
Sep 05, 2009, 08:12 AM  

http://eam.net/Varioprop/Vario%20Prop.htm
I believe that <8" props are available for the 4blade hub. 
Sep 05, 2009, 06:24 PM  
Longmont, CO
Joined Jun 2009
21 Posts

Quote:


Sep 05, 2009, 07:55 PM  

What they mean by, for example, 6" diameter is exactly that... 6" diameter... so each blade is of course approximately 3" long. They sell blades individually, so you can buy a single blade as a replacement, or a pair for a new setup.
It is well known that 4blade setups are less efficient than 2blade (additional drag offsets any additional thrust, and the extra blades just screw up the airflow anyway [dirty air]). The most efficient are single blade, counterbalanced setups... ask the control line speed guys. 
Sep 06, 2009, 12:33 AM  
Longmont, CO
Joined Jun 2009
21 Posts

Quote:
With the reduced performance of a 4blade, will four 4blade props be enough to pull 23 lbs into the air? 

Sep 06, 2009, 09:12 AM  
USA, ME, Ellsworth
Joined May 2008
16,853 Posts

"..With the reduced performance of a 4blade, will four 4blade props be enough to pull 23 lbs into the air?..."
It takes 4050 Watts per pound or more to get airplanes to fly. At 200 Watts per pound you can have unlimited performance. But it is also possible to have a plane with 200 Watts per pound of all up weight and have wings so small that the wing loading is too high and it still will not fly. So share some info about the plane and the power system and we can venture a guess on your plane's chances of getting into the air. Jack 
Sep 06, 2009, 09:34 AM  

Quote:
the prop tips from breaking the speed of sound and ground clearance. Your plane will fly better with 2 blades, get a scale prop for show. 

Sep 07, 2009, 12:03 AM  
Longmont, CO
Joined Jun 2009
21 Posts

Thanks, Jack, for the Wattage to Weight ratio, that helps a lot. well the estimated specs of my plane are about a 51 inch wing span and a 35 inch length, I'm using a motor that says it gets 381g of thrust with a 7x4 prop at 9900 RPM and 14.4 amp current. there are going to be a total of four of those motors on it as well. I don't know what the max wing load is because I'm building the frame from scratch, I'm not using any factory made diagrams or anything. I don't know if this affects the ability to get into the air, but I'm also using a 11.1 Volt 2200mah Lipoly battery. hope this helps, thanks again.

Sep 07, 2009, 08:48 AM  

I am puzzled by the figures you give for the motors you are going to use..If that is a 7x4 APC SF prop then 381g @ 9900rpm is about right... but drawing 14.4A?... even if you are using only 2s that seems awfully high (>100W to get 381g).... and thus the motor must be very inefficient.
An el cheapo GPS/HXT/XYH C2826B (~1620kv) with a 7x4 APC SF got me this: 7.9v, 9.4A, 74W, 9900rpm, 413g, 5.58g/W Here is an example using a lower Kv motor on 3s getting close to 9900rpm: Komodo KH220415 (1361Kv) 7x4 APC SF: 10.9v, 7.2A, 76W, 9960rpm, 418g, 5.50g/W 
Sep 07, 2009, 09:23 AM  

As usual, though, be aware that unless you are planning to spend a lot of time in the hover as with a 3D type, the static thrust is of no help whatsoever in helping the aeroplane fly. You can have all the static thrust in the world with a fine pitch prop, but if you do not have enough pitch speed it will not deliver enough actual thrust at flying speeds.
What is the proposed wing loading and flying speed of your model? 
Sep 07, 2009, 10:01 AM  
USA, ME, Ellsworth
Joined May 2008
16,853 Posts

We can close in on the numbers a little bit. The online calculators for aircraft are a little terrifying but useful. They can be ungodly complex:
http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/cg_super_calc.htm or very simple: http://fwcg.3dzone.dk/ We can take the second one there and input your 51 inch wingspan and guess at the chord length as 10" (for about a 5:1 aspect ratio, not uncommon or radical). I'll also use 10" for the tip chord and 0 degrees as the sweep, so we have a rectangular wing with of 510 square inches. Any values can be used there, you apply your desired units (inch, metric, etc.) to the results. And you can ignore any of the other stuff that you get there for now. So right now you have a 51" wing span, and 510 sq. in. of wing area. I am going to guess that this is a more or less conventional high wing aircraft and a 51" wing span and 35" fuselage length are not a radical departure for a plane like that. You don't know the weight yet. My SIG Rascal 40 electric conversion is a adequately powered nice flying high winged plane. It has a 72.5" wingspan and an all up weight of 8.25 lbs. It we compared the wingspans on those two planes, your 51 inch wing span would be 70% of the Rascal's. So let's guess that your plane would fly at 70% of the Rascal's weight too. That makes your target weight to be 70% of 8.25 lbs or 5.75 lbs. Now we can get to some wing loading numbers. A common way to measure that for airplanes is in ounces per square foot of wing area. Your theoretical plane4 at 5.75 lbs is 92 ounces, your theoretical wing at 510 sq. in. wing is 3.54 sq. ft. in area, so you have an approximate wing loading of 26 oz./sq. ft. If I crunch the same numbers for my Rascal 40, I also come up with a wing loading of 26 oz./sq. ft. also. So I'd say that your theoretical plane would fly nicely. As a comparison, gliders have much lighter wing loadings (down around 15 oz/sq.ft. or less) so they will float down slower and planes that are intended to fly very fast would have higher wing loadings because less wing area means less drag and more speed. One of the final numbers to consider here is the power to weight ratio. You know that you know that your power system is capable of 4 x 381 Watts or 1524 Watts. With the theoretical weight of 5.75 pounds you would have 265 Watts per pound with all four motors at full throttle. And that will certainly fly a plane of the type I am speculating about. If fact it would turn it into a rocket ship if the wing stayed in one piece. Here are some commonly used rules of thumb for powering RC aircraft: Approximate power requirements: 5070 watts per pound; Minimum level of power for decent performance, park flyer/slow flyer models 7090 watts per pound; Trainers and slow flying scale models 90110 watts per pound; Sport aerobatic and fast flying scale models 110130 watts per pound; Advanced aerobatic and highspeed models 130150 watts per pound; Lightly loaded 3D models and ducted fans 150200+ watts per pound; Unlimited performance 3D and aerobatic models I've found that the 600 Watts or so (72 watts per pound of AUW) I get at full throttle with the Rascal 40 makes for a quick and confidence inspiring takeoff and climb out. I am typically slowly backing off on the throttle as soon as I have a little altitude and I use half throttle or so for just cruising around and flying the pattern power. In a 12 minute flight with the Rascal I had an average power consumption of 116 Watts so you can see that a lot less than 4050 watts per pound is needed to sustain smooth level flight in calm air. I'd guess that my Rascal will fly on as little as 120150 watts or so which would be less than 20 watts per pound. Of course, as soon as you start maneuvering, turn into a breeze, or want to have any margin of safety against stalling, you want to apply more power. I'm new to the Rascal and planes that large and of that type. I have a lot to learn there yet but it is really a lot of fun to fly. Jack 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Category  Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Discussion  Need help finding the right prop. Please help.  redhotpearl  Power Systems  3  Jun 07, 2009 06:08 PM 
Discussion  Need help finding the right plane  3DFlyer Kevin  3D Flying  4  Dec 27, 2008 01:32 PM 
Need Help finding GWS DXA motor @ Batteries!  Gary Morris  Parkflyers  5  Nov 12, 2001 09:01 AM  
NEED HELP finding a new radio  jh2  Parkflyers  10  Sep 10, 2001 08:45 PM 