for not taking this discussion off-line is that I think others may benefit. I hope that is correct. Thanks for your patient participation.

As far as this discussion being on the forum, I agree; it can be very informative. I think what I said originally is that an efficient prop will show an almost constant effective pitch over a range of speed and rpm values, and that where the EP drops off, the prop is less efficient; I know that the propeller on my plane does this! The numbers in your listing tell the same story. The EP reaches a pretty constant value from 2300 rpm to 2700 rpm, but shows a declining tendency above 2600 rpm and below 2500 rpm. Look at it this way: the EP is a measure of how far forward the prop, and hopefully the plane, travels forward on each revolution of the prop. As you increase or decrease the speed, the rpm should also increase or decrease by the same measure to some limiting value. This is only for un-accelerated, level flight, as does not apply to climb or descent. Since thrust is a product of mass-flow, m-dot, and downwash velocity, v, where m-dot is good and v is bad, a loss of energy, at higher speed the mass-flow is mainly a function of forward speed. It is the tube of air that is being intercepted by the propeller blades, and the v is very low. On my prop at 200 mph it is about 5 fps, not the high velocity experienced during static run-up. But at lower speed, in order to produce thrust, more of the m-dot comes from the induced flow, and v is high. When this takes place, the prop efficiency necessarily becomes lower. But on the listing you show, that prop shows that its efficiency, though reasonably high, does not have the best lift distribution and the lowest parasite drag, and if it was operated much above 2700 rpm, its efficiency would fall off even further.
But getting back to what I considered to be my main topic of objection. That there exists a propeller which can be described as a best "all-around prop", and that my design is not one of them. Tell me, what is the best all-around TV, or tire, or engine, or car, or plane, or whatever? It's a stupid notion and should never see the light of day. It is totally a subjective response, not an objective one, and is subject to an individual's own perception of what is desired or necessary. Is my Lancair a better all-around plane than some RV because I get 200 mph on 125 HP and 35 mpg in cruise to its 180 mph on 160 HP and 24-26 mpg in cruise with both at 12,500'? No! The two planes are designed for different missions and have different compromises and trade-offs. But I will say this, my design will give more speed and ROC than any other FP prop designed for the same rpm at its resultant top-speed for a given plane, even if it gives a take-off run about 10% longer!
 
I don't like to engage in verbal fisticuffs, but when my design has been defamed based upon a vague, unremembered statement, I have to demand that only factual information be presented to back up the argument presented.

Your words both above and below....

But I will say this, my design will give more speed and ROC than any other FP prop designed for the same rpm at its resultant top-speed for a given plane, even if it gives a take-off run about 10% longer!

So, if facts must be demanded to back up "vague statements", where are your facts? Saying something like "About" 10% longer is just that, vague at best.

Just trying to keep the playing field even. Still haven't seen your objective factual information from an independent tester - if you have them I think many would love to see them! I'm not trying to flame you, because we both know you've forgotten more about props and EI's than I'm likely to ever know - I'll give that to you outright and I do respect your knowledge/experience. That being said, you can't have it both ways...meaning you can't slam people for not giving any facts on counterpoints when the same facts on the point they are countering haven't been given.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Your words both above and below....

So, if facts must be demanded to back up "vague statements", where are your facts? Saying something like "About" 10% longer is just that, vague at best.

Just trying to keep the playing field even. Still haven't seen your objective factual information from an independent tester - if you have them I think many would love to see them! I'm not trying to flame you, because we both know you've forgotten more about props and EI's than I'm likely to ever know - I'll give that to you outright and I do respect your knowledge/experience. That being said, you can't have it both ways...meaning you can't slam people for not giving any facts on counterpoints when the same facts on the point they are countering haven't been given.

Cheers,
Stein

I agree. As far as the 10% is concerned, that comes from the tests that have been done with a prop of my design on 2 Lancairs, an RV-6, an RV-8A, biplane Miss Gianna, biplane Son of Galloping Goat, biplane Phantom with a two-blade, a three-blade and a four-blade, and a Glassair FG. The RV-6 was tested against an Aymar DeMuth and a special Felix bi-camber two-blade prop, the RV-8 against a metal Sensenich, one Lancair against a Great American two-blade and a Prince P-tip, and the other Lancair against a Great American. Call it slamming if you like, but how would you like it if you were making a product and someone took issue with it purely on conjecture and speculation with no substantive data to back it up.
How about the Reno results and the comments of the pilots who flew behind these props at Reno, saying they had never flown behind a prop with such performance! How about Kevin Gregory who has a Lancair 235 with a 118 hp O-235L2C to whom I recently loaned a Great American two-blade prop that I modified who said he got an ROC increase from 800 fpm to 1300 fpm and a speed increase from 148k to 163 k over his Ivo prop. And that's not even with a regular design which will give him about 1400-1500 fpm and 170 k. The first numbers are from him, and the second set is my estimate for his new prop of my design which is being made. He gave me the numbers because he was so thrilled with his new performance. He commutes from Henderson to Van Nuys where he is a corporate jet pilot. How about Bob Bryson whose Son of Galloping Goat went from 201 mph at 2008 Reno to 211 at 2009 Reno with a Prince P-tip I modified for him, which got him the prize for most improved performance. Or Bob Rowan who saw a 15k speed increase from 153k to 168k at the same rpm on his Q-200 after I modified his prop. Or how about an un-named pilot who saw a 5mph increase on his T-6 after having the tips modified to my design. These are other people recording the performance increases they received with my design or a prop I modified. I guess I would have to call those objective tests from independent testers, wouldn't you? Keep in mind, I already wrote that I'm sure Jim Smith would allow his three-blade prop from his RV-6 to be used in comparison testing with other propellers. Really, I have nothing to hide! And speaking of Jim, from two separate GPS-derived TAS two-way runs he got an avg. 193 mph at 2740 rpm, 4440'dalt, 192.3 mph at 2738 rpm, 6440'dalt, 187 mph at 2700 rpm, 8407'dalt, and 184.4 mph at 2655 rpm, 10,400'dalt from a 150 hp O-320 on auto gas at 1440 lb gross weight. Using the cubic speed-HP relation, the following estimates:
With 160 HP these would be 2.2% more, or 197.2, 196,5, 191.1, and 188.4.
With 180 HP these would be 6.3% more, or 205.1, 204.3, 198.7, and 196.0. Along the line of prop modifications, I just spoke with Pat Panzera of Contact! magazine about us doing a workshop and an article showing how to modify your FP to get better speed and ROC! Interested?
 
Paul,
Any comparisons to Performance Propellers? If not I'd be interested in making a prop to your specs for my -6 to do a test.
 
Hi Paul,

Indeed those are very good numbers/data as you've posted a number of times before and I do appreciate it. I also can appreciate you not wanting to be slammed based on conjecture, that's not what I'm about either. What I am about is objective independent testing that is verifiable and repeatable. With the Reno guys, I'm not saying they didn't see an improvement with your prop (because I'm sure they did), but I'm also betting that the prop was not the sole/only singular thing they changed from one year to the next. We all know racers are constantly experimenting/improving their planes and no doubt your prop was part of that.

What I'd love to see is the same plane (or two close to identical planes) fly, swap props and fly again under similar (as close as one can get) conditions. That's the only way that can work. I'm not throwing out the singular pilot experiences, but in reality the data isn't really solid data - we both know that.

I hope someone does a good test, because I'd love to see the results...if for no other reason that just to see how to make these things faster for "free"! Keep it up, your prop might just be the next "must have" thing we all need for our RV's. :)

Cheers,
Stein
 
Hi Paul,

With the Reno guys, I'm not saying they didn't see an improvement with your prop (because I'm sure they did), but I'm also betting that the prop was not the sole/only singular thing they changed from one year to the next. We all know racers are constantly experimenting/improving their planes and no doubt your prop was part of that.

Cheers,
Stein

I can tell you what Tom Aberle told me about going from 2003 to 2004 where he gained 20 mph. There was absolutely NO, I repeat, NO change to the engine. In fact, an engine builder tried to make this claim to say it was because of their engine work, and Tom categorically denied it! Are you suggesting that Tom lied about this?
Now do the math. If the engine's power had been changed between the two years, the power required to change that much speed would have been 29.8% (240/220) cubed. Because the average rpm was 7.7% less in 2004 than in 2003, the total power change would have been 39.8%, which means from, say 210 HP to 293.6 HP. Are you really suggesting that an IO-360 can put out that much? That is why those who suggest this, without even taking the time to ask Tom, who would gladly tell you of his love for these props, since they've made him a multiple winner, act like they are more interested in being contentious than in looking at the truth! I will respond no more on this thread because it wastes my time trying to point out such inanities! I only want to deal with rational people who have even a smidgin of aeronautical knowledge and can understand the truth in spite of any bias they may have! I hope your bet didn't ruin you economically, because you lost big-time!