


Hi
It is a question of wording In Scorpion Calc (now v3.63 https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=736782) I am using in the performances frame ** In power (at ESC input) ** Out power (at propeller level) in the propellers submenu ** Absorbed power (at propeller level) similar to Out power) Louis 






Thanks Mike, that's exactly my thinking. Therefore, for electric motors, that's power out to the prop, or power 'absorbed' by the prop.
I've still been researching and can't find anything that is explaining APC's data. It doesn't match my data for the latest '0.45 inch' thick hubs for the 12x8E, which is much, much lower in power absorption than the data on the APC site. I tried to find what year the site data is for or what iteration, but I can't find that info. As I posted earlier in the thread, there have been a lot of changes over the years. I have quite a bit of my own collected data on the various iterations of the APC 12x8E over almost two decades and I can clearly see three breaks in the data created by different iterations of this same designated prop. 





Hi Ken,
The power from the APC prop data is shaft power. For the APC 12x8E, they give Cp = 0.0741. If you take air density rho = 1.225 kg/m3 (standard atmosphere), diameter D = 0.3048 m, n = 9000 / 60 = 150 rev/s, and 1 hp = 745 W, then you have shaft power : P = rho.Cp.n3.D5 = 1.225 * 0.0741 * 150^3 * 0.3048^5 = 806 W this gives 1.082 hp. 





Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think APC and flybrushless.com are talking about the same kind of power, the input power to the prop as I think of it. Quite frankly, I cannot follow the math in your description above or the logic of it... Jack 






Thanks for all the input so far to everyone.
Sorry you couldn't follow my math Jack. Guess I didn't do well. My fault. Here's the problem I'm wrestling with. The following measured data was gathered on Dec. 14, 2014 in my basement. The elevation here in Walled Lake, MI, USA is ~287m and the temperature in the basement was ~14.2 degrees C. Sorry, I missed noting the barometric pressure that morning. The spreadsheet screen capture comes from one I use when testing motors. You'll see I use two different equations to mathematically approximate the watts out (Pout). I used my Emeter II to log the volts, amps and RPM. The Emeter II is calibrated to an optical tach and the volts and amps calibrated with a Fluke multimeter. The Emeter II data should not be off by much. I change the Emeter II logs to csv files on my computer so that I can view them in a spreadsheet. I was able to locate logs at exactly 9000 RPM for both props from the Emeter II files. One of the APC 12x8E props has a measured hub thickness of 0.39" and is an older design. The other is labeled exactly the same and has a hub thickness of 0.45". You'll note that both on the spreadsheet capture and the Drive Calculator captures, the 0.45" thick hub absorbs much less power at 9000 RPM than the 0.39" thick hub. You can also note that neither of these is even close to the APC data for the 12x8E prop. APC n100W 5281 0.45" hub n100W 5660 0.39" hub n100W 5404 Comments and help would be much appreciated. 





Ken, what is the "n100W" number that you talk about and where is it found in the APC data?






I have noticed difference in blade thickness between some APC 8x6E props (some are more dark when seen with sun light from behind), but without any other difference I could noticed.
I guess the two kind of 12x8 you noticed may have a small shape variation that can explain the variation in power (did you notice a variation in thrust also ?). The difference don't mean much, maybe just that one prop is stronger than the other, needing more power but also producing more thrust, with no big difference in efficiency. It can come from blade shape variation (thickness, chord length and blade area, airfoil, true diameter, or even pitch distribution along diameter). 





Mike Dubovsky
Ken, what is the "n100W" number that you talk about and where is it found in the APC data? The n100W number appears in Antrieb nach Maß. Auslegung und Optimierung des Elektroantriebes zum Flugmodell by Wilhelm Geck, January 1995 http://www.amazon.com/AntriebAusleg...sr_1_2?ie=UTF8 Only available in German Direct Google Translation of the book title: Drive to measure. Design and optimization of the electric drive for the flight model. How it is used: Power Out [Pout] = (measured rotational speed / n100W number)^3 * 100 n100W is the RPM that ‘absorbs’ 100 watts OUT. Note: there is NO direct relationship to the power in [Pin]. In the n100W notation, n is rotational speed [in this case revolutions per minute RPM] per 100 watts OUT! AKA power ‘absorbed’ by the prop. Both Aeronaut and APC having been using this number for a long time. The n100W numbers for APC props are located here: http://www.apcprop.com/v/downloads/P...st102014.asp The exact file is N100.DAT http://www.apcprop.com/v/downloads/P...S_WEB/N100.DAT Jeti has a compilation of these numbers from various sources at http://www.jetimodel.com/en/showfile/68/ As I previously noted, APC indicates that the n100W number for the 12x8E is 5281. The Jeti compilation notes it as 5243. Pout for the 12x8E at a measured 9000 RPM, using the APC n100W number is: (9000 / 5281)^3*100 = about 495 watts OUT to turn the APC 12x8E at 9000 RPM / means to divide ^3 is raised to the third power means to multiply For the n100W from the Jeti file: (9000 / 5243)^3*100 = about 506 watts OUT to turn the APC 12x8E at 9000 RPM There is not a big difference between the n100W number given by APC and Jeti and the difference could easily be explained by elevation and/or air pressure differences. This small difference does illustrate an important concept. The ‘lower’ or ‘smaller’ the n100W number is, the higher the output power is required to turn at the same RPM, and thus the higher the required input power. Example: RPM = 8000 APC 12x8E n100W = 5281 APC 13x8E n100W = 4798 Pout 12x8E (8000/5281)^3*100 = 348 watts OUT That means somewhere between 409 watts in [85%] and 464 watts in [75%] Pout 13x8E (8000/4798)^3*100 = 464 watts OUT That means somewhere between 546 watts in [85%] and 619 watts in [75%] The 75% and 85% efficiencies were picked for illustration purposes as they are somewhat typical for motors that would be turning this size prop. I think that I confused Jack by converting the watts OUT [Pout] to possible watts in [Pin] using the combined motor and ESC efficiencies of 75%, 80% and 85%. If a motor and ESC combination is 75% efficient, the Pout needs to be multiplied by the inverse of 75%. If a given number is 4, the Inverse of 4 is 1/4, that is 1 divided by 4, which not surprisingly is 0.25. 75% converted to a decimal number is 0.75. It’s inverse is 1/0.75 or 1.3333333 This 75% efficient motor and ESC combination requires 495 watts OUT * 1.3333333 or 660 watts in to turn the 12x8E at 9000 RPM proof: 660 watts in * 0.75 [the efficiency] = 495 watts OUT Using the same math yields the other watts in required for 80% and 85% efficient systems. At 80% efficiency, 619 watts in is required to turn the 12x8E at 9000 RPM At 85% efficiency, 582 watts in is required to turn the 12x8E at 9000 RPM This demonstrates why watts in, the one we normally measure, is not used. Hope this helps some Jack. 





Thank you, Ken, for taking the time to clarify that. I had not noticed that n100w file in the APC data.
I am wondering why the APC data show that it takes 1.082 HP or 807 watts to turn the 12 X 8E prop at 9000 RPM static, and the calculation using the n100W figure is 495W. 





Yes, that was my question.
To me, the APC data is not holding up well in practice or even theory. I am also wondering what iteration of a given prop the values are for. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, as the saying goes, but since they just recently reposted the data, it would have been nice to know that what is up there is for the most recent versions of the prop. It is bothering me enough to keep me interested in this. I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. It has been bothering me for more than a decade now. Back in 2005, Philip Connolly, Rod Badcock and I exchanged a long series of emails on this 'problem'. I ended up writing to APC and here is the reply that I received and forwarded to Phil and Rod. From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:01:17 EDT Subject: Re: 10x7E ThinElectric questions To: [email protected] The original prop (15 grams) met with disfavor due to interference with the larger spinners. The subsequent design have the blades shifted forward to fix this problem. Other thin electric props have been modified as well. All of our stock is up to date. Hobby shop inventories, (two years or so), might still have the old style. Regards, Fred Burgdorf 

Last edited by Ken Myers; Jan 28, 2015 at 12:39 PM.




I ordered a few 12x6 APC style props from hobby King that are supposed to be for electric for my flyzone beaver DHC2 and they are so much more thick than stock. Even the edges are not sharp. They are the tan colored ones. Does anyone know if these are ok to use. Should I sharpen them up a bit before balancing them???? Any knowledge on these props is welcome.






Missing Prop Pitch for Shaft Power
Hi,
This formula looks interesting for the shaft power  but I am missing the influence of the propeller pitch.... Quote:
P_shaft [W] = Pconst * (diameter/12)^4 * Pitch/12 * (rpm/1000)^3 Pconst according Motocalc (1.06....1.35) diameter and pitch in inch rpm in rev/min this formula consider the pitch but does neclect the air density roh ... cheers mike 






The pitch is included, or a part of, the Cp, coefficient of power.
The formula you note is from Bob Boucher's Astro Flight Electric Motor Handbook published in 1994, page 32. The factor, which you noted as Pconst (constant), changes with the prop manufacturer, series and even size in a given series of props. The range you noted for the Pconst, which is a Pvariable (Pvar), is not broad enough. Today's APC 12x8E has a Pvariable of about 0.84. 

Last edited by Ken Myers; Feb 13, 2015 at 08:41 AM.




Hi Louis,
Following the recent talks about multiblade propellers, I wrote an article on the subject. I hope my english is not too bad !!! http://aerotrash.overblog.com/2015/...ropellers.html A+ 





Hi Guillaume
1) Your english is pretty good 2) My opinion for "optimizing anything" is first to consider a parameter axis (criterion) Propulsive efficiency versus advance ratio is not always (IMHO) the best 2D space to consider 3) To decide if 2 or 3 or 4 or blades is the best solution, you have to make a complete reasoning and analysis of the "global mission" and to consider a "cost/value" analysis with all the components (plane, prop, motor, battery ..) Louis 


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Category  Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Yippee!  15% OFF Sail Propeller USA beech wood propellers!  TP Tam  Hot Online Deals  0  Aug 17, 2016 02:47 PM 
is a PUSHER Propeller is a "regular" Propeller ?  lempert  Beginner Training Area (AircraftElectric)  8  Jan 19, 2016 01:52 PM  
Sold  TTrees 2 Pair 9450 3Blade Propeller SelfLock CW CCW Propellers  frands1  Aircraft  Electric  Multirotor (FS/W)  1  Sep 28, 2015 10:57 PM 
propellers,propellers and more propellers  zicmu  Modeling Science  5  Jan 16, 2004 09:12 PM  
Propeller Clerance and Propeller Size  okan  Power Systems  1  Dec 30, 2002 12:08 PM 