Jan 01, 2010, 06:27 PM Registered User East Anglia, UK Joined Sep 2002 29,709 Posts Discussion Understanding prop efficiency. Been a lot of hooha about what is the best prop to use and at what RPM for best efficiency etc. etc.. So on with the thinking cap, and time for analysis. First of all, some definitions . PITCH SPEED. The speed at which a prop spinning at a given RPM generates no thrust whatsoever, and no drag along the axis of the aircraft. Yes, I know there are other definitions, but this is the one in use here, today, to avoid endless discussions about what pitch speed is. PITCH The above speed divided by the RPM. This may or may not bear any resemblance to what is marked on the prop. PROPELLOR EFFICIENCY Defined as the power output (airspeed times thrust) divided by the power input (torque times RPM). Note that at zero airspeed, which is where we bench test motors, propellor efficiency is zero, as there is no airspeed. Such figures as grams per watt may provide some indication of the quality of a propellor at generating thrust at zero airspeed, but they have little if anything to do with propellor efficiency at a given airspeed. . Finally, the analysis is concerned with getting the best out of a prop: cases which are sub optimal will not be considered in great depth. The aim is not to throw vast mathematics about either, but simply to indicate broadly what sort of propellor and RPM you should be aiming for, and why. It also deliberately avoids any issues of motor (or the rest of the power train) efficiency. Today is prop day. Drag elements If the propellor is (justifiably) considered as a series of small wing sections, then standard wing aerodynamic theory applies. WE know for example that the best lift to drag will be, for normal sections, at a little over a couple of degrees angle of incidence. . And any section greater than about 15 degrees angle of attack to the incident airflow will be into stall, and will produce less lift (thrust) and generate higher drag. So ideally our propellor over its working speed range at a given RPM, should be somewhere between a little below pitch speed (best efficiency: least drag) and wherever the majority of it is into stall. Static conditions, and hovering One thing is easy to check. At what pitch to diameter ratio the tips are greater than 15 degrees, so the whole BLADE is stalled at zero airspeed. That's PI x tan (15). It turns out to be 0.84 give or take, so a 10x9 is fully into the stall regime running static for example. NO part of the blade is less than 15 degrees angle of attack. That doesn't means its producing no thrust at all, just that most is being produced at fairly high cost, in terms of drag, by the tips alone. If we want a bit better than that, to say have at least the outer half of the prop disc unstalled, (which probably generates at least 75% of the thrust in fact) than we need to halve the pitch. so a 10x4 prop (taking a ten inch prop as something that is familiar) is almost completely unstalled at zero airspeed. And its tips will be at about 7.25 degrees, which although not the best angle of attack, is still fairly good. Now this leads to the conclusion that the best static thrust is produced by a blade set at exactly the correct angle for the best lift to drag ratio, and being driven no faster than is necessary ( to minimise profile drag and skin friction) to generate lift, and has no helical twist at all. Voila! its a helicopter blade. This is an important marker. For the best static thrust for a given power, build a helicopter. At last, the definite answer to 'what is the best static thrust I can get out of XYZ?' The answer. gear it like a helicopter, and use a rotor instead chum, and don't ask stupid questions. It also has another interesting corollary: Helicopters with single rotors as big as or exceeding the maximum dimension of the rest of the aircraft, need extreme measures to counteract torque. This is extremely relevant when the maximum size of prop for a normal aircraft is considered. Adding in airspeed The moment you start adding in airspeed, the helicopter blade becomes seriously deficient. Torque considerations aside, its not helically cut, and so the inner sections will stop producing thrust long before the outer ones do. Likewise because of the forward airspeed, no part of the blade is experiencing less than the actual aircraft airspeed, so magnificently long blades with low airspeed, for low drag, simply wont cut the mustard. If we do the similar 'take it to the limit' exercise for a blade producing thrust at a fixed airspeed, and optimise that for lowest drag per unit lift, or thrust, what we already know is that for best lift to drag, the blade needs to meet the airstream at about 2-6 degrees angle of attack, and crucially, it shouldn't be running at an actual airspeed any higher than it needs to do, for this to be the case. Another factor also comes into play at high blade angles of (geometrical) incidence. The lift vector is no longer along the direction of aircraft travel. Its perpendicular to the blade, so for a given incident airspeed, blade area, the thrust decreases as cos(theta) where theta is the geometrical angle of attack. So at, let's say, 60 degrees, the thrust is NOT what we might expect, but half that (cos( 60)=0.5) After that it drops like a stone. so we can probably say that a helically cut prop with the angle at - say- mid blade of greater than 60 degrees is probably simply too coarse to be generating any thrust much at all. This is useful, because it sets an upper limit on the propellor pitch to diameter. It turns out that for the conditions above, its Pi. That is no more than PI times diameter will be a effective as a prop. so scrap that putative 10x32 prop. It's not going to work. This is useful. WE have seen that a helicopter prop, all diameter and no pitch, rapidly runs out of effectiveness at forward airspeeds, and that an ultra coarse pitch prop runs out of thrust at too steep a pitch. That means that 'somewhere in the middle' is the best we can hope for. But look again at the actual blade speed through the air. It is, for an aircraft operating near the pitch speed (where lift to drag is best as the blade meets the airflow at just a couple of degrees or so)), about 1/sin(theta) times forward airspeed. Where theta is the geometrical pitch angle. So for a 45 degree blade part, its seeing about 1.4 times airspeed. Not a huge increase. We know that more than 3 times the sorts of aircraft speed is likely to push the drag up a lot, so for efficiency we don't want to have tip of the blade doing more than 3 times the aircraft airspeed. This turns out to be a pitch to diameter of about 1.11 This is getting interesting, because it says that broadly speaking, for an aircraft operating at a fixed airspeed and operating with the right sized prop, and RPM., we don't want a coarser pitch than 3 times the diameter, because we are losing thrust and we dont want it much less than about 1:1 because we are spinning the prop much faster than it needs to go to generate the lift. So in a fixed speed cruise or a climb, we might use a prop around a 10x10 to a 10x20 say, to get best efficiency. Speed range If you remmeber earlier, I estimated that a prop with a pitch to diameter of 1:2 - say a 10x5 or so, was a prop that by and large wasn't stalled at zero speed . So thrust was generated effectively at zero airspeed, and in fact thrust will peak at zero airspeed or thereabouts, and fall away fairly sharply to the pitch speed, where it is by definition, zero. The 1:1 or coarser prop may well be (considerably) more efficient at airspeeds around the pitch speed, but its a bit of a dog at lower airspeeds. In particular its pretty much fully stalled for a 1:2.5 to something like 70% of pitch speed. Such a prop will be slow to get airborne, and will 'come in' as the model gets up to speed, loading up and 'biting' as the aircraft gets close to pitch speed. In fact the coarser the pitch, the narrower the range over which its likely to deliver its best, But the better its best is, up to around 2.5:1 pitch to diameter, after which its downhill all the way. Whereas a 10x4 or 10x5 will be capable of efficient hovering, and rapid take-offs, but wont be efficient flying on the wing at all. It will rapidly unload and run out of thrust. This may be in fact what you want for a 3D plane, where ability to hover, and punch out effectively is what is required, and top speed or efficient cruising is not the issue. There is one more issue to consider, that is relevant to a speed model. If the blade tips get near mach 1, drag goes up completely out of proportion to the normal equations. If you want a 250mph model, a 1:1 pitch to diameter is going to take you WELL into supersonic blade tips. You have no choice BUT go coarser. The limiting speed on the very coarsest pitch we might consider, about 2.5:1 pitch to diameter, should be enough for 400mph before the tips approach Mach 1. What RPM should I use? Ok, lets say we settle on a 1:1 pitch to diameter, and want a 50mph pitch speed. Should we run a 10x10 at 5000 RPM or a 5x5 at 10k RPM? Or a 20x20 at 2500 RPM? Which is more efficient, which has more thrust? All have the blade tips running at similar airspeed.. It is pretty obvious though, that the bigger the prop the more blade AREA it has running at that tip speed, so the more thrust its going to generate. And likewise, because its operating at similar thrust to drag (a function of the geometry, really), the more power its going to take to generate that thrust. So comparing props based on pitch speed alone is a bit meaningless. . What we want to know is what, for a given power, is the most efficient generator of thrust..large, slow coarse, or medium, or fine less diameter and faster. and what RPM to operate at.? The reality is for a given power, we would more likely be looking at a choice between say a 10x5 at 10K RPM and a 15 x 15 at 3.3k RPM. Here I defer to the Beagles amazing web-o-calc, which tells me that I can get about 41 oz of static thrust out of a 10x5 at that RPM from 222 watts into the prop. A 14x10 at 5000 RPM takes the same POWER but static thrust is actually HIGHER. So if Beagle has got his sums right, there is absolutely NOTHING better about a 10K driven 10x5 than a 5k driven 14x10. We would expect that, because the blade tip speed on a 10x5 is unnecessarily high. Beagle doesn't have a 15x15 in his database..but I patched one in..result! About the same as a 12x8 or 14x10 power and static thrust wise..but lower in RPM of course. Now web-o-calc doesn't tell the whole story, but what it does say is that a slow revving 15x15 pitch to diameter isn't going to sacrifice much, if any, static thrust compared with a higher revving 14x10 or 12x8. All of which outperform a high revving 10x5. My guess is, that because actual blade airspeed is slower, it will be less draggy per unit thrust as well, up at pitch speed. The actual target model in this case was a sort of middling 50" sporty trainer. 4lb weight, 250+ watts but delivered from between a 10" and 15" prop. between 4000 and about 1000 RPM. Final rules of thumb A prop much less than 0.5 pitch to diameter is a waste of space and power, unless you want a helicopter. Or simply cannot get your RPM down because you picked the wrong motor! Or are constrained by diameter as in an EDF. It may rev a little faster though, so its good for fast response. You are looking at 10K plus RPM for modest pitch speeds. Over the range 0.7:1 to 1:1 props are broadly similar at low end thrust. You aren't sacrificing much due to blade stall and you are getting much better efficiency at cruise as the pitch coarsens and RPM comes down.. RPM comes down for similar powers into the 3500-6000 sort of range typically. Sadly outrunners prefer the upper edge of this band, so its a balancing act without a gearbox. Over 1:1 you are beginning to sacrifice low end thrust for a more efficient cruise, or a higher top speed. RPM may well come down a LOT for low powered models. I think a rubber model typically flies with oversquare props and sub 1000 RPM. 1:2.5 represents the extreme limit of what you probably want to consider, for extremely high top speed, or on a one speed model where RPM is severely limited. Probably the sort of prop you would use to try and reach 300mph, or conversely, for absolute best performance on an indoor rubber model at 5mph! In short it is the ultimate sort of efficiency, but at the cost of hugely unsatisfactory off- pitch speed performance. Some real world full size examples Sopwith Camel. about 1:1 pitch to diameter, running at about 1200 RPM. Pitch speed about 130mph Hawker Hurricane Watts fixed, about 11x20 foot running at 1500 RPM. Pitch speed about 360mph Gypsy Major (Dragonfly) 6'4"x5'3" Probably cruise around 2300 RPM, pitch speed 145 mph. The only finer pitch prop I found was a Lycoming, roughly 6x4 feet, operating at 2700 RPM. pitch speed around 130 mph.
 Sign up now to remove ads between posts
Jan 01, 2010, 07:17 PM
Registered User
Toronto Canada
Joined Dec 2002
5,605 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vintage1 PITCH SPEED. The speed at which a prop spinning at a given RPM generates no thrust whatsoever, and no drag along the axis of the aircraft. Yes, I know there are other definitions, but this is the one in use here, today, to avoid endless discussions about what pitch speed is.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vintage1 It is, for an aircraft operating near the pitch speed (where lift to drag is best as the blade meets the airflow at just a couple of degrees or so))
Your definition of PITCH SPEED and the second quote above are mutually exclusive.

By your definition PITCH SPEED has zero thrust. Planes have a difficult time flying with zero thrust, except in a dive.

PITCH SPEED (RPM X PITCH) is the speed at which the vector sum of the forward and rotational velocity create a constant angle of attack of zero degrees along the entire blade length.

For a flat-bottomed airfoil (propeller) this is the point of maximum efficiency.

The ZERO THRUST SPEED occurs at an ADVANCE RATIO of PITCH SPEED ADVANCE + 0.2. At speeds above PITCH SPEED, the effective angle of attack along the blade length has begun to go negative.

For a prop with a 1:1 P/D ratio PITCH SPEED occurs at an ADVANCE RATIO of 1.0 and ZERO THRUST SPEED occurs at an ADVANCE of 1.2 (20% higher speed).

The prop in the Advance Curve below has a P/D ratio of 0.8. If its PITCH SPEED is 60mph, then its ZERO THRUST SPEED is 75mph (25% higher).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by vintage1 Another factor also comes into play at high blade angles of (geometrical) incidence. The lift vector is no longer along the direction of aircraft travel. Its perpendicular to the blade, so for a given incident airspeed, blade area, the thrust decreases as cos(theta) where theta is the geometrical angle of attack. So at, let's say, 60 degrees, the thrust is NOT what we might expect, but half that (cos( 60)=0.5) After that it drops like a stone. so we can probably say that a helically cut prop with the angle at - say- mid blade of greater than 60 degrees is probably simply too coarse to be generating any thrust much at all. This is useful, because it sets an upper limit on the propellor pitch to diameter. It turns out that for the conditions above, its Pi. That is no more than PI times diameter will be a effective as a prop. so scrap that putative 10x32 prop. It's not going to work.
I don't know whether a 10X32 prop is going to work or not, but there is another factor to consider statically. Although the geometric pitch might be excessive, the effective angle of attack statically can be considerably less due to inflow. Even though the majority of the blade is above the stall angle, air being sucked into the propeller disk can significantly reduce the static effective angle of attack.

The helicopter blade below has an geometric pitch of 10 degrees, but its effective angle of attack along the blade length is significantly less due to inflow.

# Images

View all Images in thread
Last edited by Martyn McKinney; Jan 01, 2010 at 08:02 PM.
Jan 01, 2010, 08:01 PM
Registered User
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,709 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Martyn McKinney Your definition of PITCH SPEED and the second quote above are mutually exclusive. .
Not if the concept (near != at) has any meaning.
Jan 01, 2010, 08:11 PM
Registered User
Toronto Canada
Joined Dec 2002
5,605 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vintage1 Not if the concept (near != at) has any meaning.
I guess you're correct.

25% is close enough. 40% for props with lower P/D ratios.
 Jan 02, 2010, 04:13 AM <- Balsa flies better -> Gustafs, Sweden Joined Feb 2006 1,975 Posts Great reading to the morning coffee, thanks Peter
Jan 02, 2010, 07:43 AM
Registered User
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,709 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Martyn McKinney I guess you're correct. 25% is close enough. 40% for props with lower P/D ratios.
What I do with the wood props, is cut them helical plus 3 degrees just about.

So at a given speed all the prop parts are at + 3 degrees incidence.
Anyway the point was to emphasis that props should be run close to pitch speed for efficiency. So the model that cant do more than 50 mph running at 80mph pitch speed is definitely capable of a better prop.
 Jan 02, 2010, 08:57 AM An itch?. Scratch build. South Wales U.K. Joined Mar 2003 15,791 Posts Sorry, as soon as I see formula and graphs I usually skip past those posts, (I blame it all on my maths teacher. Well how could it possibly be my fault ). Anyway back to reality. My good old B-25 has had a range of motors, (all brushed), driving props through a 3.6:1 belt drive. Initially the props were 12x8's Puntilio wood, (IC engine props). They worked, the plane took-off, flew round on about 3/4 throttle. After my last 're-think', (another motor change, brushed again), I fitted a pair of 14x12's, (by accident, I thought I had bought 14x10's). She took-off about the same, climbed about the same, and cruised on about 1/3 throttle. To me a winner, as she still drew about the same old current at WOT. So 12x8 to 14x12, (different motors), and she flies quite similarly. But......? I don't understand the maths behind it. But I do wish some one would recommend, (in VERY simple terms), what is probably the better route to go regarding pitch. Most regular readers/fliers probably know the 'big diameter, finer pitch for torque, (grunt) and acceleration', and 'small diameter, coarser pitch for speed'. But there is more to it than just that. I think somewhere in the above posts was probably explained what I'm referring to, but as I said, maths just turns me off reading them. So can anyone explain the above without any formula or graphs, please.
 Jan 02, 2010, 10:12 AM Registered User East Anglia, UK Joined Sep 2002 29,709 Posts I thought I had mate. The conclusions section. Basically unless you have special requirements don't go much below 1:1 pitch to diameter. Since no one makes a prop coarser than that, pick the coarsest pitch you can find. Then gear your motor to about 2-4000 RPM and pick the biggest that will not overload the motor. Or torque roll the plane. One third of wingspan is a practical maximum. One quarter is a nice balance. If you are stuck with an ungeared higher revving motor, its not a huge sacrifice to go to 1.5:1 diameter to pitch. With scale diameters, you have to balance the model power requirements against diameter to get the RPM, and then calculate the pitch needed from the likley pitch speed. As you discovered, a very high pitch speed on a large prop will cruise on less than half throttle. I personally like that. YMMV. What I was trying to establish as a first base, was the sorts of pitch to diameter ratios that are best, and shoot at a typical RPM range. Its not surprising that I found that the pitch to diameter that is optimal is about twice that of the sort of props that are easy to obtain, and the RPM is about half of what an outrunner likes. In short, the props you buy are geared (sic!) for use with ungeared outrunners. They are sub optimal, but for many, so are gearboxes..
 Jan 02, 2010, 11:35 AM Registered User Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States Joined May 2003 27,208 Posts What I was trying to establish as a first base, was the sorts of pitch to diameter ratios that are best, and shoot at a typical RPM range. Its not surprising that I found that the pitch to diameter that is optimal is about twice that of the sort of props that are easy to obtain, and the RPM is about half of what an outrunner likes. You have it in a nutshell! Basically it tells us that the typical outrunner RC power system, though convenient, is very much sub-optimal/wasteful, and that without a gearbox and especially crafted props it will always be so. Aaagh!
 Jan 02, 2010, 11:43 AM Motors beat engines! Milwaukee Wisconsin, United States Joined Feb 2001 4,564 Posts Very nice post Vintage1, I have bookmarked it! DeaninMilwaukee
Jan 02, 2010, 06:30 PM
Member
Edina, MN, USA
Joined Oct 1999
11,678 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vintage1 A prop much less than 0.5 pitch to diameter is a waste of space and power
Or, to quote AstroBob -- "best used to stir paint"!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by vintage1 Over 1:1 you are beginning to sacrifice low end thrust for a more efficient cruise, or a higher top speed. RPM may well come down a LOT for low powered models. I think a rubber model typically flies with oversquare props and sub 1000 RPM. 1:2.5 represents the extreme limit of what you probably want to consider, for extremely high top speed, or on a one speed model where RPM is severely limited. Probably the sort of prop you would use to try and reach 300mph, or conversely, for absolute best performance on an indoor rubber model at 5mph! In short it is the ultimate sort of efficiency, but at the cost of hugely unsatisfactory off- pitch speed performance.
I've always thought operatinf rpm was a key factor -- tend to stay around 6krpm; usta be w/GB, now using lower Kv motor (they're normally a big larger/heavier - won't burn thme up!).

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Discussion Understanding Prop Size Selection colgem Electric Plane Talk 12 Dec 12, 2009 06:52 PM Question Prop Efficiency GeorgeM Power Systems 4 Sep 07, 2009 09:33 AM Discussion tractor prop efficiency vs. pusher prop efficiency? larrysogla Engines 9 Mar 19, 2009 03:09 PM Question Understanding motor efficiency? Craig Mckinley Power Systems 3 Aug 03, 2007 07:37 AM Discussion Understanding Motor RPMs, efficiency, power, and heat issues. Vertical Electric Heli Talk 5 Apr 26, 2006 12:25 PM