NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

'

TECHNICAL NOTE
No. 1834

CASE F
THE INFLUENCE OF BLADE-WIDTH DISTRIBUTION ON PROPELLER CHARACTENSTICS
By Elliott G. Reid

Stanford University

Washington March 1949

NACA TN N o

. 1834
T A B L E O F

Corns
Page 1

L5uImmY

............................
.........................

INTRODUCTION

............................ A P P A R A T U S AND TECHNIQUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M O D E L S FZDUCTION O F D A T A

.......................

DISCUSSION Results of Force Tests Results of Wake Surveys Analysis of Influence of Width D i s t r i b u t i o n Independence of Blade Elements P i t c h D i s t r i b u t i o n and P r o f i l e s

. . . . . . . .. .. ..................... .. .. . .. .. .. .. . ........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables

1-7 ( ~ o r c e Test ~ a t a )

Tables 8-14 F i e 1

................. (wake Survey ~ a t a. )................. .........................

N A T I O N A L A D V I S O R Y COW=

F O R A E Z I O N A U T I C S

T H E INFLUENCE O F BLD&K~M!H DISTRIBUTION ON PROPEIUZ CHARACTEHTSTICS B y E l l i o t t G. Reid

SUMMARY
Combined f o r c e and wake survey t e s t s on three-blade model prop e l l e r s have been made i n the Guggenheim Aeronautic Laboratory of Stanford University t o determine t h e e f f e c t s of blade-width d i s t r i bution upon c o n s t a n t - s p e d e f f i c i e n c y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The blades of t h e various models d i f f e r e d widely i n plan a l l incorporated the same p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n and were of such a s t o make t h e i r a c t i v i t y f a c t o r s equal; a s a r e s u l t , a l l t h e exhibited s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l power-absorption c a p a c i t i e s pitch settings. form but widths model^ a t equal

The force t e s t r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e envelope e f f i c i e n c y curves f o r the several types of blades d i f f e r appreciably only at advance r a t i o s l e s s than 1.0 and g r e a t e r than 3.0; i n those ranges the envelope e f f i c i e n c i e s of t h e b e s t of t h e tapered blades a r e s l i g h t l y i n f e r i o r t o thoso of blades characterized by approximate uniformity of width. O n t h e other hand, t h e constant-speed e f f i c i e n c y curves (7 vs. v / ~ z f )o r f i x e d values of Cp) diverge s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s t h e advance r a t i o s a r e reduced below the values a t which t h e maximum e f f i c i e n c i e s occur. A t these reduced advance r a t i o s , and a t a l l values of power c o e f f i c i e n t equal t o o r g r e a t e r than 0.1, Slades tapered from broad r o o t s t o narrow t i p s a t t a i n e d g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c i e s than did those of r e l a t i v e l y uniform width. However, a t power c o e f f i c i e n t s appreciably l e s s than 0.1, the untapered blades were found t o be somewhat more e f f i c i e n t than tapered ones a t a l l advance r a t i o s . Similar, and only s l i g h t l y smaller, differences of constant-speed e f f i c i e n c y were found when t h e continuously tapered blades were replaced by a compromise type i n which t h e r o o t width was reduced t o a p r a c t i c a l l y acceptable value. Analysis of t h e t h r u s t and torque grading curves i n d i c a t e s t h a t the more e f f i c i e n t operation of t h e tapered blades a t reduced advance r a t i o s i s the r e s u l t of a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of losing which augments the proportion of t h e t o t a l power input absorbed by the inboard elements which continue t o function e f f i c i e n t l y a s t h e outboard elements approach and exceed t h e i r s t a l l i n g angles. While the s p e c i f i c zause of t h e i n f e r i o r i t y of t h e tapered blades a t small power c o e f f i c i e n t s i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r , it i s apparent t h a t t h i s i n f e r i o r i t y might be reduced -

NACA TN No. 1834

i f n o t eliminated - by diminishing t h e thickness of t h e inboard sect i o n s of t h e tapered blades which was unnecessarily g r e a t a s a r e s u l t of the use of geometrically similar p r o f i l e s a t equal r a d i i i n models of d i f f e r e n t plan forms.
A n i n c i d e n t a l r e s u l t of fundamental ~ l i g n i f i c a n c econcerns t h e theory Despite it ~s previous apparent v e r i f i c a t i o n of blade -element independence by t h e r e s u l t s of experiments i n which only t h e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n was varied, t h e theory i s d e f i n i t e l y not substantiated by t h e wake survey data obtained with the present models of various plan forms.

Correlation of r e s u l t s from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n with those of preceding s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e incorporation of highly cambered p r o f i l e s i n propellor blades i s generally undesirable and t h a t the so-called "envelope" p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n does not possess the m e r i t s predicted by extrapolation of previous t e s t r e s u l t s . INTRODUCTION The o r i g i n of the. present i n v e s t i g a t i o n may be of more than usual i n t e r e s t because it i l l u s t r a t e s so c l e a r l y t h e perversive tendency of accepted p r a c t i c e s t o i n f i l t r a t e a f i e l d of knowledge and, a s t h e r e s u l t of long usage, t o achieve t h e undeserved s t a t u s of f e a t u r e s of s c i e n t i f i c a l l y proven m e r i t . I n 1943, t h e w r i t e r c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o c e r t a i n marked differences between t h e constant--speed e f f i c i e n c y curves f o r two model p r o p e l l e r s ~~hich in , h i s opinion, d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y only i n t h e plan forms of t h e i r blades. The minor influence generally ascribed t o t h i s design parameter l e d t o vigorous contrwvlrsy over t h e chief cause of t h e differences but t h i s , i n t h e end, proved inconclusive. However, the discussion d i d serve t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r a t h e r s t a r t l i n g f a c t t h a t , a f t e r 40 years of successful screw propulsion of a i r p l a n e s , t h e e f f e c t s of blade-width d i s t r i b u t i o n upon p r o p e l l e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s remained subs t a n t i a l l y unlsnown. Thus, both the plan f o m i n general use and the basic concept of width d i s t r i b u t i o n a s an unimportant design f a c t o r were seen t o have gained unwarranted acceptance

Recognition of t h i s l a c k of fundamental information, and of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of improvement by means h i t h e r t o unexplored, l e d t o the study described i n t h i s r e p o r t . This i n v e s t i g a t i o n was co~lductedunder the sponsorship and with t h e f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e of t h e National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics. A s e x i s t i n g information on the subject of plan-form influence i s l a r g e l y t h a t derived from t e s t s of fixed-pitch models (references 1 t o 8) and i s f u r t h e r complicated by v a r i a t i o n of t h e a c t i v i t y f a c t o r i n

NACA TN No. 1834

a l l cases, the present exploratory program had t o be based, i n the main, upon such inferences as could be drawn from the single aforementioned comparison. In t h a t case, two model propellers characterized by practically identical a c t i v i t y factors and barely distinguishable efficiency envelopes exhibited marked differences of constant-speed efficiency (rl a t Cp = ~ o m t a n t ) at reduced advance ratios. The one which developed the greater efficiencies i n t h i s range had blades i n which the width of the intermediate portion was substantially greater than t h a t of e i t h e r root or t i p , whereas the width of the inferior blades was much more nearly uniform. Upon the basis of these few facts, the models described i n the present paper were designed t o enable exploration of the e f f e c t s of continuous taper from root t o t i p and those of taper from an intermediate s t a t i o n toward both extremities.

disc area, square f e e t diameter, f e e t t i p radius, f e e t radius of element, f e e t radius r a t i o (rh)

(rr~~/4)

(see also definition of

a. )

width (chord) of element, f e e t

m a x i m thickness of element, f e e t
pitch angle of element, degrees (reference pitch angle of element, degrees (reference pitch angle of t i p element, degrees

- chord)
- lift
axis)

angle of yaw, degrees velocity, f e e t per second

lip stream velocity, f e e t per second

a x i a l component of

Vs
Vs
1+ a = r )

tangential component of

coefficient of induced a x i a l velocity (note:

NACA TN No. 1834

air density, slugs per cubic f o o t

r e l a t i v e air density (p/po)

u
S.P.

s t a t i c p l a t e pressure difference, pounds per square f o o t (q = 1.046 s.F.) qw = pw2/2

q = p@/2
El> E2

E = qw/q E

successive approximations of

r o t a t i v e speed, revolutions per second advance r a t i o

v/n~
Po

(V/S

= J)

s t a t i c p r e s s w e at upstream face, pcnmds per quar re f o o t s t a t i c pressure a t downstream face, pounds per squase f o o t . increase of s t a t i c pressure, p o ~ per ~ ssquare f o o t

P 1
LP
Pto

(pl - po)

t o t a l pressure in undisturbed stream, pounds per square f o o t t o t a l pressure at damstream face, pounds per square foot; increase of t o t a l pressure, pounds per square f o o t

Ptl
*pt

kt. -

pto)

A P 1 ,

AP2

successive a p p r o x h a t i o n s of

AP

pu

t o t a l pyessure on upstream1 tube of yaw head, pamds per square f o o t t o t a l pressure on downstream1 tube of yaw head, pcr~Jldsper squaxe f o o t yaw-head pressure difference, pounds per square f o o t
(P,

pa
p~

- Pd)

'with refersence t o t a n g e n t i a l v e l o c i t y normally imparted t o slipstream.

NACA TN No. 1834

ap,
K

value of yaw-head

-Pyo

i n undisturbed stream

constant

(K = pv/sin 2 $ )

t h r u s t , pounds torque, pound-feet pwier input, foat-pmnds per second

Q
P

'TO

integrated t h r u s t coeff i c i e n t 2 spinner t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t (~bsolute values; spinner t h r u s t i s a c t u a l l y negative.)

C T

t h r u s t coefficient

(T/pn2D4) ;

(CT = C T ~- mT)

c~

torque coeff i c i e n t 2

(Q/Pn2D9 ;

Q =

l*"(dCQ/~~ 0.15

&)

C~

p w e r coefficient efficiency

(P/pn3D5) ;

(cp

zrrcQ)

Il

(c~v/c~~D)

dT dQ Ile

t h r u s t of a l l elements a t r a d i u s torque of a l l elements at r a d i u s e f f i c i e n c y of element

r,
r,

po~mds pound-feet

A.F.

activity factor

%pper l i m i t nominal; i n t e g r a t i o n extended t o include e n t i r e a r e a enclosed by curve.

NACA TN No. 1834

Seven +blade, adjustabl4-pitch, mtal, model propellers of 2.80-foot f diameter were designed and constructed f o r use i n t h i s investigation. O these, six (models 1 t o 6) d i f f e r only i n plan form, that is, they have i d e n t i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s of p i t c h and t h e i r p r o f i l e s a t equal r a d i i a r e geometrically similar. Because t h e p r o f i l e s and p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n incorporated i n these models d i f f e r g somewhat, f r o m any previously t e s t e d under s b i l a r conditions, t h e t r a n s i t i o n type," model 7, which d i f f e r s from model 6 only i n p r o f i l e s , w a s added t o t h e s e r i e s t o enable correl a t i o n of t h e present t e s t r e s u l t s with those of p r e v i a s investigations. Examples of all six plan f o r m m e i l l u s t r a t e d by photograph ( f i g . 1 ) . The r a d i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s of blade width f o r models 1 t o 5 were obtained by systematic d i s t o r t i o n of one quadrant of an e l l i p s e . 3 The curves4 of f i g u r e 2 a r e defined by t h e equation? "basic" blad-idth

i n which 9 = coe-l(rD). The various a d e l s a r e characterized by t h s folluwing values of t h e exponents B and c:

c m e s f o r models 1 t o 5 (fig. 3) were obtained The a c t u a l blad-idth by multiplying t h e ordinates of each of t h e basic width curves by t h e constant required t o make t h e corresponding a c t i v i t y f a c t o r equal t o 92.4 which i s t h e value of t h a t quantity f o r t h e "conventional" plan k incorparated i n model 6 . he a c t i v i t y f a c t o r s were equalized with form t h e object of insuring, insofar as i s possible by t h e use of a simple design c r i t e r i o n , equal absorption of power by t h e s e v e r a l models ilnder comparable conditions of operation. The a r b i t r a r y d i s t r i b u t i d n of width i n model 6 is a l s o i l l u s t r a t e d by f i g u r e 3.

3The e l l i p s e w a s s e l e c t e d as a b a s i s only because it can be s o conveni e n t l y modified t o y i e l d t a p e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e desired v&riety. ' ~ n e q u a l s c a l e s have been used t o enELmce t h e resemblance between t h e b a s i c and a c t u a l width curves. h e n s = 1 and c = 0, (1) becomes t h e equation of a c i r c l e but t h e introduction of an a r b i t r a r y constant t o obtain normal width r a t i o s - t r a n s f o r m it i n t o t h a t of an e l l i p s e . b u t l o zsed f o r model 7; previously incorporated i n t h e mem3ers of t h e U - and %series of references 9 and 10.

NACA TN No. 1834

With,reference t o t h e various width d i s t r i b u t i o n s , t h e following f e a t u r e s a r e noteworthy: (a) 'The s e v e r i t y of continuous taper diminishes progressively

from model 1 t o model 3.

(b) Model 3 is of more nearly uniform width and has a broader t i p than t h e "conventional" model 6. (Note, hawever, t h a t t h e outboard portion of model 6 is wider than t h e shank.)
, 4, and 5 a r e more severely tapered than (c) The t i p s of models 1 those of t h e other models and differences between t h e width d i s t r i butions f o r these t h r e e a r e l a r g e l y confined t o t h e inner portions of t h e blades.

The thickness and p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r models 1 t o 6 a r e defined by f i g u r e 4; NACA l h e r i e s p r o f i l e s of 0.7 design l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t have been' incorporated throughout t h e lengths of these blades. M d e l 7 is distinguished f r o a n model 6 only by differences between t h e i r p r o f i l e s . Those of model 7 m e i d e n t i c a l with t h e ones used f o r t h e U- and E-series blades of references 9 and 10, t h a t is, l k e r i e s t i p s and r o o t s a r e separated by a c e n t r a l portion i n which Clark T p r o f i l e s a r e incmporated. The thickness- and p i t c k d i s t r i b u t i o n curves f o r m d e l 7 w i l l be found i n f i g u r e 4. The p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r all seven models i s t h e so-called "envelope" type; t h e equation of t h e t w i s t curve i s

The curve s o defined is t h e envelope of t h e t w i s t curves (pt pTt against x) f o r a l l p r o p e l l e r s of uniform design pitch.

During t e s t s , t h e hubs of a l l models were enclosed within a spinner of t h e form shown i n f i g u r e 5 and t h e apertures f o r t h e blades were sealed by c l o s e l y f i t t e d masks.
APPARATUS AND TECHNIQUE

The experimental work, which w a s conducted i n t h e 7.3-foot wind tunnel of Stanford s Guggenheim ~ e r o n a u i tc Laborat m y (reference 11) consisted i n making r o u t i n e force t e s t s and complete surveys of t h e wakes of a l l seven models, each of which w a s t e s t e d , successively, at

NACA TN No. 1834

six p i t c h angles. The f o r c e and s l i p s t r e a m pressure o b s e r v a t i w were nzde sFmu1tanemsl.y.

Models were driven by t h e customary propeller dynamometer (reference l l ) , which w a s improved, p r i o r t o t h e present t e s t s , by some refinement of its shrouding and by t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of automatic e l e c t r i c balances f o r t h e manually operated ones previously used f o r t h r u s t and torque measurement
*

The character and general arrangement of t h e wake survey apparatus is i l l u s t r a t e d by f i g u r e s 5 t o 8. The combined total-head and yaw tubes were i n s t a l l e d i n 3 r a d i a l rows of 1 0 tubes each; 1 row extended v e r t i c a l l y ab0t.e t h e propeller s h a f t while t h e other 2 were symmstrically arranged a t angles of 45' below t h e horizontal. Corresponding tubes of each row were located at equal r a d i a l distances from t h e s h a f t axis and t h e t i p s of all tubes were 0.0m behind t h e plane of t h e blade axes. Recognition of t h e extreme s e n s i t i v i t y of survey-determined thryst and torque t o nonuniformity of t h e dynamic and t o t a l pressures of t h e of carrying t h e r e f inundisturbed stream? indicated t h e d e ~ t i r a b i l i t y ment of f r e e s t r e a m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o t h e l i m i t of p r a c t i c a b i l i t y and then minjmizing t h e e r r o r s due t o r e s i d u a l nonuniformity by averaging multiple observations of t h e s l i p s t r e a m pressures at each radius. Readsstment of t h e d e n s i t y of return-passage ssreens and i n s t a l l a t i o n of a boundary-layer-remo~al device a t t h e t i p o f t h e entrance deflector. r e s u l t e d i n small, but worth while, improvements i n v e l o c i t y and tot,al-head d i s t r i b u t i o n s a t t h e t e s t section. The ~ ~ X ~ M U I Uvaria t i o n of t h e circumferential averages of t h e t o t a l heads at e i g h t points on each of a s e r i e s of concentric c i r c l e s having r a d i i of 4.5 t o 22.5 inches w a s reduced t o 20.006q, while corresponding v a r i a t i o n of t h e dynasnlc pressure w a s even smaller outside t h e 8 . 5 i n c h r a d i u s which appeared t o t e t h e l i m i t of spinner influenceO8 Three banks of yaw heads were then i n s t a l l e d and interconnected a s explained i n t h e following paragraph; t h i s mrangement enabled d i r e c t recording of t h e averages of t h e slipstream pressurea %t correspording po.i_nts of t h r e e r a d i a l l i n e s . The banks were spaced a t angular i n t e r v a l s of 135O, go0, and 135O t o preclude simultaneous impingement of t h e wakes of two or nore blades upon t h e survey i n s t m n t s . Ninety small copper tubes (0.090 in., O.D.; 0.030 in., I.D.) transmitted t h e preswnes f r o m t h e yaw heads t o a multiple manifold ( f i g . 7) which consisted of t h i r t y four-way connections. The t h r e e tubes

7 ~ i ~ c u i~n ~ reference e a 10. 8~etween r a d i i of 8.5 and 4.5 inches,

increases by 2.5 percent.

NACA TN No. 1834

communicating with corresponding elem3nts of t h e t h r e e yaw heads at each r a d i u s were interconnected a t t h e manifold and t h e average press.De w a s transmitted t o a s i n g l e column of t h e recording manometer by a tube attached t o t h e remaining branch ~f each f o p w a y connection. The yaw- and total-head tubes used i n t h e s e t e s t s are, themselves, t h e r e s u l t s of soclewhat extensive research. In reference 10, t h e f a i l u r e of coiiventional shielded total-head tubes t o function s a t i s f a c t o rily behind a s t a l l e d model was t e n t a t i v e l y ascribed, a f t e r strobczscopic otservation of t h e behavior of wool t u f t s , t o periodic interr u p t i o n of continuous flow throcgh t h e s h i e l d s due t o t h e occurrence of very l a r g e angles of yaw i n t h e highly turbulent wakes of t h e blades. It w a s a l s o suspected t h a t t h e range of angle of yaw within which such tubes give r e l i a b l e indications of t o t a l head might be appreciably reduced by f l u c t u a t i o n s of velocity, even i n t h e absence of d i r e c t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s . The t a s k of developing a total-head tube s u b s t a n t i a l l y f r e e of these d e f e c t s throughout t h e range of angle of yaw between -20 and 90' was theref ore undertaken and, a t t h e same time, improvement of t h e c a l i b r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e previously used type of yaw head w a s sought. The most s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s of t h i s a u x i l i a r y study m e summaf.ized as f allows. Tests of a shielded total-head tube o f conventional type showed t h a t , i n flow pulsating a t a frequency comparable t o t h a t of t h e passage of blades during model t e s t s , t h e ' r a n g e 09 $ w i t h i n which 6 0 ' t o one of Pt/q = 1.0 was reduced from t h e steady-flow value of f 250'. However, t h e e f f e c t of such pulsation upon t h e values of $ a t which pt/q = 0 was f o m d t o be p r a c t i c a l l y negligible. N o material improvemant was e f f e c t e d by a l t e r i n g e i t h e r t h e s i z e o f . t h e length-diameter r a t i o of a s h i e l d of conventional v e n t u r i form. 011 t h e other hand, t h e use of a highly cambered p r o f i l e f o r t h e venturi w : ~ 1 1 (type B, f i g . 9) w a s found t o be d e f i n i t e l y b e n e f i c i a l . b c h more s u b s t a n t i a l improvements were e f f e c t e d by t h e use of asymmetric s h i e l d s which, although unsuitable f o r s o m purposes, a r e e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r propeller wake surveys because t h e l o c a l angles of yaw which occur within t h e p o s i t i v e range of t o t a l t h r u s t a t t a i n 9 The f i r s t unsymmetric types investil a r g e values of only one sense . gated were n ~ d e from co~iventional v e n t u r i s h i e l d s by c u t t i n g off t h e i r ends obliquely and then restorling smoothness of t h e i n t e r n a l contours by hand-filing. The improved c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s obtained by truncating both ends at angles of TO0 with r e s p e c t t o t h e a x i s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 9 (type c), but t h e mechanical d i f f i c u l t y of accurately dtlplicating such ~ t n asymmetric s h i e l d discouraged i t s adoption. It was recognized t h a t

True everywhere except a t t h e bo-undizry o f t h e slipstream and erroneous t h e r e only when t h e t i p elements produce considerable negative t h r u s t .

10

NACA TN No. 1834

substantially identical characteristics might be obtained by oblique orientation of a spmmtrica1l.y shielded total-head element with r e f e ~ ence t o the axis of the yaw head but the probability of consequent adverse effects upon the calibration of the yaw head i t s e l f lllade t h i s alternative seem unattractive.
A stmltaneou~ solution of the problems of interference and reproducibility was f i n a l l y found i n the half-venturi shield which i s designated as "type D" i n f i v e 9. Sudh shields a r e readily duplicated by using formed reamers t o shape complete venturis which a r e then milled off t o t h e i r planes of symmetry, and they exercise no appreciable inFluence on the direction of flaw a t the t i p s of the yaw tubes. Moreover, they were found t o possess the best calibration characteristics of any type tested. The curve f o r type D shown i n figure 9 is applicable t o an isolated total-head tube of t h i s form, but the r e l a t i v e l y s l i g h t adverse effects of combination with the yaw head may be seen i n figure 10 where the calibration c m e s f o r t h e c o w plete prototype instrument are reproduced. The introduction of pitch angles a s great as flo0 had no perceptible effect upon the t o t a l pressure calibration, but, a t negative angles of yaw, the device i s somewhat sensitive t o changes of location of the shield with respect t o the total-pressure orifice.

lznprovement upon the calibration characteristics of the yaw heads used i n previous wake surveys (reference 10) w a s sought through a further study of t i p form. The e f f e c t s of bevel angle, diameter of bore, and width of f l a t a t the mouth of the bore were Investigated rather thoroughly and, although no spectacular improvement was effected, some benefits were obtained by changes of bevel and bore. Details of the farm of t i p incorporated i n the present yaw heads are given i n figure 10 where the corresponding calibration curve i s compared with t h a t of the older type.
A s the r e s u l t of unsatisfactory experience with yaw heads which consisted, essentially, of three small s t e e l tubes soldered together, the much more substantial design shown i n figure 10 was adopted f o r t h i s investigation. The photograph ( f i g 11) i l l u s t r a t e s how the separately fabricated t i p s and shield are accurately located by a j i v o h i n e d , solid brass body i n t o which they and the three pressure l i n e s a r e sweated. The body is l i g h t l y pressed i n t o the stout s t e e l tube stem and secured by a s e t screw. A shoulder on the stem r e s t s upon a spot-faced surface a t the mouth of a hole reamsd through the walls of the supporting tube t o insure correct location of the assembly; collapse of the s l o t t e d end of the stem under pressure of the anchming nut is prevented by a plug. Although t h i s construction involved considerable precision work, it proved eminently satisfactmy; no disturbance of the delicate pressure balance of the yaw hsads w a s detected during the e n t i r e investigation.

The technique of recording the wake survey data consisted i n photographing the multiple manometer with a 3 m l l i m e t e r camera. In addition t o total- and yaw-head pressures, a pressure difference of precisely known magnitude and one proportional t o the Qmmic pressure

NACA TN No. 1834

1 1

of t h e wind stream were imposed u p o ~ manometer columns a i i recorded i n each photogaph s o t h a t t h e records would be self-sufficient, t h a t is, e n t i r e l y determinate without reference t o t h e manometer l i q u i d density. linprovements i n illumination and t h e use of a f a e t l e n s permitted recording on Microf i l e f i l m at l/50-second exposure with f 2.8 aperture; negatives characterized by high c o n t r a s t a n d shmp meniscus d e f i n i t i o n were t h u s obtained. Such recormds warranted f u r t h e r refinement of t h e projection-measuring equipmnt described i n reference 10; a micrometer screw, equipped with d i r e c h r e d i n g , geared c o ~ n t e r s was substituted f o r t h e previously used vernier-read s c a l e s . The over-al.1 r e s u l t of t h e s s improvements was t o enable t h e s c a l i n g of pressure records t o be repeated with a n accuracy of kO.001q when q = 10 pounds per square f o o t and with inversely proportionate accuracy at smaller values of q. Perceptible i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s due t o t h e presence of t h e wake survey apparatus were s h a m t o be nonexistent by f a r c e t e s t s made before and a f t e r i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n .
TEST PROGE?AM

Ln accordance with r e g u l a r Stamford practice, t h e model p r o p e l l e r s of t h i s s e r i e s were t e s t e d a t f i x e d r o t a t i v e speeds and t h e advance r a t i o w a s varied by changing t h e airspeed. Each modolL was t e a t e d a t t h e following p i t c h s e t t i n g s and r o t a t i v e speeds:

Speed, rpm

2100

2100

1740

1470

1056

744

The airspeeds ranged from approximately 90 miles per hour down t o lowest values a t which s i g n i f i c a n t f o r c e readings could be obtained. Since t h e maximim h c h number a t t a i n e d by t h e t i p elements w a s approximately 0.3, t h e e f f e c t s of compressibility upon t h e t e s t r e s u l t s a r e considered t o be negligible.
A s has been customary i n t h e past, two complete f o r c e t e s t s (coilsisting of 1 0 t o 24 s e t s of observations) were made at each blade s e t t i n g a i d t h e advance r a t i o s u t i l i z e d i n one t e s t were staggered with reference t o those of t h e other. Wake survey d a t a were recorded simultaneously with each observatiorl of f o r c e d a t a during one of each p a i r of t e s t s . The number of manometer records s o made was unnecessarily large, but it w a s thus insured t h a t t h e l i m i t e d number required t o i l l u s t r a t e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s of blade loading would be a v a i l a b l e f o r reduction t o numerical and graphical f o r m . These records were
-

1C Boxlinal blade angles a t 0.75R; reference, chord.

12

NACA TN No. 1834

s e l e c t e d by reference t o t h e f o r c e t e s t cumes; t h e i r number varied from 6, when t h e p i t c h s s t t i n g was 12O, t o 14, when P = 60, REDUCTION O F DATA The f o r c e t e s t d a t a have been reduced t o t h e usual nondimensioml forms

and

I n t h e i r evaluation, t h e only corrections applied were those required t o a d j u s t t h e messixred t h r u s t s t o t h e values which would have prevailed had t h e pressure on t h e back of t h e spinner been exactly equal t o t h e s t a t i c pressure of t h e wind stream. The values of these corre.ztions (of n e g l i g i b l e consequence except i n t h e case of high p i t c h s e t t i n g s and l a r g e a d m c e r a t i o s ) were determined by calculations based on pressure observations. The constan-dspeed e f f i c i e n c y curves were constructed i n accordance with t h e method described in reference 9 and i l l u s t r a t e d by f i g u r e 27 of t h a t report. The wake survey records were transposed from photographic t o numerical form by means of t h e improved projectiozwmasuring appmatus o r i g i n a l l y described i n reference 10. This equipment enables d i r e c t t a b u l a t i o n of t h e slipstream pressures i n terms of dynamic pressure, t h a t is, P T 1 , r a t h e r than Ptl, is read d i r e c t l y from t h e projected record, These data, together with t h e r e s u l t s of'f'ree-strem yawand total-head c a l i b r a t i o n s , s u f f i c e f o r t h e evaluation of elementary torque and t h r u s t coefficien5s by use of t h e formilas

Complete d e r i v a t i o n s of these equations a r e given i n reference 10.

NACA TN No. 1834

13

For t h e evaluation of dcQ/dx, t h e experimentally determined values of Py were corrected by deductiori of t h e small amounts of yaw-headpressure unbalance recorded during f i n a l c a l i b r a t i o n s i n t h e undisturbed stream. These corrections, i n t h e cases of all but one of t h e groi:ps of f l e s s than 0.1' t h r e e heads, corresponded t o an average misaljneaent o and were accepted as p r a c t i c a l l y unavoidable because t h e i r elimination would have required p r o h i b i t i v e l y laborious adjustment

I n connection with t h e evaluation of dcT/dx, a t t e n t i o n is c a l l e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t AP is l e s s than AFT, t h e increase of t o t a l pressure caused by t h e propeller, and t h a t i t s value m a t be deduced from t h a t of t h e l a t t e r by a u x i l i m y c a l c u l a t i o n s .ll In reference 10, t h e difference

was approximated by assuming t h a t t h e induced a x i a l inflow v e l o c i t y which would correspond t o uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e mea~turedt o t a l t h r u s t prevailed at a l l points of t h e propeller disE. In t h e present calcul a t i o n s , E i s evaluated by a process of successive approximations ' wherein t h e a x i a l inflaw v e l o c i t y is deduced from l o c a l , r a t h e r than average, values. This nethod is outlined as follows. I n appendix I of reference 1 0 it i s shown t h a t

Since t h e values of (or 1/4r2) enables r = 1 + a and t h a t between r and hP a s follows.

r t h e evaluation of E. ( 1 t should be noted t h a t a is t h e a x i a l inflow f a c t o r . ) The r e l a t i o n s h i p furnishes t h e key t o t h e problem; it i s derived

.

Py and K a r e known, t h e determination of

By equating t h e a l t e r n a t i v e expr6ssions f o r t h e t h r u s t of t h e blade ele~ents at a given r a d i u s

/

"This refinement of previous p a c t i c e was introduced i n reference 10; t h e difference E (equation ( 5 ) ) r e p ~ e s e n t s t h e dynamic pressure which co~-respo;?dst o t h e t a n g e n t i a l v e l o c i t y of t h e s1ips.trea.m j u s t behind the propeller.

NACA TN No. 1834

d

t h e thrust-producing

pressure difference may be expressed as ~p = 2p$a(1

a)

( 91

'

whence

a2
Introduci%

- ap/2p$

= 0

(10)

AP

= &/q

= '&l~/p~~ equatian , (10) becomes

Theref ore

Selecting t h e poaitive s i g n s o t h a t

>

1 when A P

>

0,

and

Thus t h e l o c a l value of 1fir2 is seen t o be f u l l y determined by t h a t P by successive approximations can of AF. The method of evaluating A now be described i n d e t a i l . Taking an experimentally determined value of APT as a rough a p p o x i m t i o n of AP, t h e correeponding value of 1/4r2 is obtained from a curve of 1/4r2 against A P prepared by use o f equation (14). Introducing t h i s value i n t o equation ( 6 ) , along with t h e experimentally determined value of Py f o r t h e same s t a t i o n , a f i r s t approximation )s obtained. Subtraction of El from yields of E (i.e., E ~ i t h e f i r s t r e a l approximation of LIP ( i e , A P ) ~h~ process is now repeated by using aP1 f o r determination of a second approximation of 1/4r2; E2 i s then obtained by use of equation (6) and subtracted from .QT t o obtain 4. In a l l but cases which involve very unusual values of APT and Py, subsequent r e p e t i t i o n s of t h e process y i e l d values of A P indistinguishable f r o n t h a t of AP2. The method is, a c t u a l l y , not nearly s o l a b o r i m s a s might be i n f e r r e d f r o n i t s

NACA TN No. 1834

15

d e s c r i p t i o n because t h e l a c k of necessity f o r even a second approximation can frequently be determined by inepection.

A sample record and t h e corresponding computation sheet, which a r e reproduced as f i g u r e s 12 and 13, respectively, i l l u s t r a t e t h e reduction of a complete s e t of wake m v e y d a t a f o r a s i n g l e conditiorl of operation. The d a t a read from t h e photographic record a r e t h e values of PT1, PU, and PD' The values of PTO (which vasy s l i g h t l y with q) and those of aPy a r e obtained from t h e r e s u l t s of free-stream c a l i b r a t i o n s . The values of CTO and Cg (loxer r i g h t corner of computation s h e e t ) a r e obtained by i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e t h r u s t and torque grading curves. For comparison of t h e t k m s t c o e f f i c i e n t determined by d l r e c t (dynammeter) measurement with that deduced from a wake survey, CTO must be reduced

by t h e a m ~ u n t aTbecause m e y s give no m i c a t i o n of spinner drag.12

The c h m a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e seven models, a s established by r o u t i n e f o r c e t e s t s , a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 14 t o 20; each of these logarithmic c h a r t s d e p i c t s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of one model a t s i x p i t c h s e t t i n g s . The corresponding numerical d a t a w i l l be found i n t a b l e s 1 t o 7. Wake survey r e s u l t s a r e presented i n t h e f o r m of t h r u s t and torque grading curves. Each of t h e c h a r t s ( f i g s . . 2 l t o 32) contains t h e curves f o r models 1 t o 6 a t a s i n g l e p i t c h s e t t i n g ; f i g u r e s 33 and 34 pressnt s i m i l a r d a t a f o r model 7, t h e t r a n s i t i o n model which d i f f e r s from t h e others i n blade p r o f i l e s . In t h e i n t e r e s t of c l a r i t y , t h e d e f i n i t i v e points a r e shown on only two s e t s of curves but these examples ( f i g s . 25 and 26) may serve t o emphasize t h e f a c t t h a t t h e grading curves have been f a i t h f u l l y drawn through a l l p l o t t e d points a n d are, therefore, not t o be i n t e r p r e t e d as "faired r e s u l t s . " Since t h e s c a l e of these c b t s is n e c e s s a r i l y small and because t h e d a t a a r e believed t o be of p o t e n t i a l value f o r t h e analysis of vasiaus propeller problems, numerical r e s u l t s a r e a l s o presented i n t a b l e s 8 t o 14. DISCUSSION The recognized e f f e c t of s o l i d i t y upcn t h e constant-speed e f f i c i e n c y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of propellers made t h e p r i n c i p a l problem of designing blades f u r t h e present e x p e r k n t s that of insuring t h a t t h e moCels of various plan forms would absorb s u b s t a n t i a l l y equal amounts of po$er under s p e c i f i e d operating conditions. The s e l e c t i o n of e q u a l i t y of t h e a c t P > i t y
'*Fo~ discussion of correction and experimental d a t a r e l a t i v e t o drag of t h e spinner used i n these t e s t s , see reference 10, appendix 111.

16

NACA TN No. 1834

f a c t o r s as a design c r i t e r i o n a.ppeared t o be reasonably well j u s t i f i e d by empirical d a t a and, as no more dependable one w a s known, t h e blade widths were adjusted upon t h a t b a s i s .
*

The measure of success achieved is i l l u s t r a t e d by f i g u r e 35 i n which t h e power c o e f f i c i e n t s a t t a i n e d by models 1 t o 6, under conditions approximating those f o r maximum efficiency,13 have been p l o t t e d against p i t c h angle. In order t o avoid confusion, only t h e most widely separ a t e d curves a r e shown; t h e positions of t h e intermediate ones a r e indicated by t h e coordinates tabulated on t h e C h a r t . As t h e d u e s of Cp d i f f e r by l e s s than 10 percent a t all but +,he lowest p i t c h s e t t i n g , it is believed t h a t "effective s o l i d i t y 1 ' - as measured by power absorption a t maximum e f f i c i e n c y - has bean equalized t o an extent which precludes t h e a s c r i b i n g of any major difference between t h e characteri s t i c s of t h e various models t o t h i s saurce. Thus blad-idth distribution must be accepted as t h e primary, i f not exclusive, cause of any consequential v a r i a t i o n of properties revealed by t h e t e s t r e s u l t s . Examination and a n a l y s i s of t h e t e s t d a t a may well be prefaced by comparison of t h e r e s u l t s of f o r c e t e s t s and wake surveys. Whereas r e l a t i v e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y agreement between f o r c e and survey t e s t s has been obtained i n previous work involving propellers of small and moderate p i t c h (references 1 0 and 12), t h e only surveys which have been made of t h e wakes of high p i t c h models l e f t much t o be desired (see f i g s . l2 t o 19, reference 10) In f a c t , under conditions of fully s t a l l e d ope* a t i o n at high p i t c h s e t t i n g s , t h e disagreement w a s s o serious that even t h e q u a l i t a t i v e significance of t h e corresponding t h r u s t and torque grading curves appoared doubtful. In t h e present instance, improved apparatus and technique y i e l d t h e g r a t i f y i n g r e s u l t s i l l u s t r a t e d by f i g u r e s 36 t o 38; these c h a r t s p e r t a i n t o t h e extremes of t h e plan-form s e r i e s and include one v a r i a t i o n of' p r o f i l e , t h a t is, i n model 7.

It w i l l be seen t h a t t h e power c o e f f i c i e n t s determined by wake surveys a r e in excellent agreement with f o r c e t e s t r e s u l t s under a l l conditions and t h a t such discrepancies of t h r u s t a% do occur a r e of r e l a t i v e l y small magnitude a n d a r e confined t o t h e lowest ranges of advance r a t i o s . With reference t o t h e t h r u s t discrepancies, examination w i l l r e v e a l that, except in t h e case of model 7, t h e systematic deviation which occurs a t low advance r a t i o s with small and medium p i t c h angles disappears when t h e s e t t i n g is increased t o 4 8 O and 60'. This obvimxsly precludes a s c r i p t i o n of t h e e r r o r s t o blade s t a l l i n g ; t h e i r probable source is indicated by t h e following tabulation.
13~he p l o t t e d values of C p a r e those a t which t h e experimental curves 1 which appears of Cp against v / ~ D i n t e r s e c t t h e s t r a i g h t l i n e 1 on each of t h e logarithmic c h a r t s ( f i g s . 14 t o 1 9 ) . This i s t h e "Line I" m e d i n analysis of t h e r e s u l t s presented i n references 9 and 10; it c l o s e l y approximates t h e locus, i n t h e v / ~ D ,Cp plane, of the points of maximum constant-speed efficiency (afl/a~= 0 ) f o r (see f i g . D, propellers with t h r e e blades of a c t i v i t y f a c t o r 92.4. reference 9 . )

NACA TN 30.

1834
MAXIMUM

~~ OF EF'3XCTTCTE TOTAL

PRESSUIiE

AT MINIMUM A D T C W C E RATIOS OF WPXE SUIiVEYS

Since t h e values of AF2 m e i d e n t i c a l with those of t h e l o c a l Froude t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t s (cT1= T / ~ A ) , it is c l e a r t h a t t h e discernable e r r o r s of thrust determination occur i n conJunction with high s t a t i c pressures in, and severe contraction of, t h e slipstream. It may prove d i f f i c u l t t o eliminate wake survey e r r o r s under such conditions as these. The cause of t h e t h r u s t discrepancy i n t h e case of model 7 at t h e 60' s e t t i n g is, as yet, undetermined. Since t h e r e ~ l u l t sf o r model 6 e x h i b i t a similar p e c u l i a r i t y , plan form, r a t h e r than p r o f i l e , would appear t o be i n so4w way r e s p o w i b l e but t h e b e t t e r agreement obtained blade shanks, has thus far balked with model 5 , which a l s o has =row a l l attempts a t analysis. With t h e s e l i m i t e d a3ld r e l a t i v e l y minor exceptions, t h e agreement between f o r c e and survey t e s t r e m l t s is seen t o be of such q u a l i t y as t o warrant confident acceptance of t h e wake data. Results of Force Tests I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e e f f e c t s of varying t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of blade width i s best begun by examining t h e fixed.-pitch c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i l l u s t r a t e d by f i p e s 14 t o 19 . 1 4 One consistent difference betweon t h e propertien of' conventional and taperen 'blades is appment at t h e o u t s e t . The curves of CT and Cp against Q / ~ D f o r t h e tapered blades (models 1, 2, 4, and 5 ) r i s e t o higher values before f l a t t e n i n g off and remain higher a t reduced advance r a t i o 3 than do t h e correspondi~-2 curves f o r t h e blades of more nearly uniform width (models 3 and 6 ) . It w i l l a l s o be noted t h a t t h e CT curveo f o r models 3 and 6 at t h e higher pi.t;cli s e t t i n g s a r e distinguished by more p~ominentpeaks, and by aeeper valleys adjacent thereto, than a r e t h e corresporlding ctuzpes f o r t h e %apered blades.

1 4Nobe t h a t model 7 i s excluded from these comparisorm because its blade p r o f i l e s d i f f e r from those of m d e l s 1 t o 6.

NACA

No. 1834

When t h e e f f i c i e n c y curves f o r equal p i t c h s e t t i n g s a r e compared, t h e uniformity of t h e i r peak values can h w d l y f a i l t o be s u r p r i s i n g i n view of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s of power- and t h r u s k u r v e f o r m just notea. Such uniformity, however, does not characterize t h e shapes of t h e e f f i c i e n c y curves f o r t h e various models. The t y p i c a l change of form which r e s u l t s from t h e introduction of pronomced t a p e r i s best 1 and 6 a t t h e 60' s e t t i n g ; t h e i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e curves f o r n ~ d e l s e l e v a t i o n and s t r a i g h t e n i n g of t h e l e f t s i d e of t h e curve i n t h e case of model 1w i l l be apparent upon inspection of f i g u r e s 14 and 19. Some f u r t h e r differences which m e not apparent i n t h e logarithmic c h a r t s a r e brought out by t h e Cartesian p l o t s ( f i g . 39). There it w i l l be seen t h a t , i n t h e u n s t a l l e d range, t h e slopes of t h e curves of
CT

and Cp against Q/ID a r e almost imperceptibly a f f e c t e d by changes of plan form. O n t h e other hand, t h e s e p a r a t i o n of t h e curves i n d i c a t e s a marked e f f e c t of blade-width d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e values of t h e advance r a t i o a t which Cp and CT would become zero. This e f f e c t , completely neglected i n designing t h e blades f o r equal power absorption, is s u f f i c i e n t t o account f o r p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of t h e differences i l l u s t r a t e d b y , f i w e 35. The cause of t h e aforementioned separation is r e a d i l y deduced from t h e t h r u s t (or torque) grading curves. Reference t o f i g u r e s 2 1 t o 32 s.hows t h a t t h e angles of a t t a c k of t h e outer elements w i l l be negative, and those of t h e inner ones positive, when t h e t o t a l t h r u s t is zero.l? Consider, now, a model with blades of uniform width operating at t h e advance r a t i o f o r zero t o t a l t h r u s t . If blade a r e a were taken from t h e neighborhood of t h e t i p s and an equivalent amo~mtadded near t h e r o o t s , t h e e q u a l i t y of p o s i t i v e and negative t h r u s t components would be destroyed, t h e t o t a l t h r u s t would become positive, and a n increase of advance r a t i o would be required t o r e - e s t a b l i s h t h e i n i t i a l condition of equilibrium. The tapered blades t h e r e f o r e a t t a i n zero t h r u s t and torque a t l a r g e r advance r a t i o s than t h e ones of uniform width when both types Lest it be suspected t h a t t h e have equal p i t c h s e t t i n g s at x = 0.75. separation of t h e curves f o r models 3 and 6 is inconsistent with t h i s explanation, t h e reader i s r e f e r r e d t o f i g u r e 3 where it w i l l be seen t h a t model 6 i s a c t u a l l y distinguished by s l i g h t "reverse taper," t h a t is, t h e average width of t h e outer half of t h e blade is g r e a t e r than t h a t of t h e inner one.

I k s p i t e of a l l t h e differences which have been pointed out above, it i s shown i n f i g u r e 40 t h a t the e f f i c i e n c y envelopes f o r models 1 t o 6 are appreciably sepaxated only at very l a r g e and very small advance r a t i o s . (In order t o avoid confusion i n t h i s chart, only thove curves which define t h e upper and lower limits of t h e group a r e shown; numbered auxi l i a r y l i n e s i d e n t i f y t h e poaitions of t h e others.) The maximum ordinates

5An unavoidable consequence of tho- use of t h e envelope t w i s t curve.

NACA TN No. 1834 of all six curves are between 0.85 and 0 . 8 6 . Since there is reason to believe that more nearly complete coincidence would have resulted if a more conventional pitch distribution had been incorporated in these models, it is hardly surprising that the results of early propeller tests -which were appraised almost exclusively upon the basis of maximum efficiencies - were interpreted as indicating that blade-width distribution had an inconsequential effect upon propulsive efficiency.

1 9

In striking contrast to the envelope curves, figures 4 1 to 45 reveal very substantial effects of plan-form variation upon constantspeed efficiency. In each of these charts, curves for model 6 are repro-duced as a basis for comparisons. It will be seen at once that, as in the case which gave rise to this investigation, the effects of blade width distribution are confined to advance ratios less than those for maximum efficiency and that their magnitude increases with that of the Power coefficient* At Cp = 0.05, the smallest value for which efficiency curves have been constructed, model 3 is very slightly superior to model 6, whereas all the others are somewhat inferior. At larger power coefficients, the efficiencies of models 3 and 6 are practi. 1 0 , the beneficial effects cally indistinguishable. However, at Cp = 0 of taper are clearly apparent and, as Cp continues to increase, the , 2, 4, ar-d 5 - exhibit increasing superiority tapered blades - models 1 over the conventional type throughout the ranges of reduced advance ratios. These divergences between corresponding constant-speed efficiency curves are the more notable because the peaks of corresponding curves are practically indistinguishable except i n the case of the smallest power coefficient.
Of the four models which are superior to the conventional one, it will be noted that two (models 1 and 2) have blades which taper continuously from root to tip, while those of the other pair (models 4 and 5) are of the doubly tapered type, that is, their widths diminish from intermediate stations toward both root and tip. It will, therefore, be of interest to identify the better plan form of each type. By conparing the curves in figure 41 with those of figure 42, the efficiencies of model 1 will be found to exceed those of model 2; a similar comparison of figure 44 with figure 45 will establish the superiority of model 4 over model 5. It thus.appears that the wider blade of each type is the more efficient.16 In order to summarize the most significant results of the force tests, typical constant-speed efficiency curves for models 1 and 4 have 161t is, of course, equally true to say that the one with the narrower tip, the more severe taper, or the broader root is the better; the number of models included in the present series was insufficient to enable positive identification of the most influential plan-form characteristic.

20

NACA TN No. 1834

been superimposed upon corresponding curves for madel 6 in figure 46. An auxiliary logarithmic scale has been placed alongside the curves for Cp = 0.5 to enable convenient appraisal of the advantages of one type over another. Its use is illustrated by the dotted lines which show that, at Cp = 0.5 and V / ~ D = 1.5, the replacement of model 6 by model 1 or 4 would have the result of augmenting the efficiency - and available tkust horsepower - by one--third or one-fourth, respectively. Although the advantages of the tapered plan form diminish as the power coefficient becomes smaller, it is worth noting that they are still apparent at advance ratios less than 0.6 when is only 0 . 1 0 . Another feature worthy of note is the substantial para1 elism of corresponding efficiency curves in the range of small advance ratios; as the coordinates of the chart are logarithmic, such parallelism implies the maintenance of a constant relative superiority throughout the take-off and low-speed climbing ranges.

Cf

When the foregoing results are viewed from the standpoint of practical applicability, it appears almost certain that the root width of model 1 will be considered prohibitively great for incorporation in a modern constantdpeed propeller. On the other hand, this objection is not applicable to model 4, which clo~elyapproaches the performance of m~del1 . ~urthermoreit would appear reasonable to anticipate that further development of plan form characterized by limited root widths will lead to substantial reproduction, if not improvement, of the characteristics of model 1 . In this connection, attention is called to the ilnnecessarily great thickness of the inner sections of the heavily tapered blades. Corresponding elements of models 1 to 6 were made geometri,cally similar with the object of reducing the number of variables capable of influencing the test results; however, it should be duly noted that the practically allowable reductions of thickness in the cases of the tapered blades would certainly have beneficial effects upon their performance characteristics. Consequently, the merits of these unorthodox plan forms have been demonstrated under a handicap which would not have to be accepted in practice. Results of Wake Surveys While the consequences of varying the distribution of blade width are clearly shown by the force test results, the underlying causes of these effects are to be found only by analysis of the wake survey data, which were recorded with that principal objective in view. However, since the present surveys are considerably more comprehensive than any made heretofore, it would appear appropriate to preface the analysis by some comments upon the general character of the results of this major phaae of the investigation.

A birdts+ye view of the principal effects of advance ratio and pitch setting upon the distributions of thrust and torque over blades

NACA TN No. 1834

21

of conventional plan form may be obtained by inspection of figures 33 and 34, which contain the grading curves for model 7.l7 Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of these charts is the marked similarity between the forms of corresponding thrust and torque curves for the larger advance ratios, that is, those for completely unstalled operation. The advent of stalling is indicated by the disappearance of similarity between correspanding curves and is most marked in the outer portion of the blade. In this connection, it will be noted that there is a general tendenzy for the torque curves to expand radially, that is, to have substantial positive values at, and even beyond, x = 1 . 0 as the advance ratio is reduced at the higher pitch settings. By comparison, it will be seen that the corresponding tendency on the part of the thrust curves is relatively slight. At their inner ends, the slopes of both the thrust and torque curves increase as the advance ratio diminishes and it is worth noticing that the increase continues even after the tips stall. The usual outward displacement of the peaks of the grading curves with the increase of pitch setting and decrease of advance ratio will be observed; it is, of course, most apparent in the curves for small pitch settings which are characterized by considerable regions of negative thrust near the tips. The tall, narrow peaks at the tips of a few of the torque curves are seen to be associated with negative thrust o n the outer portions of the blades; it is believed that they indicate the existence of sharp discontinuities of tangential velocity at corresponding radii. A particularly noteworthy model 7 is the irregularity of x = 0.8. As a transition from occurs there, the irregularity of section. feature of the grading curves for their forms in the neighborhood of Clark Y to NACA 16-series profiles of the curves is ascribed to the change

Turning now to the grading curves for models 1 to 6 (figs. 21 to 32), it may facilitate interpretation to keep in mind the fact that the curves for models 3 and 6 - which have blades of nearly uniform width - appear at the right-hand side of each chart, whereas those for models 1 and 4 - which have the narrowest tips - are shown on the left. The characteristic effects of plan-form variation upon the radial distributions of thrust and torque are illustrated very clearly by 7 and 2 8 , which correspond to a pitch setting of 370. BY figures 2 scanning the charts from left to right, it will be seen that the curves (2articularly those for large advance ratios) are modified in qualitative accordance with the variations of blade width. The peaks of the curves and the centers of gravity of the areas which they enclose are shifted toward the tips as the width of the inner portion of the blade 17~radingcurves for all six of the related models (models 1 to 6) at a single pitch setting appear in each of the preceding charts (figs. 2 1 t o 3 2 ) . This arrangement was chosen to facilitate visualization of the effects of plan-form variations under comparable conditions of operation.

22

NACA TN No. 1834

is diminished and that of the tip increased. The shapes of the curves are even more radically altered at reduced advance ratios. While the phenomenon of stalling appears to have a relatively small effect upon the division of the total torque between inner and outer portions of the blades, a masked influence upon the corresponding distributions of" thrust will be observed. The result is an augmentatian of the dissimilarity between the grading curves for blades of canventional and tapered forms

Inspection of the charts for other blade angles reveals that the phenomena associated with stalling tend to disappear as the pitch setting is reduced and to become accentuated as it is increased. It will be apparent, however, that, in the absence of stalling, the character of the modifications of thrust and torque distribution caused by changes of plan form is not seriously influenced by pitch setting. These two features are emphasized to call attention to their consistency with the results of the force tests, that is, the influences of blade-width distribution are confined to advance ratios less than those at which maximum efficiency is attained and they increase with power coefficient. Analysis of Influence of Width Distribution The conditions under which substantial differences between the constant-speed efficiency characteristics of the various blades occur can be identified by noting, in figures 41 to 45, the largest values of v/nD at which such differences are apparent - at given values of Cp - and then locating the corresponding points (v/nD, Cp) on the fixed-pitch 9 ) . When this is done, it will be seen performance charts (figs. 14 to 1 that constant-9peed efficiency divergence accompanies or follows -but never precedes - the sharp changes of slope of the curvet; of Cp wainst occur as the advance ratio is reduced. ~ / z l which ~
As the flattening of the Cp curves is caused by progressive stalling of the blades, it is evident that variations of plan form might influence the performance characteristics by altering the radial extent of stalling under given operating conditions, by redistributing the loading in such fashion as to alter the consequences of the stalling of a given portion of the blade, or by a conibination of the two effects. Appraisal of these possibilities is facilitated by consideratian of the definition of the efficiency of a blade element

This indicates that, at any given advance ratio, the relative efficiencies of the elements of a blade are directly proportional to the ratios of corresponding ordinates of the appropriate thrust and torque grading curves.

NACA TN No. 1834

23

In the light of this index, the previously mentioned similarity between the thrust and torque grading curves for large advance ratios and the contrasting lack of resemblance between those for small ones become highly significant because the dissimilarities are of such character that marked reductions of efficiency over the outer portions of the blades are clearly indicated. An unmistakable example of such indication will be found in the grading curves for model 6 at the 37O pitch setting (figs. 27 and 28). If it is now tentatively assumed that the outer elements of all the blades experience comparable reductions of efficiency as stalling progresses with reduction of the advance ratio and that their inboard elements operate at approximately equal, and much higher, efficiencies, it is clear the blades in which the inner, more efficient, elements absorb the larger fraction of the total torque input will develop the greater total thrust and higher over-all efficiency. In order to test the validity of this hypothesis, the radial distributions of torque and efficiency for blades of various plan forms must be examined under comparable conditions of operation.

A case in which large differences of constant-speed &fficiency are known to develop at reduced advance ratios has been chosen for illustra, against x for tive analysis. In figure 47, curves of dC /dx and 7 0Qhave been plotted for three models 1, 4, and 6 at pitch settings of 60 operating conditions. The curves of the upper pair of charts in this figure correspond, as closely as the recorded data permit, to the canditions under which maximum efficiency is attained by each model. Those . 8 of the middle charts correspond to advance ratios which approximate 0 of those for maximum efficiency, while the lower pair depict the distributions which prevail at approximately 0 . 6~(7-)

A general reduction of efficiency with decrease of advance ratio is evident in the differences between the upper and middle sets of efficiency curves but it will be noticed that the curve for each model has been depressed almost uniformly. However, the further loss of efficiency which occurs with reduction of the advance ratio to o . ~ J ( ~ is ~ ~seen ) to be highly nonuniform and, although the curves for the three models deviate more under this condition than at the larger advance ratios, all are characterized by serious reductions of efficiency over the outer portions of the blades and by relatively slight ones over the inner parts. When these efficiency curves are interpreted in conjunction with the corresponding ones of torque distribution, the principal reason for the ) at reduced advance ratios superiority of the tapered blades (models 1 and 4 becomes unmistakable. With the tapered blades, a relatively large portion of the power input (total torque) is absorbed and converted into thrust at relatively high efficiency by the inboard elements, whereas, with blades of nearly uniform width, the fraction of the input absorbed by the efficient inner elements is much smaller and that inefficiently utilized by the stalled outboard elements is correspondingly augmented.

24

NACA TN No. 1834

Charts similar to figure 47 have been prepared for the sane models at smaller pitch settings but are not reproduced herein because they merely illustrate, in diminishing degree, the relationships brought out 0 ' blade angle. Whether due to the most clearly by the curves for the 6 improved accuracy of survey under those conditions or to other causes, the curves of elementary efficiency for the lower pitches are less 0 ' ones. Furthermore, it irregular and more nearly coincident than the 6 should not escape notice that the curves of figure 47 are not strictly comparable because models 1 and 4 are characterized by somewhat larger power coefficients at maximum efficiency with the 6 0 pitch setting than is model 6. Therefore, equalization of the power coefficients and advance ratios at which comparisons are made would bring the efficiency curves into closer coincidence than that illustrated by figure 47. Thus the suggested hypothesis based on redistribution of loading has been qualitatively confirmed and it would appear to be useful as an approximate quantitative Vasis for predictian of the probable effects of other plan-form variations. 1ndepe.ndenceof Blade Eleme.nts The independence of blade elements predicted by Glauert (reference 13) has been substantially verified, insofar as the variation of pitch distribution is concerned, by the results of two previous investigations (references 1 0 and 1 4 ) . However, in discussing the results presented in 0 , the writer expressed doubt that similar canfirmation would reference 1 be obtained if plan form, rather than pitch distribution, were varied. Data obtained in the present experiments have therefore been examined with that question in mind and some comparative curves which appear significant are presented in figure 48. The widths of the blades of models 1 ,2 , and 6, as may be seen in . 8 0 . The values figure 3, are equal when x is slightly greater than 0 of the thrust coefficients for these elements of equal chord have been read from the correspanding thrust grading curves and are plotted against 8 . It will be seen that the advance ratio in the upper chart of figure 4 curves for these identical elements of the three models of different plan form exhibit consistent differences. The analogous curves in the lower chart of figure 48 indicate the existence of even larger discrepancies in the case of comparable elements of models 3 and 4 . It will be noted that the separations of the curves are greatest at the smallest pitch settings; for that reason, and because of their greater irregularity, results for the larger pitch settings are not included. The forces on other pairs of identical elements located at smaller distances from the axis than those of figure 48 have been compared and, as might be expected, the discrepancies are generally s~mewhatless than those for the outboard elements. No entirely satisfying explanation of the discrepancies revealed by 8 has yet been evolved. It is evident that, under identical figure 4
-

NACA TN No. 1834

25

conditions of operation, the outer elements of tapered blades develop smaller thrusts than do the corresponding ones of blades in which the width is nearly uniform. This, it will be noted, is the reverse of the relationship between the total thrust coefficients for the same blades. (see fig 3 9 .) The possibility that the discrepancies originate in differences of pitch setting is thus excluded. But since direct analogy with monoplane wings would lead to the expectation of larger, rather than smaller, forces on an outboard element of the tapered blade, the explanation of these results must await further analysis.

The net result of this critical examination is, however, unmistakable. The principle of independence is seen to be inapplicable at least to the outer elements of blades which have different plan fomna. Pitch Distribution and Profiles The envelope pitch distribution incorporated in the models used for the present experiments was selected on the basis of the extrapolations summarized in figure 39 of reference 9. The expected characteristics were realized under some conditions of operation but not under others. Models designated 0.4E, 0.6~, and 0.8~ have been tested previously (reference 9); the designations indicate that the twist curves of these blades have ordinates 0.4, 0 . 6 , and 0.8 times those of the envelope twist curve defined by equation ( 2 ) . Model 7, the transition model of the present series, is the 1.OE meniber of that family. The effects of this further increase of blade twist are illustrated by figures 49 and 50. Figure 4 9 shows that the maximum ordinate of the efficiency envelope is, in accordance with expectations, somewhat greater for model 7 (1.0~) than that of model 0.8~, but the extent of the depression of the lefthand portion of the curve is surprisingly great. These characteristics are reflected in the constant-speed efficiency curves of figure 50 where another, and unexpected, shortcoming of model 7 is revealed. This is the serious loss of efficiency which occurs when the advance ratio is reduced at large power coefficients. Reference to figure 39, reference 9, will show that the efficiency of a 1.OE model at CP = 0.5 and V / ~ D= 1.71 was expected to be approximately 54 percent; the value actually realized under these conditions is only about 44 percent. It thus appears that blades of both uniform design pitch and envelope types suffer severe losses of efficiency under the conditions associated with climb at high power when the pitch distribution is such as to make the geometric angle of attack very nearly uniform over the entire length of the blade. To be sure, the constant-speed efficiency curve for model 7 degenerates rather suddenly as Cp increases from 0.4 to 0.5 but the relationship between the two families of curves in figure 50 leaves no question that, except for a slight advantage of peak efficiency, model 7, with its 1.OE pitch distribution, is generally inferior to model 0.8~.

NACA TN No. 1834

Figure 51 illustrates the results of replacing the Clark Y and (small design lift coefficient) 16-series profiles of model 7 1 8 by the 16-series profiles of 0 . 7 design lift coefficient which characterize . It is apparent without detailed examinatian that this models 1 to 6 change neutralizes the greater part of the adverse effect produced by adoption of the envelope pitch distribution, but it is also evident that use of the more highly cambered profiles has reduced the maximum efficiencies attained at all power coefficients. As the loss of peak efficiency is most serious at small power coefficients and as the divergence of corresponding curves increases with the advance ratio in all cases, it would appear almost certain that excessive profile drag at small lift coefficients is the source of this undesirable effect. Consideration of the foregoing results leads to the canclusian that the twist incorporated in these models was too great to yield optimum characteristics and that m e of approximately 0 . 8 ~form is most suitable for the blades of constant-speed propellers which are to be utilized over wide ranges of power coefficient and advance ratio. Further, it would appear that the use of such highly cambered profiles should be avoided unless it is absolutely essential to the suppression of shock stalling in heavily loaded propellers. It appears possible that the preceding considerations m y have created the impressian that the inferior pitch distribution and high-cauiber profiles of the models used for these experiment3 have enhanced the opportunities for demonstration of the potential benefits of plan-form modification. The reader who entertains such misgivings may quickly dispel them by comparing the constant-speed efficiency curves of model 6 with those of model 0.8E (figs. 50 and 51); he will find them incansequentially different except in peak height. Thus, the characteristics of the conventional type used as a basis of comparison throughout this discussion are not appreciably inferior, as regards efficiency at reduced advance ratios, to those of one characterized by more suitable profiles and a better pitch distribution. In view of this fact, most of the superiority, at reduced advance ratios, of the constant-epeed efficiency curves for models 1 and 4 over those of model 0 . 8 ~(figs. 4 1 , 44, and 50) can only be ascribed to the influence of blade-nidth distribution.

The most important result of combined force and wake survey tests on three-blade model propellers is the demonstration that blade-width distribution has a marked influence on the constant-speed efficiency characteristics of propellers. 18~1soincorporated in all members of the E-eeries.

NACA TN No. 1834 The envelope efficiency curves for the types of blades tested differ appreciably only at advance ratios less than 1 . 0 and greater than 3.0; in those ranges, the envelope efficiencies of the relatively straight blades are slightly superior to those of the tapered ones. However, the constant-speed efficiency curves diverge substantially as the advance ratios are reduced below the values at which maximum efficiencies occur. At these reduced advance ratios, and at all values of power coefficient equal to or greater than 0 . 1 , blades tapered from broad roots to narrow tips attained greater efficiencies t h m did those of relatively uniform width. At power coefficients appreciably less than 0 . 1 , untapered blades were found to be somewhat more efficient than tapered ones at all advance ratios. Similar, and only slightly smaller, differences of constantspeed efficiency occurred when the continuously tapered blades were replaced by a more practical type characterized by a considerable reduction of width close to the root. The more efficient operatian of the tapered blades at reduced advance ratios is ascribed to a redistribution of loading which serves to minimize the absorption of power by the outer elements - which become very inefficient as they stall - and to correspondingly augment the fraction of input which is efficiently converted into thrust by the unstalled, inboard elements.
A n incidental result of fundamental importance is the failure of the present wake survey data to confirm the theory of blade-element inde-pendence. It is noted that apparent verification has been accomplished by previous experiments in which only pitch distribution, rather than plan form, was varied.

Correlation of the present results indicates that highly cambered profiles propeller blades and that the so-called is inferior to one derived therefrom by angles of twist.

with those of preceding studies are not generally suitable for "envelope" pitch distribution proportionate reduction of the

Stanford University Stanford University, Calif., May 25, 1946

NACA

No. 1834

REFERENCES

1. Watts, Henry C.: The Design of Screw Propellers f o r Aircraft. Longmans, Green and Co. (London), 1920, p 71.

2. Durand, W. F.,

and Lesley, E. P.: Experimental Research on Air Propellers, V. NACARep. No. 141, 1922. General Proceeding i n McGraw-3illBook Co.,

3. Munk, M a x M.: Notes an Propeller Design-IT: Design. NACA TIT No. 96, 1922.

4 . Weick,
Inc

., 1930,

Fred E.:

A i r c r a f t Propeller Design. pp. 116-117.

5. Glauert, H.:

Airplane Propellers. Vol. IV of Aerodynamic Theory, div. L, ch. I., sec. 3, W. F. Durand, ed., J u l i u s Springer ( ~ e r l i n ) ,1935, p. 176.

6. Lock, C. N. H., and Bateman, H.:

Wind Tunnel Tests of High P i t c h Airscrews. P a r t 1 1 . Variatians of Blade Width and Blade Section. R. & M. No. 1729, B r i t i s h A.R.C., 1936.

7. Hartman, Edwin P., and Biermmn, David: The Aerodynamic Charact e r i s t i c s of Four Full-Scale Propellers Having Different Plan Forms. mACA Rep. No. 643, 1938.

8. Von Mises, Richard: Theory of F l i g h t . Inc , 1945, p. 294.

McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

9. Reid, E l l i o t t G. : Studies of Blade Shank Form and P i t c h D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r ConstantSpeed Propellers. NACA TN No. 947, 1945. 10. Reid, E l l i o t t G.: Wake Studies of Eight Model Propellers. TN NO. 1040, 1946.
1 1 . Lesley, E. P.:

NACA

Tandem A i r Propellers.

NACA TN No.

689, 1939.

12. S t i c k l e , George W.: Measurement of t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l and Total Thrust and Torque of S i x Full-Scale Adjustable-Pitch Propellers. NACA Rep. No. 421, 1932. 13. Glauert, H.: The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory. Press (cambridge), 1926, pp. 211-212. Univ.

14. Lock,

C. N. H., Bateman, H., and Townend, H. C. H.: Experiments t o Verify t h e Independence of t h e Elements of an Airscrew Blade. R. 91 M. NO. 953, B r i t i s h A.R.C., 1924.

NACA TN No. 1834

TABU 1.- FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 1

'0.75~ - 60'
T e s t E-1

Test E 2
11

V/~D

c~
0.7766 .8318 .8651 8973 .8863 8553 .8332 ,8140 .7978 -7777 7473 7157 6930 6753 .6702 .6746 .6743 .6773 -6736 6763 .6708 .6700

C~

v/m
3.804 3.664 3.508 3.357 3.219 3.078 2.936 2.794 2.648 2.491 2.349 2.221 2.078 1.938 1.796 1.648 1.503 1.364 1.215 1.074 927 -792

C~

C~

3.724 3.580 3 473 3.301 3.162 3.004 2.866 2 715 2.582 2.419 2.281 2.136 1.993 1.856 I.. 706 1.550 1.425 1.284 1.148
1.001

.871 -733

0.1511 1756 1903 .2127 .2194 .2224 .2261 -2295 2319 .2251 .2134 .2022 1917 .1848 .1837 .1836 .1838 .1852 1855 .1870 .1862 .1865

0.725 .756 .764 .782 .783 .781 .778 .765 .751

.TOO

.651 .603 .551 .508 .468 .422 .388 .351 .316 .277 .242 .204

0.7396 -7950 .8446 ,8902 .8907 .8679 .8404 .82O6 .8043 .786O .7626 -7335 -7053 .6818 .6727 -6707 .6727 .6720 6717 .6721 6731 .6666

0.1390 .1608 .I827 .2061 .2163 .2215 .2245 -2307 -2329 .2288 ,2210 2095 1975 1897 .1852 .184'7 .1862 1859 .1866 .1886 .1896

.la1

0.715 .741 759 777 .782 .786 7q4 .785 .767 0725 .681 .634 582 539 .494 ,454 .416 377 338 300 .260 .225

Po. 75R = 48'

Test E-3 2.708 2.643 2.529 2.425 2.32'; 2.227 2.121 0.1811 .2084 .2577 .3021 .3482 3913 ,4196 0.0442 0573 .a17 1035 .1252 .1464 .1682 0.660 .727 .801 .831 .836 .833 .850 2.585 2.485 2.373 2.276 2.171 2.070 1.963 Test 0.2366 .2756 3252 -3718 .406g .4223 .4230 0.0726 .ogoo ,1141 ,1388 .1589 1739 .1807 0.794 .811 ,833 ,850 .848 .852 .836

30

NACA TN No. 1834

TABU 1.- FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 1 - Continued

' \

0 ' 7 5 ~

37O Test E-6

C

Teat E-5
v/n~
CP CT ' I

v/n~

CP

C~

' I

1.786 1.702 1.634 1.570 1.494 1.415 1.348 1 277 1.204 1.124 1 055 967

.?I@

.836 .762 ,694 .617 555 -477 .407

0.1140 ,1428 1633 1930 .2198 .2381 .2443 .244g .2468 .2500 2563 .2640 ,2702 2779 -2837 ,2914 3015 .3091 3158 3236

0.0503 .0689 .0844 .lo52 .1254 .1418 .1516 1591 .1665 1753 1839 .1884 .1888 .lgo4 1934 ,1981 .2056 .2103 .2149 .2204

0.788 .821 .844 .856 .852 .843 .836 .830

.812

.788 ,757 .6go .636 573 519 .472 .421 378 325 277

1.806 1.741 1.670 1.600 1.526 1.452 1.386 1.312 1.231 1.160 1.088 1.016 .g41 .865 796 725 655 584 513 437 .387

0.1025 1273 1513

.1802

.PO93 .2332 .2430 .2444 .2447 .2476 2507 .2587 .2671 .2728 .2808 .2878 .2960 3047 .3122 .3204 3245

0.0426 0587 0753 0954 .1176 1369 .148g .1560 .1626 1707 1783 .1861 .1894 .1881 1915 1959 .2017 .2078 .el25 .2182 .2210

0.751 .802 .831 .847 857 .852 .84g -837 .818 .800 774 731 .667 596 543 493 .446 398 349 .298 .264

0 '

7%

270
T e s t E-8

Test E 7

1.293 1.232 1.169 1.108 1.037 .980 917 857 *794 732 675 .613 552 .4go .424 372 3 6 *

0.0434 .0648 .0807 * 0990 .1187 1332 .1454 .1504 .1510 .1498 .1506 .1516 1558 .1617 .1714 .1784 .1866

0.0207 0397 .0561 0749 0952 .1122 ,1291 1397 .1.466 ,1526 .1593 .1672 1759
.1822

.1861 .1880 1919

0.618 .754 ,813 .838 .832 .825 .814 796 771 .746 .714 ,676 .623 552 .460 392 .314

1.247 1.187 1.126 1.064

1.008

947 .885 .819 759 699 639 .582 519 459 398 334

0.0572 0745 0937 .UOg -1259 1394 .1484 1499 .14go 1497 .1512 .1525 1577 1655 ,1740 .1814

0.0339 .0512 .0694 .0874 .lo43 .1214 1354 .1440 .1502 .1568 .1648 .l?og -1794 1855 .1866 .1892

0.739 .816 833 839 835. .825 .807 787 .765 732 .696 .652 .590 .514 .428 .348
\

NACA

TN No. 1834
TABU 1 . - F O R C E TEST DATA; M O D E L 1 - Concluded

Test E-9

Test E-10

'0.75R
Test E-11

120

Test E-12

NACA TN N o . 1834
TABLE 2

.-FORCE TEST DATA;

MODEL 2

T e s t D-1

Test

T e s t D-3

Test

D-4

NACA TN

NO.

1834
TWICE 2.FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 2

33

- Continued

Test D 5

T e s t D-6

T e s t D-7'

T e s t D8

o .0546 0749 00930

o .0321

. no1 .1248
01374 .1428 01435 .1434 .1434 .1447 .1471 1523 01583 .1656 .1728

.0512 .0688 00873 .lo42 .1209 .1326 *I393 .1454 .1516 J583 .1651 01695 91739 .1762 1787

NACA TN No. 1834

TAB=

2.-

FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 2 -Concluded

T e s t D+

Test D 1 0

T e s t D-11

T e s t D-12

NACA TN NO. 1834

TABU3 3,

35

- FORCE TESP DATA;

MODEL 3

T e s t G-1

Test G 2

Test 6 3

3 6
TABU 3.- FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 3

NACA TN

NO.

1834

- Continued

Test G j

Test

G-6

Test

T e s t G8

70.0376 .0560 .~748 0.0179 00349 .0521

NACA TN

NO.

1834
TABLF: 3.FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 3

37

- Concluded

Test G-9

Test G 1 0

Test 0.0244 -0297 .0342 90379 .0420 .0444 0459 .0466 .Oh-@ 0475

Test 6 1 2
I

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 4.-

F O R C E TEST DATA; MODEL 4 Po 7~

=

60'
Test C 4

T e s t C-1

TInD
3.713 3 552 3.402 3 %268 3 0130 2 0978 2.835 2.693 2 577 2.442 2.291 2.113 1.976 1.823 1 699 1 . 559 1.419 1.278 1.136 987 .868 71.9
0

C~

C~

' I

V/IID

C~

7655 .&96 08659 -871.8 08439 .8113 7902 7735 .7618 7494 7190 6791 6577 .6416 .6416 .6381 .6441 .6421 .6431 .6502 .6552 -6513

0.1572 .1805 .2022 .2139 .2152 .2165 .2198 .2228 .2229 .2185 .2066 2900 .1812 J746 -1737 J719 01743 .1670 .1665 .I705 -1738 ~764

0.762 773 794 .802 798 795 789 -776 754 .712 .658 591 .544 .496 .460 .420 .384 332 .294 259 .230 195

3.658 3 a477 3 a345 3.200 3 -052 2-90? 2 776 2.630 2.490 2 -349 2.198 2.064 1.912 1.773 1.631 1.487 1.348 1.205 1.064 .920 792

0.7842 -8408 -8737 .8584 .8229 7994 .7822 7627 .7513 7327 .6923 .6703 6505 6457 .6423 .6451 .6468 .6440 .6502 .6537 6557

0.1641 .l904 ,2109 .2138 2159 .2193 .2213 .224o .2225 .2129 1974 .1867 .1794 1751 J734 .1753 *I755 -1657 .1698 A744 .1764

0 770 787 0807 0797 .801 797 * 785 772 *737 .683 .628 575 0527 .481 .440 .404 .366 .310 .278 .245 .213

$0 7% 3 Test C 2.634 2.540 2.432 2.335 2.232 2236 0.2033 .2483 2953 .33& -3771 .4027

48' Test
C-4

0.0563 0797 .lo08 .1229 2430 .1602

0. 729 .816 .830 .849 .846 .850

2.655 2.600 2.507 2.400 2 305 2.202

0

0.1974 2199 .2627 3071 e3538 .3913

0.0552 0657 .0841 .lo50 .1290 .1521

0.742 0775 .&3 .821 .841 -859

NACA' TN N o . 1834
TP;BLE

39

4 . -

FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL

4 - Continued

Tes

Test

c-6

T e s t C-7

Test

c-8

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 4.-

FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL

- Concluded

T e s t C-9

T e s t C-10

T e s t C-11

T e a t C-12

NACA TN No. 1834

41

Test F-1

Test F-2

Test F-3 0.1238 .1678 .2342 -2913 .3201 3656 * 3875 3906 3916 3945 3998 .4067 .4069 .4066 .4088 .4150 -4253 -4335 .4413 .4484 04551 -4596 4679 0.0293 .0436 0737 .loo0 .1145 1390 -1557 .1642 .17& .1784 .1851 1899 .1864 .I828 .I824 .1843 1873 .1902 1923 -1932 1953 1958 1985

Test F 4

42
TABLE

NACA T I ? No.

1834
*

5.- FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 5 - Continued '0.75~ = 37O

Test

F-5
C~

T e s t F-6

v/m
1.779 1.704 1.630 1.552 1.483 1.406 1 .337 1.262 1.189 1.119 1.046 973 899 .827 756 .683 .611 .541 .469 397

c~
0.0884

T 0.718 -793 .834 .847 .854 .852 ,840 .826 .808 .782 .743 .688 .618 558 505 .452 .402 354 305 .258

v / ~
1.798 1.734 1.661 1.591 1.515 1.442 1.371 1.292
1.222

C~ 0.0802

c~
0.0304 0479 .0676 0903 .llOg .l290 1375 1439 .1518 1587 .1680 .1748 -1776 1775 1790 .1828 .1881 .1921 1958 1991 .2029

.I201

.1506 .1811 .2074 .2226 .2244 .2290 .2341 .2427 -2507 2575 .2646 .2724 .2808 .28go 2970 3047 .3102
.2212

0.0357 0559 0771 0987 ,1195.1341 1398 ,1468 1557 1637 1725 1772 1770 .1786 .1820 1859 1903 .1g44 .1984 .2018

1.158 1.085
1.012

.940 .866 794 .720 .647 .576 .510 0435 ,341

=

1077 .1386 .1692 1957 .2174 .2219 .2229 .2269 -2305 -2375 .2452 2547 .2616 2675 2750 2855 ,2931 3003 3058 3129

0.682 771 .810 .84g 859 .856 .850 .834 .818 .797 767 .72l 655 588 531 479 .426 378 333 .283
.221

'0.75~
r e s t F-7

27O
T e s t F-8

1.285 1.223 1.160 1.098 1.039 .976 .914 .854 793 730 .669 .610 .546 .486 .424 372 .2g4
I

0.0320 .0516 0733 .0921 .lo88 .1244 .1346 1377 .1355 1365 1387 .141g .1467 1530 .1611 .1685 .1766

0.0122

0307 0497 .0696 .0869 1055 .1209 .1285 .1342 .I409 .1485 .1561 .1634 .1692 1727 .I748 .1784

0.488 .728 .787 .830 .829 ,828 .821 797 785 754 .716 .671 .608 537 455 .386 297

1.239 1 177 1.125 1.063

1.000

936 875 .812 754 693 633 572 513 .454 394 332

0.0468 .0696 .0851 .lo43 .1207 1317 .1360 1358 .1366 1385 .1406 .1462 1505 -1576 .1652 1729

0.0253 0459 .0624 .0820 .1160 .1262 .1318 .1386 1457 1533 .1620 .1666 1719 1739 .1762

.loo1

0.670 776 .825 .836 .829 .824 .812 788 765 729 .6go .634 .568 495 .415 338

NACA mT No. 1834

TABLE 5. - FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 5

=

- Concluded

'0.75~
T e s t F+l

lgO
Test F-10

'0.75~
T e s t F-11

= 120

T e s t F-12

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 6. - F O R C E TEST DATA; MODEL 6
' 0

755

60'
Test B 4

Test B-1

vim
3.695 3 ,577 3.428 3 -279 3.123 3.009 2.863 2.721 2 575 2.425 2.289 2.145 2.001 1.836 1.714 1.564 1.414 1.288 1.140 1.016 .858 .714

c~
0.6553 .7116 7538 .7619 .7401 .7189 .7021. -6879 .6813 .6774 .6528 .6173 5850 .5641 5599 5632 5650 .5762 -5909 -5940 5963 5987

c~
0.1309 1547 1757 .1867 .I928 .1928 1955 .1982 .2025 1977 .1831 .1627 1495 1398 1390 1357 .1321 1363 .I416 .1448 .I476 .1492

11

vim
3.603 3.448 3.303 3.161 3.029 2.886 2.749 2.606 2.451 2.309 2.178 2.036 1.897 1.760 1.613 1.473 1.335 1.183 1.060 .904 775
=

C~

C~

1 1

0.739 *779 .800 ,805 ,814 ,808 .797 .783 .766 ,709 .641 .567 .511 .456 .425 .378 330 .304 .273 .248 .212 .178
' 0

0.6988 .751.8 .7641 .7400 .7178 6990 .6914 .6843 *6734 6583 .6247 .5882 .5646 5557 5584 5594 5701 .5816 5859 ,5869 5897

0.1501 -1727 -1875 .1889 .1902 .lg40 .1981 .2017 1991 .1849 1679 .1508 .1416 U67 1363 .1318 -1333 .1381 .I419 .1444 1459

0.773 07-92 .811 .807 .803 .801 .788 .768 0725 .649 585 .522 .476 0433 394 347 .312 .281 257 .222 .192

75

48' Test B-4

T e s t B-3

2.623 2.588 2.490 2.386 2 .,295 2.186 2.078 1.984 1.892 1.789

-599

0.1562 .1736 .2152 .2586 .3016 3491 .3686 3709 3709 *3709 -3748 .3812 3823 3856 .3826 ,3864 3904 3956 .4016 .4113 4197 04303 4373

0.0414 .0485 .0684 .0876 .1103 1350 1503 1595 ,1642 .17& 1757 1794 -1737 .1687 .1642 .1634 .1650 .1650 .1667 .1694 -1725 1770 .1803

0.695 .723 .791 .8O8 .839 .845 .847 .853 .838 .823 789 .745 -674 .606 -553 .506 .460 .414 370 327 .287 .246 ,211

2.539 2.460 2.328 2.226 2.142 2.038 1.934 1.827 1.730 1.633 1 529 1.431 1.333 1.231 1.132 1.040 945 -843 743 .641 534

0.1916 2390 .2846 -3322 3635 3710 .3708 -3708 .3705 3769 .3824 .3841 .3828 3825 3865 3942 3991 ,4080 4157 .4262 .4362

0~567 ,0782 .lo15 .1267 .I452 1552 .1617 .1677 1723 .1782 .1762 ,1708 1657 .1629 .1640 1659 .1669 .1686 1713 1751 1798

0.751 .805 .830 .848 855 853 843 .826 .805 772 705 .636 577 .524 .480 .438 395 .348 306 .263 .220

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 6- - FORCE TEST DATA; MODEL 6

45

- Continued

'0

7%

37O Test ~b

Test B-5
~/nd
1.802

C P

V/m

C P

1.730 1.650 1.591 1 497 1 * 435 1.363 I.. 296 1.217 1.150 1.063
1.002

.928 -861 789 715 .643 573 .494 .429 378

0.0696 .0960 .1270 1513 .1813 .2031 .2107 .2123 .2150 .2176 .2222 2297 ,2348 .'i416 2495 2587 ,2643 02707 .2762 .2809 = 2839

0,0240 .041g ,0643

.o800

.lo24 ,1212 .1312 ,1381 .1448 .1520 1583 ,1637 .1631 ,1627 .1634 ,1666 1693 1727 1755 1775 1797

0.552 .756 .835 .841 .846 .856 .849 .843 .820 .803 .757 ,714 .645 579 517 .460 .412 .366 .314 .271 0239

1.744 1.675 1.610 1.542 1.469 1.396 1.326 1.250 1.177 1.107 1.037 .961 893 .819 749 -677 .605 537 .466 392

0.0941 ,1169 .1400 .1686 1939 .209O .2104 .el25 .2138 .2185 .2260 .2319 .2381 -2453 -2533 .2618 .2678 .2720 92773 .2837

0.0401 0555 .0721 0931 .1119 .1272 .1341 .I409 .1476 .1546 .1620 .1641 1633 .1632 .1652 .1683 1709 1737 1759 .1791

0.743 795 .830 .851 .848 .850 .845 .829 .813 783 743 .680 .612 -545 .488 435 .386 343 .296 .248

Po.
T e s t B-7

7c3

27'
Test ~ - 8

1.272
1.211

'

1.149 1.088 1.029 .967 907 .846 ,784 .726 .665 .608 .546 .484 .421 .366 .286

0.0282 .o472 .0650 .0826 .og80 1139 ,1246 .1264 .1267 ~276 .1288 .1316 .1361 .1416 .1464 1513 1597

0.0102 .0272 .0445 .0624 0792 .0980 .1132 .1209 ,1266 1329 1392 .1454 1507 1531 .I548 1572 .1621

0.507 .697 .788 .822 .831 .832 .824 .809 .782 756 719 .672 .605 523 .445 .380 ,290

1.246 1.187 1.127 1.063

1.002

939 879 .838 755 695 ,637 577 ,514 455 399 .326

0.0374 0547 .0722 0879 .lo48 .1196 .1258 .1265 .1271 .1274 .1294 -1338 .1388 .1446 .1491 1565

0.0177 0347 0507 .0684 .0872 .lo60 1173 .1241 .1298 1359 .1419 .1486 .1524 .1542 .1564 .1604

0.590 753 791 .827 .834 .832

.820

.812 .771 .741 699 .641 .564 .485 .419 334

NACA TN No. 1834

TAI3I;E

6.-

FORCE TEST DNA3 MODEL

=

- Concluded

0 '

7 5 ~

lgO
T e s t B-10

T e s t B--9

T e s t B-13

T e s t 3-14

NACA TN Wo. 1834

TABLE 7. - FORCE TEST DATA; M O D E L 7

T e s t A-1 V/~D

Test A S

Cp . 0.6214 6497 .6641 6795 6909 6957 .6960 6932

c~
0.1353 .1494 1595 1715 .1810 .1920 .I971 1991 .1898 1557 1356 .1201 .1145 .1136 .1147 .1183 .I243 .1288 .1321 1391 .1432

' l

Q/a
3.677 3.563 3.408 3.265 3.113 2.992 2.840 2.699 2.546 2.417 2.289 2.134 1.958 1.824 1.677 1.552 1.421 1.277 1.133 998 .862 707

C~

c~
0.1292 .1444 1569 .1684 1790 .18go 1947 1991 1977 1797 1495 .1301 .1160 ,1136 .1131 .I157 .1232 .1266 ,1312 1353 .l422 .I436

3.617 3 497 3 342 3.206 3.060 2.922 2 771 2.628 2.485 2 343 2.194 2.038 1 893 1 756 I.. 613 1.493 1.352 1.210 1.062 .914 787

.6&P

,6325 5785 5515 5358 5368 .5408 5545 5711 5850 5834 5905 5922

0.788 .804 .803 .809 .802 .806 .785 0755 .692 .577 .514 .444 .405 .372 .342 -319 .2g4 .266 .240 .215 .lgO

0.6423 6390 6570 6756 .6868 6956 .6g64 6958 .6904 .6634 .6092 5669 .5416 s 5348 5356 5443 5674 . .5712 05833 -5874

*5928 5918

Test A 3

Test A 4

48
T m L E

NACA TN No. 1834

O D E L 7 - Continued 7 . - FORCE TEST DATA; M

Tea

Test

Test

A 7
. 0 1 1 2

Test

1 . 2 8 3
1 . 2 2 1

.0'247

1 . 1 6 3
1 . 1 0 2

1.040 975 .914 .853 7 9 3 731

,673

.0444 .0606 -0758 0905

.lo31 . 1 1 1 1

.611 5 4 9 . 4 8 9 .428 .367 ,316

,1

1159 .1209 .1237 . 1 2 6 3 .1300 1379 1477 .1546 .1625 .1678

.0278 -0433 0589 0749 0899 .lo18 .1109

.1202

1279 1352 .1407 .1429 1439 .I481 1531 .1562

. 5 8 2 .765 .831 .856 .861 .850 837 . 8 1 6 .788 -756 .720 .661 5 6 9 .476 .410 . 3 4 6 .294

1.236 1.178 1 . 1 1 6 1 . 0 6 0 996 936 -875 .814 7 5 6 695 635 5 7 3 5 1 3 .456 3 9 2 3 4 3

.0368 0543 0707 -0837 0972 1075 .1132 . 1 1 8 3

.1211

. I & ? .1265 9 1 3 3 6 .1421 1493 1570 .1629

NACA TN N o . 1834
.

TABLE 7.- FORCE TEST DAYA; MODEL 7 - C o n c l u d e d

T e s t A+

T e s t A-10

59

T e s t A-11

T e s t A-12

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 8.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 1

NACA TN N o . 1834

TABU?, 8.- WAXE SURVEY D N A ; MODEL 1 - Continued

Thrust and torque dcT -

ax

dC&

d c ~
dx

dCQ
dx

~CT dx

dCQ
dx

dCT
dx

%
dx

0 909
0.20

0.856 0.012 .045 .078 .egg .081 .480

.008

0.810 0.015 .056 .og6 .116 .lo8 .073 .029 -.oo5 -.005
-,OOI

0.702 0.022
.082

.35 .48 .60 .71 .81 .89 .95

1.00

1.05

0.005 .034 .060 .069 .053 .olg -.018 -.036 -.006 -.003

0.001 .oo6
.ox0 .012 .ole

0.002 .oo7
.012

0,002
.008

0.003
.oil

.006

.ool
0

.004

-.016 -.004
-.002

0 5 .014 .oog .oo4

.002

.003

.ool o

.014 .017 .017 .012 .006 .oo3

.135 .163 .162 .125 .071

.022

.01g
.022 .022

.017
. 0 1 1

-.002
-.002

=,005

.oo1

,001

0.604
0.20

0 505

0.406 0.038 .114

.180

0.311 0.041 .I19 .189 .240 .265 .246 .081 .006 .002 0.004 .013 .021 .027 .029 .025 .016
.OO~ 0

.35 .48 .60 .71 .81 .89 .95

1.00

0.028 -099 .160 .1gg .206 .171 .lo6 .014

-.001

0.004 ,013 .021 .026 .026

.021

0.033 .lo7 .I71

.221

.014 .OO5

.241 .212 .146 -.OO2

-.001

0.004 .Ol3 .021 .027 .029 .025 .017 .003

.229 .258 ,244 .174 -.004

,001

0.004 .Ol3 .021 .026 .029 .026 .020

.002 .001

1.05

-.ool

.oo1

.001

.oo1

.001

.oo1

NACA TN No. 1834 TABLE 8.- WAKE SURVEY DmA; MODEL 1 - Continued

Thrust and torque

dCT dx
0.003 .021 .047 .066 .062 .038
.001 -.012

d c ~ 9 3 , dx dx

d C ~ 2% dx a x
1 , 169

d c ~ 2% dx dx
1.108

1 a 293 0.20

1.232
0
0.002

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 .95

LOO

0.005

.ou

.015
.olo o
.OX5 .005
.002 O

1.05

-.006 -.003 1.037

.033 .068 .og4 .093 .071 .037 .a08 -.008 -.002

0.001 .008

0 5
.020 .021

0.009 .044 .086 .118

.120

0.002
.010

0.015 .058
. 1 1 1

0.003
.012 .022

.017
.010

.og7 .060
.021

-.oo~ -.OU o -.006

.005

.018 .025 .026 .022 .015 ,008

.148 .150 .130 .085 .038

-.OU

.029 .031 .027 .018

.ole

.oo1
794 0.005 .018 .029 .038 .043 .041 .033
.021 -002 .002

-.oo4 0.613 0.038 .126 .207 .270 .300 ..293 .252 -.004 -.O03

o .oo1

0.917 0.024

0.20

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.019 .078 .138 .178 .188 ,168 .I15 .055

-.OO8

0.004 .014 .026 .033 .036 .032

.022 .012

1.05

-.005 0,490

o .ool

.172 .225 .250 .236 .177 ,090 .006 .006

.lo1

0.005 .018 ,030 .038 .043 .039 .029 .Olg

.OO~

0.029
. 1 1 1

.oo1

-.oo~
-.002

.181 .234 .267 263 .217 ' .Ogl

0.005 .018 .030 .039 .045 ,043 .033

.010

-.oo1

.002

.oo1

0.372 0.045 .143 .240 .335 .343 .252 .099 -.007 -.OO4
-.003

0.20

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 .95

1.00

0.045 .137 .225 .2g9 .327 .309 .261 -.015

-.002 001

0.005
.018

.031 .044 .O5l .Oh7 .035 .008

.002

0.006 .019 .034 .o50 .062 .052 .044

.008 .OO2

' .

1.05

-.

.ool

.ool

NACA TN No. 1834

53

O D E L 1 - Continued TABU 8.- WAKE SURVEY D A T A; M

NACA TN No.

1834

TP;BLE.8 . - WAKE SURDFY DATA; MODEL 1 - Continued

Thrust and torque

dx

2% dx

d c ~ dCg dx dx
2

d C ~
dx

5 cTx

5dxs

dCg dx

2 . 6 4 3
0 . 2 0

5 2 9

2 . 4 2 5

2 3 2 5

0 . 0 1 0

0~015 0 . 0 1 3

35 . 4 8 .60 7 1 . 8 1 8 9 9 5
1 . 0 0 1.05

.067
.lo0

.119 2 5
.lo2

. 0 6 8 .026 . 0 2 2 . 0 0 2 . O 2 7 . 0 1 2

.034 ,046 . 0 5 6 .055 .043 .033

.077
.123

.160 .160 . 1 4 6 .lo3 . 0 6 2

-.ou

. 0 2 5

0 . 0 1 6 0.021 0.017 0 . 0 2 4 .038 .egg .041 .lo4 .054 0 6 3 .178 .I57 . .068 208 .230 . 0 7 9 .070 .216 . 0 8 5 . 2 4 5 .060 . 0 7 6 234 . 1 9 5 .046 ,152 . 0 6 0 .186 .030 .088 ,039 .121 -.003 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 4

-.

0 . 0 1 8 . 0 4 5 .071
.ogl .loo

.094 .077 0 5 3
.003

-.ox0

-.013

2 . 2 2 7
0.20

2 . 0 2 1

I . . 8 1 9

1 . 6 2 1

35 .48 . 6 0 7 1 . 8 1 8 9 95
1 . 0 0 1.05

0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 9 0.034 0 . 0 1 9 0.033 0.018 . 0 3 5 0 .054 .156 . 0 4 9 .054 . 1 6 2 .050 . 1 3 9 .085 .204 .078 .231 ' 0 8 0 . 2 4 3 . 2 5 6 . 0 7 6 . 2 6 9 ,300 . l o 6 .320 .lo3 .lo2 .egg . 3 4 3 285 . 1 1 1 .317 .I17 .347 .118 .391 .124 .I14 .287 .lo7 . 3 1 4 .119 .131 .406 .354 . 0 8 9 .og6 . 3 2 6 .loo .log 243 4 .277 . 2 0 1 .170 . 0 6 5 .225 .178 . 0 7 3 . 0 7 9 .077 . 0 1 9 . 0 2 6 .007 . 0 2 9 . 0 0 5 .007 -.021 .OO~ . 0 0 8 .004 .003 -.ole . 0 1 4 .005 -.ou .004 0.028
,120

1.512 0 . 2 0

1 . 3 0 9

1 . 0 1 1

07 0 9

. 4 8 . 6 0 7 1 . 8 1 *8 9 9 5
1 . 0 0 1.05
+

35

. 0 1 6 0 0 . 0 3 6 0.017 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 1 6 0.047 0 . 0 1 6 . 0 5 5 0 ,164 5 .048 . 0 4 5 .182 .044 . 1 9 0 .044 .264 . 0 7 6 . 2 8 5 . 0 8 1 .088 .075 .327 . 3 7 2 . 3 6 2 .115 . l o 4 . 4 2 5 . 1 4 1 . 1 6 9 .554 .567 .120 .431 .132 .450 .147 .318 -197 -095 .382 . 2 6 3 . 1 1 1 . o g 6 236 .lo1 234 ,133 .170 .088 ,086 ,103 .I44 .131 .lo4 . 2 5 9 .148 . 0 6 4 . 0 6 6 .084 .061 .080 . 0 6 3 .087 .018 .026 . 0 0 9 .008 . 0 0 8 . 0 6 3 .072 , 0 1 9 . 0 4 2 . 0 1 6 0 .006 -.oog 0 . 0 0 5 -.003

NACA TN No. 1834

TABU

8 . -W m

SIlRW

DATA; MODEL 1 - C o n c l u d e d

rp0.75R = Thrust
and torque

6001
d c ~ dx
3 . 3 5 7 0 . 0 1 6 .204 . 3 1 0 398 390 .387 3 1 5 2 3 5 . 0 0 9 .olg 0 . 0 5 3 -137 ,190 . 2 2 1
.230

d c ~
dx

5 dx
0 . 0 6 0 . 1 4 2 . 1 8 5
. 2 0 0

dCT dx
3 508 0 . 0 1 9
. 2 0 0

dCQ dx

29 d x

5 ax
3 . 2 1 9 0 . 0 2 1 . 1 9 4 . 3 0 1 -391 3 8 7 3 6 9 3 1 9 . 2 4 0 . 0 1 6 . o x 7

29 dx
0 . 0 5 3 . 1 3 4 . 1 8 7 . 2 2 0 .228 . 2 1 2 , 1 7 9 . I 3 4
. 0 1 2

3 . 6 6 4
0 . 2 0

-35 .48 . 6 0 . 7 1 . 8 1 8 9 -95 1.00 1 . 0 5

0 . 0 2 1 . 1 8 5 .258 3 2 3 .322 -273 . 2 1 6 . 1 1 0 . O 4 2

. 2 o o , 1 6 3 . 1 3 2 0 9 5
0

. 0 0 5 2 . 9 3 6

,297 ,371 . 3 6 4 337 0 2 7 5 . 1 6 5 . 0 3 9

. 0 3 0

--o

0.058 . 1 4 0 .I88 .217 . 2 1 3 .188 . I 5 0 . l o 6

. 2 0 8 . I 7 3 . I 2 8 . 0 0 9 -004

. 0 1 2

2 . 7 9 4 0 . 0 4 7 . 1 2 5 . 1 6 9 . 2 0 3
. 2 2 0

2 . 6 4 8 0 . 0 0 3 195 .304 . 4 0 6 ,430 -433 -358 . 2 5 6 039 . 0 1 7

-0

2 . 4 9 1
0 . 0 0 2

0.20 3 5 .48 . 6 0 . 7 1 . 8 1 -89 95 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5

0 . 0 0 8 . 2 0 9 3 1 5 . 4 0 6 .418 .411 . 3 6 2 ,257 . 0 4 1 . 6 1 4

. 2 1 3 1 7 9 1 3 5 -010 . o x 0

0 . 0 0 6 . 2 0 6 3 0 9 . 4 1 2 . 4 1 8 .417 -349 . 2 5 6 . o h 9 . 0 1 9

0 . 0 5 0 . 1 1 7 159 . 1 9 6 .218 . 2 1 5 ,178 135

.O12

0 . 0 4 4 . 1 1 0 . 1 5 4 -193 . 2 1 5 . 2 1 8 . 1 8 7 . 1 4 0 . 0 1 4
.oil

.006

177 . 2 9 2 3 9 5 -439 . 4 3 0 3 3 4 . 2 1 8 . 0 2 9 . 0 3 1 1 . 5 0 3

0 . 0 4 1 , 1 0 0 . 1 4 6 . 1 8 8 . 2 2 2 . 1 8 5 . 1 2 9 . 0 1 5 . o 1 0

2.221 0 . 2 0 3 5 . 4 8 . 6 0 . 7 1 -81 8 9 9 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 4 . 1 8 6 , 3 1 6 .442 454 3 3 9 2 5 5 1 5 5 . 0 2 3 0 0 . 0 3 9 . o g l . 1 3 6 . 1 8 8 . 2 2 1 . 2 0 3 1 5 5 0 9 9 . 0 1 2

2 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 2 2 . 1 8 0 . 3 1 4 . 4 7 4 . 4 0 9 *255 1 7 5 097 . 0 3 7 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 3 6 . 0 8 6
.132

1 . 7 9 6 0 . 0 4 1 -195 358 -547 3 0 9 . I 9 1 . I 1 7 . O 4 6 . 0 1 5 0 0 . 0 3 3

. o m
. I 3 4
. 2 1 0

1 9 3 . 2 1 2 . 1 3 6 .092 . 0 1 9 . 0 0 3

.OM

,174 .147 . l l 9 . I 1 0 . 0 6 5
.olo

0 . 0 4 9 . 1 8 6 , 3 8 6 5 3 6 -181 -233 . 1 2 0 -039 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 5

0 . 0 3 0 075 ,. 1 3 6 . 2 2 3 . 1 7 8 . 1 4 7 . 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 . 0 9 8 . 0 2 6

1 . 2 1 5 0 . 2 0 3 5 .48 .60 -71 . 8 1 -89 95

1 . 0 0

0 . 9 2 7 0 . 0 1 7 1 9 0 . 4 4 O . 4 0 4 . 0 6 2 . 2 1 3 -199 . 0 8 8 . 0 2 8

0 . 0 4 7 -179 . 4 1 1 . 4 5 7 . 1 4 6 . 2 8 1 . 1 5 4 . 0 5 0 .028

1 . 0 5

0 . 0 2 8 . 0 6 9 . 1 3 7 .207 . 1 3 6 . 1 6 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 1 2 -095 . 0 4 6

0 . 0 2 7 . 0 6 6 . 1 4 2
. 2 0 1

1 3 5 . I 5 4 157 . 1 2 1 . 0 9 6 ,068

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 9

.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; dCQ dx

d C ~
dx

MODEL 2

Thrust and torque

dx

d c ~

5 dx
0.002 .oo6

, & -

d C ~

5 ax
0.002 .oo7
.ole .ole

0.603 0.20 .35 .48 .60 .71 .81 .89 .95

0.011 0.001

0 567

0.525 0.017 .058

1.00

.041 .063 .066 .042 ,004 036 -.054 006

.oo5 .oo7

1.05

-. -.

.oo6 ,003

.oo8
0

0.014 .o50 .076 .o80 .05g

.022

.088 .oog . .og6 .oo7 ,078

,004
,002 0 .ole

.oo8

.ool

.002

.on o

-.olg w.042 005 .003

-.

.03g -.003 -.031 005

.oog .006 .oo3

.002

-.

.oo6

0.488 0.20 .35 .48 .60 .71 .81 .89 .95

1.00

0,408 0.023
.080 .122

0,325
0.028

0.020

.067
,112

.lo1

.095 .057 .014

-.O2O 0

0.020 ,072 .lo7 .117 .lo4 .071 .042 a022

.139 .126 ,088 .040 -.006

0.062 .008 .012 .014 .013

.ole

-006

.086 .137 .165 .157 .116 .053

1.05
L

.oo1

.OO~ 0

m . 0 0 1 -.001

.008

0.002

.013 .016 ,015

,011

,008

NACA TN No.

1834

T A B L E

9.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 2

- Continued

Thrust and torque

d c ~

3 dx
o
0.004 .008
.oil

d c ~
d x

3 ax
0.001.

d C ~
dx

5 dLx
0.002 ,007 .013 .016 .016 .013
.008

dc~
dx

5 d x
0.003
.010

0 913
-

0.857 0.003 .034 .066 .085 .078 .054 .005

.ole

0.807 0.009 .Oh7 .089 .log .lo3 .081 .044 .006 -.005

0,707 0.019 .070 .118 .149 ,153 .133 .087 .037

0.20

-0.004
.020

35 .48 .60 71 .81 .89 .95

1.00

.046 .060 .048 .024

-.ole

.016
.020 .021 .018

-.032
-.012

.ool o

.oog .006 ,003 .007

,013 .013 .006 .004 .004

.ow

.o10

1.05

-.o05 0.605

-.OX -.008 -.002

.005
.002 -001

-.oo~ o
0.305

.013 .073

.oo1

0.505
.0ll

0.406 0.033 .093 .157 .205 .241 .254 .216 -.009

0 O

0.20

35 .48 .60 71 .81

*89 95
1.00

1.05

11
j
I

0.025 .087 .141 .183 .I97 .178 .131 -035

0

0.003 .018 .023 .O25

.022

; ; ;1
.OOl
I

.oo1

1I

0.030 .Og3 .150 .1g9 .234 .226 .178

-002 0

0.003
.Oil

0.003
.OlO

.017 .023
.028

.026
.020

.005
.001

.017 .023 .O27 .027 .023 .004

,001 0

0.036 .lo4 1 5 2 6 .251 .259 .190

-.021 -.002 0

0.003
.OlO

.017 .024 .027 .027 .023

.002 .001 0

.oo1

.oo1

NACA TN No.

1834

TABLE 9.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 2

- Conti.nued

Thrust
and torque

d c ~ dCQ ax dx
1.265

~ C T
dx

dCQ. dx

~ C T
dx

dCQ dx

~ C T ax

9 dx

1.218

1.156
0.001

1.093
0.010

0.20 35 .48 .60 071 .81 89 95

1.00

1.05

4 . 0 1 3 -0.001 -0.009 -0.003 -0.002 .013 .004 .021 0005 .033 .ole .043 .058 .012 .078 .016 .070 .089 olg .113 .017 .094 ,021 .122 073 ,060 .082 .015 ,019 .114 .OlO ,013 ,084 .037 -05.5 .011 .007 .023 .010 .047 o -.012 -.oog o -.006 0 0 -.oo~ 0 -.004

.007 .016 .024 .026 .025 .Olg .013

,051
.lo2

.143 .14g .I14 .069 -.007

-.002 1

0.002 .OlO .020 -028

.ool

.031 .029 ,023 .016

.001

.001

~ 0 3 1
0.20

0.gn 0.025 .088 .152 .207 240 245 .203 3 6 0.005 l .026 .034 .041 .041 .034 .025
.002 .002

789 0.005 .015 .025 .033 .041 ,043 .038 .031 .003
.002

0.615 0.034 .lo9

.182

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.018 0.003 .012 .067 .023 .I23 .031 6 9 .184 .035 .034 .183 .026 .144 . o g ~ .01g .ool -.003

1.05

.002

o o

0.030 .Ogg ,162 ,215 256 283 ,254 ,162

.244 .286 .307

.280

o o

.072
-.002

0.004 .015 .025 .035 .043 .043 .038 .028 .oo4

.002

0.484
0.20

0- 367

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 .g5

1.00

0.038 .117 .197 .276 .296 .304 .294 -.072 -.003

.002

0.004 .Ol5 .027 .041 .047 .045 .039 .023 .029

0.041 .I25 .223 .311 .2go

2

1.05

.oo1

.235 -.olg -.006

0.004 .015 .031 .047 .054 .051 .046 .015 .oo3

.oo1

NACA

TN No, 1834
T A B L E

59 9.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; M O D E L 2 - Continued

Thrust and torque

d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ dc~ dx dx dx dx dx dx dx
dx

1 . 8 0 5
0.20

1 . 7 4 0
0 . 0 0 2

1 . 6 6 9

5 9 5 0 . 0 0 5 . 0 1 6 .031 . 0 4 5 .053 .054 . 0 4 3 . 0 3 5

.O02 .003

4.007
.023

0 . 0 0 1 -0,003

35 .48 .60 71 . 8 1 8 9 95 1-00

1.05

.058 .092
.lo5

.008 .017 .027

.031 . 0 3 0

,030

. 0 7 1
.113

. l o 6 .082
.051
. 0 1 0

.128 .127
, 1 1 0

.024 .017
-.OO2

.070
-.OlO

0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 3 .012 . 0 4 5 .021 . 0 2 6 .097 .031 . 1 4 4 . 0 3 9 . 0 4 6 ,037 .168 . 0 3 6 .167 . 0 4 5 . 0 2 9 .142 . 0 3 8 .022 .027 . 0 9 4 . 0 0 9

0 . 0 1 2 .064 . 1 1 3 .168 . 1 9 0 . 1 9 9 . 1 7 2

.oo1

-.OOl

-a013

o
1 . 2 3 0

.123 -005 . 0 1 0

1 . 5 2 2
0.20

1 . 3 7 9

0 . 9 3 8 0.007
.023

.48 . 6 0 7 1 .81 8 9 95
1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5

35

0.006 0.027 0.008 0.027 0.008 0.036 .071 . 0 2 0 .024 . l o 9 .025 .122 . 0 9 5 0 3 6 ,164 .041 .134- . . 2 0 9 .I77 . 0 3 9 ,228 . .051 .194 .242 .054 0 5 5 .303 .222 ,262 .061 . 0 6 6 285 . 0 6 6 .351 . 2 3 6 . 0 6 3 .290 .071 .070 .315 .352 ,210 ,267 .064 .064 . 2 9 l .322 .055 .152 .043 ,219 .268 .054 . 0 5 5 . 2 5 5 . 0 1 6 . 0 0 3 -.007 ,005 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 6 . 0 0 3 -.006 .003 003 .004 002 .004 -.004
0 . 0 2 0

. 0 3 9 .061 . 0 7 9 . 0 7 9 . 0 7 3 .060
.ole

-.

-.

.oo4

0 . 7 2 3
0 . 2 0

0 . 5 1 4
. 0 2 3

35 .48 . 6 0 71 . 8 1 8 9 95
9

0 . 0 4 1 . 1 3 8
.250

0.007 .045 .074 . 0 8 1 0073 0 7 3 . 0 6 5 . 0 2 6 .004

3 9 3 .350 -273
.220

1 . 0 0

.098 .004

1.05
1

0.047 0.007 . 1 4 6 .023 . 2 8 9 . 0 5 2 ,428 . 0 8 6 .287 . 0 6 6 .254 .071 6 5 .092 . 0 7 2 .070 . 0 0 9 .035 . 0 0 6 .ole

60

NACA TN No. 1834 TABLE 9.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEX, 2 - Continued

NACA TN N o . 1834
TABLE 9.- WAIG3 SURVEY DATA; MODEL 2

- Concluded

[Po. 7%
Thruet

= Go0]

ma

torque

NACA TN No. 1834

T A B L E 10

.-

WAP;E

SURVM DATA; MODEL

Thrust and torque

dc dx

dcT

dCQ
dx

NACA

TN Xo

. 1834
TAl3LE 10.- WAgE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 3

- Cantinued

64
T A B L F 10.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL

NACA TN Wo

. 1834
-

- Continued

[~0.75R
Thrust and

2701

dc~ ~ C T d c ~ dx dx
Ox

d C ~
dx

dx

d C ~
dx

~ C T
dx

d c ~
dx

torque

1.267
0.20

1.213 -0.016
.OO~

1.149
-0.008
0

1.085 0.004 .035 .082

,122 0.001

1.00

.35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

-0.023 -.006
.028

-0.003
O

-0.002
.002

,006
. 0 1 1

1.05

-.

.052 .061 -064 .056 .037 003

.013 .013
.012 .Oil .OOl

-. o

.046 .076 .088 .092 .083 .059 003 0.844

.oog .015 .018 .olg .017 .014

.OOl

-023 .063 .098

.I~O

.121 .112

-.006 o
0.028 .080

.080

0.005 .013 .olg .022 .024 .022 .017

.002 .002

-. o

.138 .154 .142 .lo4 005 0.601

*OO7 .016 .023 .028 .029 .026

.022

.003
.002

0.969
0.20

0.726 0.004

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.015 .060 .llg .170 .198 .213 .197 9154 -.003

-.002

0.003

.on

.021

.029 -035 037 -034 .029

0.024 .077 .129 .181 .217 .245 -243 -206

0.004
.012 .020

1.05

.ON

o o

.028 .035 .038 .038 .034 .005

.002

.138 .192 .237 .265 2 6 .235 -.006

-.002

.on

.020 .028

.036 .040 .03g .037 .006

.002

0.029 .088 .150 .213 ,261 .296 .295 ,251 -.005

0.003

.on

.olg .031 .03g .043 .041 .O4O .006 .002

0.485
0.20

0-363

1.00

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

0.031 .og6 .179

.228

0.003

.on

0.034

.250 .286 .294 -240 -a008

1.05

.oo1

.024 .034 .043 .047 .043 -040 -006

.002

.lo1

0.003

.207 .225 .245 .280 .277 -a040

-.OU

.027 .035 .044 .053 .048 -042 .006

.002

.on

TJACA

TN

NO.

1834
TABU 1 0 . - WAKX SURVEY DATA; MODEL
7

65
3

- Continued

Thrust and torque

66
T A B L E 10.- WAX23 ,SURVEY DATA; MODEL

NACA TN 30.

1834

3 - Continued

Thrust and torque

d c ~ d C ~ d C ~ d c ~ d c ~ d~
dx
d x
dx dx

d C ~ a c ~ d c ~ dx dx dx

2.580
0.20

2.487 0.004 .051 .084 .128 .155 .181 .186 .148 -.029
0.011

2 * 385

2.279 .029 .045 .062 .076 .085 .086 .078 .007 -004 0.016 .079 .I31 .198 -232 .274
.280

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

-0.003 .037
*O6X

0.009
.020

.lo

,122

.148 .158 .119

1.05

o o

.050 .056 .058 .054

o o

.026 .039 .054 .063 .o70 .071 .066

-.o10

o o

0.006 .058 .094 .150 .174 .203 .207 .166 -.031 -.014

0.012

0.014 .033 .052 -073 .089

.240

.loo .loo
.089

o o

.o10
.005

2.182
6

1 985

1.788 0.033 .lo8 .167 .240 .287 .344 .353 .336 -.o30 -.0l3
0

1 592

0.20

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

1.05

0.022 .093 .158 .229 .258 .288 299 -263 -.019 -.004

0.019 .037 .059

.082

.098 .lo6 .lo7 .013 .004

.loo

-.

0.030 ,108 .166 232 .264 .311 .328 .309 016

0

0.016 .o40 .059

.080

.096 .lo9
.ll0

.lo6 .014 .005

0.016 - 0 . 0 3 3 .036 .lo9 .183 .055 .271 .077 .098 .342 .116 .374 .118 .368 . 1 1 1 .350 .015 -.018 .006 0 893 0.009 .029 .071 .083

0.013 .031 .052 .079 .lo6

.128

.124 .112
.021

.007

1.383
0.20

1.087 .029 .054 .092 0.041 .127 .275 .278 ,278 .334 ,285 .167 .034 -.016 0.009
-028

0.697 0.009 .031 .075 ,088

. 1 1 1

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.034 .113 .203 -337 .304 .308 .290 .247 .006

0.011

.lo1
.lo8
. 1 1 1

1.05

.lo6 l -008

.064 .083 .089 .lo4 .log .115 .084 .039

0.044 .136 .313 -242 .306 .371 253 .130 .058

.002

0.047 .151 .307 .245 .loo - .333 .no .365 ,102 .223 .lo9 .lo6 .096 . .064 .069 .024

.113 .lo7 .lo3

.lo1
.085

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 10.- WAF;E SURVEY DATA; MODEL 3
PO.

- Concluded

75R = 6001

Thrust

and torque

dc~
d x

d c ~
dx

a(+ dx
3 551

d c ~ dx
0.052 .116 .143 .166 .176 .185 193 .163 .026 .007 695 0.034 073 .lo7 -145 .180 .208 .220 .202 .036 ,014

d c ~
ax

d c ~
dx

a(% dx
3.120

d C ~ dx
0.044 .094 .125 159 .180 197 .211 .189 ,034 .007

3.686 0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95 1.00 1.05

3.403 0.038 ,172 .244 .322 336 369 364 .311 -.018 0.050
.112

-.

0.043 .172 .220 .263 .265 277 .266 .203 053 0 2.843

0.054 117 .138 155 .160 .162 .171 .145 -026 .010

0.038 .170 .228 303 -309 329 317 .263 -.030

0
2

.I41 .169 .189 .196 .206 .175 -035 -008

0.029 .I42 .206 .289 299 .341 .361 334 -.a6 -.032 2.404

2.548 0.033 .136 .208 .306 .362 .409 .427 .426 -.036 0.031 .068

0.20 35 .48 .6O 71 .81 89 -95 1.00 1.05

0.034 .147 .222 ,305 334 .381 .401 380 032 -.007

-.

0.038 .080 .114 .149 ,179 .203 .215 .200 .033

.ou

0.027 ,132 .205 .298 352 .402 .432 ,423 -.029 o 1.980

.lo1

0.032 -133
,211

.141 -181 .210 .219 197 .oj7 .013

.316 358 .364 ,408 392 -.027

0.028 .064 097 .I41 179 .197 .207 .187 .050 .009

1.6138 0.022 -055 .lo4 .116 ,140 .165 .162 .154 .lo2 .015 0.047 .154 .230 .191 -297 344 .223 .134 .034 -.021 0.019 .056 .081

1.410 0.049 .163 175 .208 -350 334 .217 153 .lo0 ,013 0.017 055 .088
.ILL

0.20 35 -48 .60 77. .81 89 95 1.00 1.05

0

-.

0.031 -135 .224 .328 .317 ,329 .308 0332 020

0.026 .058 095 .I43 .165 177 .185 .l70 -072 -008

0.041 .I40 .270 235 .265 334 -255 .l90 -.003 -.006

.loo

-139 .158 .149 .152 .128 .050

,144 .145 -137 155 .146 -089

1.138 0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95 1.00 1.05 0.053 .166 .182 .221 -347 .310
.211

0.862 0.017 0053 .085

.112

-173 .186 .027

.152 .138 .136 * 155 .170 .125

0.049 -179 .161 .169 .341 .280 .192 174 .197 077

0.016 .052 .083 .lo7 .158 .144 -137 155 -175 .149

NACA TN No. 1834

TP;BL;E 1 1

.- W

m SURVEY DmA; M O D E L 4

Thrust and torque

dcT -

dCQ dx

dCT dx

dCQ -

ax

NACA TN No. 1834

TfE3LE 1 1 . - W A K E

SURW DATA; M O D E L4

- Continued

Thrust and torque

d c ~ ~ C T d C ~ dx dx
dx

3 dx

~ C T
dx

3 dx

~ C T
dx

3 ax

0.901

0.853 0.005 .036 .075 .092 .058 .013 -.016 -.003

-.001

0.804
-

0.704

0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 .89 .95

1.00 1.0

-0.002

0.001

.024 .056 .076 .064 .030

-.011

0.004 .009 .013

.012

.egg

.006 .012 .016 .015 .006

.OO~ .002

0.010 0 1

0.002

,096
.122

.008 .014 .018

.018

-.034 -.006
-.002

.oo7 .003 .004 .oo4

0

.on

.118 ,084 .036

0

,001

.014 009 .004

.oo1

0.015 .073 .129 6 .166 .133 .077 .023 .002

0

0.002

.01o

.018
.022

.023 .018 .012 .005

.oo1
.001

.001

\
0.604
0 503

0.404

0.304

0.20

0.022

0.003
.Oll

0.022

0.003
.Oil

35 .48 .60

.OgO .151 9 6
.208

0.031
.OlO

0.003
.Oll

.177 .114 .oog

1.00

1.05

o o

.olg .025 .027 .022 .013 .005

.OO~

.097 .158 .214 .240

.221

.019 .025
.028

.167
.221

.025
.018

-.ool

260

.003
.OO~

.252 .252 .179 -.006

.olg .026 .O29 .027

.021

.oo1

-008

.oo1

-.oo~ o

.003
.oO~

0.035 .lo7 .175 .232 .262 2 079 -.003

-.OO~

0.003
-011

.ool
.OO1

.olg .026 .030 .026 .016

.oo1

70
T A B L E 1 1 . - WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 4

NACA TN No. 1834

- Cantinued

Thrust and torque

~ C T
1.272

~ C Q
dx

dx
1.206
I

d C ~
dx

~ C T dx

" C ~
dx

~ C T -

d c ~
dx

dx

1.153
0

1.092 0.009 .054 .114 .157 .167 .148 .047 -.OO7

0.002 .011

0.20

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

-0.014 -0.002 -0.006 .013 .003 .024 .069 .OU .04g .017 .lo6 .079 .no .082 .018 .OgO .014 .059 .052 .025 .oog .015 0 .004 0 .001 -.005

0.006 .014
.022

.024
.020

.014 .007
-001

1.05

0.004 .038 .090 .132 .137 .118 .076 .O3l -moo4

0.001 .008 .018

.026 .028 .025 .018 .OOg

.OO2

.lo1

.022 .o30 .034 .030

.022 .012 .002

.oo1

.oo1

1.020
0.20

909 0.004 .014

.028

0.787 0.025 103 .I71 .231 .269 .272 .230 .ogl

0.605 0.032 .I14 .193 .266 .306 .306 .263 .006 0.004 .015 ,027 .039 .046 .043 .036
.oil

0.010

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 .95 .

*

,069 .133 .182 .199 .186 .134 .067

1.00

o
O

0.003 .013 .O25 ,034 -038 .034 .026 .015

.002 .OO1

0.017 .Og3 .162 .219 246 .241 .193 .og3

..

.038 .043 .041 .O32

.020

0.004 .016 .O27 .036 .043 .042 .O35

.022

o
O

.003
.OO1

1.05

.002 O

.003
.OO2

.003
.OO2

0.483
0.20

0.363 0.041
.128

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 .95

1.00

0.038 .124 .212 .301 .326 ,308 .272 -.olg

0

0.004 .016 .O29 .Ok5 .053 .047 .039

.232 ,329 .318 .275 .116

-.012

1.05

.008 -002

0.004 .016 .033 .050 .062 .052 .053

.008
.002

.oo1

-.003

.oo1

NACA

TN No

1834

71

TABLE 1 1 . - WAKE SURVM DmA; MODEL 4

r
7

- Continued

37O]

Thrust
and

torque

dc~ d C ~ dc~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ d c ~ dx dx dx dx dx dx dx dx
1.807 1.726
0

1.657

1.584 0.009 .067 .130 .188

.211

0.20

1.00

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

-0.014 .015 .058 .og7 .log .Og8 .066 .027 -.007

0

0.008 .Olg .o30 ,034 .029 .025 .012

0 0

-0.007 .032
.082

0.001

.o10

-0.002

.132 .148 .136 .lo4 .051 -.OOg

0

.024 .036 .042 .03g .031 .018

-002 0

.045 .lo5 .159 .178 6 8 .131 .072

-.OO8 0

0.002 .013 .029 .043 .050 .046 .039 .023 .003

.002

.207 .165 .096

-.OO8 0

1.05

0.004 .017 .035 .050 .054 .052 .047 .029 ,004 .002

1.516
0.20
a

1.369
0.018

1.154 0.023 .115 .193 .268 .313 .326 ,284

.201

0 939

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.016 .078 .147 .211 .236 240 .1gg .129 -.oo7

0

0.006 .023 .039 .055 .064 .063 .054 .036 .oo4

.OO~

-.o10

.lo6 .193 .258 .281 ,291 .248 .178

0

1.05

0.007 .025 .045 .060 .069 .069 .060 .044 .005 .004

0.008

-.002

.026 .042 .059 .071 .072 .063 .04g .006 -004

0.034 .127 .223 .328 .382 .358 .2gg .062

-.002

-.004

0.007 .024 .a3 .s66 .085 .082 .073 .046 .oo6 .004

0 719
0.20

0 507

1.00

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

0.041 .141 262 .406 .417 267 .155 .054 -.003

1.05

0.007 .024 .048 .078 .ogg .076 .067 .050 .014 .oo4

0.048 .151 .310 .46g .308 .222 .148 .044

-.002

0.007 .025 .056 .og3 .083 077 .089 .055 .025 .009

72
TABU 1 1 . - WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 4
P O . 75R =

NACA

TN No. 1834

- Continued

480]

Thrust and
torque

dcT -

~ C T d c ~ dx dx

~ C T d c ~ dx dx

x0.014 .036 .061 .079 .OgO .084 .075 .048 .009

0

dcQ

~ C T dx

dx

2.600
0.20

2.507
0.012

2.400 .032 .052 .072 .077 .069 .062 .037

.002 0

2.305 0.014 .094 6 8 .238 .258 .257 .219 .143 -.021 -.004 0.015 .o42 .a69 .088
.lo2

0.008

0.011 0.007

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

.052 .og7 .137 .147 2 5 .085 .040

-.021 0

.027 .045 .058 .064 .056 .050 .027

0 0

,059 .116 .169 .179 .168 .132 .075 -.025

-.010

1.05

0.006 .073 3 5 .1g5 .2O9 .198 .165 .090 -.032 -.Olg

.loo
0

.088 .056 .008

2.202
0.20
*

2.006 0.015
.122

1.801
0.020

1.599 0.025 .I40 .230 -333 .394 .411 .334 .185

O

0.018

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

.log .l92 .267 .292 .296 .254 .181 -.023

0.015 .O44 .074 .097

.112 .UO

.206 .283 .303 ,323

.281

0.016 .049 .079

.ogg .070
.OO8

1.05

.213 -.O16

,004 1.501

.115 .115 .lo4 .076 -a003 .006

.lo1

.139 .216 .300 .340 .357 .306 .232

-.028

0.015 .048 .071 .097 .116

.120

0.014 .&3 .069 .099 .126 .129

.120

.lo8 .083
-010

.084
.O11

-.olg 0.997

.006

o
0 699

,006

1.296

NACA

TN No. 1834
TABIE

11.-WAKE

SURVEY

DATA; M O D E L 4 - Concluded

Thrust and torque

d c ~
dx

ac~
d~

d c ~
d~

ac~ d~

~ C T ax

ac~ dx

.d C T
dx

a c ~
dx

37 1 3
0 . 2 0

3 . 5 5 2 0 . 0 2 6 . 1 9 8 . 2 8 5 3 6 3 . 3 6 6 3 3 7
. 21

3 . 4 0 2 0 . 0 0 9 . 1 8 5 . 2 8 8 . 3 8 2 . 4 o o 3 9 0 . 3 2 4
-233
0 0

3 130
. 1 3 0

. 4 8 . 6 0 . 7 1 . 8 1 8 9 9 5 1.00 1 . 0 5

,3 5

0 . 0 1 1 . 1 6 3 . 2 4 4
.312

. 2 9 2 . 2 6 3 1 9 3

-. 054 . O h 5
0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 0 . 2 6 1 . 3 6 8 3 9 0 3 9 9 . 3 6 0 . 2 7 0 0 1 9

.lo3

0 . 0 5 4 . 1 3 1 . 1 7 4 . 1 9 4 1 9 3 . 1 6 4 . 1 5 2 . O 9 4
. 0 1 1

.OX0

7 9 -.1 030 0

0 . 0 5 3 . I 3 2 1 7 9 . 2 0 6 2 0 9 . 1 9 0 . 1 6 9 -115 . 0 0 8
0

0.050 . 1 8 0 . 2 1 0
.220

. 2 0 7 . 1 8 5
.130 . 0 2 1 0

-.

0 . 0 1 8 197 . 2 8 4 3 7 4 . 3 8 2 . 3 8 6 . 3 4 2 . 2 4 9 0 2 3
0

0 . 0 4 6
.123

. 1 6 9 ,204 . 2 1 9 . 2 1 5 . 1 9 6 . 1 4 2 0 1 9 . O 0 8

2 9 8 3 5
0 . 2 0

2 . 6 9 3 0 . 0 1 5 1 7 9 , 2 6 8 3 7 9 , 4 1 2 . 4 3 8 3 8 5 . 2 8 1 0 . 0 3 8 0 9 5 . 1 3 9 . 1 8 2
.211

2 . 5 7 7 0 . 0 1 4 . 1 6 7 .264 , 3 6 6 . 4 1 6 . 4 4 0 . 3 6 7 . 2 6 3 0 . 0 3 7 . 0 9 1 . 1 3 6 . 1 8 0 . 2 1 1 . 2 1 9 . 2 0 1 . 1 4 1 . 0 2 1
.ox0

2 . 4 4 2 0 . 0 1 6 . 1 6 6 2 5 9 ,374 -435 . 4 5 1 3 5 0 . 2 4 0
0.033 . 0 8 2 . 1 2 9 . 1 7 8 . 2 1 5 ,220 197 . 1 3 6 . 0 1 9 0 0 9

3 5 .48 . 6 0 7 1 . 8 1 . 8 9 9 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5

-. o

0 . 0 4 1 . l o 7 . 1 4 5 . 1 8 6 . 2 1 5 . 2 1 5 1 9 9 . 1 5 2
.022

.ox3
2 . 2 9 1

-.023 o

.217 -197 . 1 4 8 . 0 2 0

.on

-.031 -.011

o o

1 . 9 7 6 . 0 7 8 . I 2 4 . 1 8 1
. 2 2 0

6 9 9 0 . 0 2 5 .067
.131

1 . 4 1 9 0 . 0 6 1 . 1 6 4 3 9 9 . 4 5 6 . 2 2 6 . 2 8 3 , 1 5 1 . 0 6 3 . 0 2 4 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 2 3 . 0 6 2 1 3 5 -197 . 1 4 2 1 5 9 . 1 3 8
9

0 . 2 0

.3 5 . 4 8

. 6 0 7 1 . 8 1 8 9 9 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5

0 . 0 2 1 . 1 6 8 . 2 6 9 , 4 0 3 . 4 3 4 3 5 7 . 2 5 3 1 7 2
0

0 . 0 3 1

0 . 0 4 1 . 1 7 3
. 3 0 0

. 2 1 0 1 7 5 . 1 1 3 -016 -008

. 4 8 2 3 4 9 . 2 4 6 . 1 4 1 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 1 . 0 0 6

0 . 0 2 8 . 0 7 2 . 1 2 2 1 9 3 . 1 9 0 . 1 6 8 . I 4 4 -106 -038 . 0 0 8

0 . 0 5 1 . 1 6 4 3 6 3 . 4 9 6 . 2 7 6 . 2 2 4 ,160 . 0 4 3 . 0 0 7

,198 . 1 5 6 . 1 5 1 . I 3 9 . 1 1 9 .084 . 0 1 7

123 .loo

. 0 3 4

1 . 1 3 6
0 . 2 0

0 . 8 6 9 0.038 . 1 9 6 . 4 0 7 . 2 8 3 . 1 1 8 238 . 1 8 2
8053
0 . 0 2 2

3 5 .48 .60 7 1 . 8 1 8 9 9 5
1 . 0 0

0 . 0 5 3 ,170 3 8 4 . 3 7 6
,202

. 2 7 4 . 1 6 0 . 0 6 1 . 0 6 5

1 . 0 5

0 . 0 2 4 . 0 6 2 . 1 2 8 . 1 7 0 . 1 4 0 .154 . 1 5 1 . 1 2 8 . 1 2 4 -086

.om
. 0 0 8

. 0 6 5 -137 . 1 6 3 .138 . 1 7 1 ,164 , 1 2 9 . 1 1 8 . 0 9 1

NACA TN N o . 1834

Thrust
and

torque

~ C T "s dx

~ C T
dx

d-x

d% dx

J q
dx

0.563 0.20 .35 .48 .60 .71 .81 .89 .95

1.00

0.520 .005 .OOg ,009

.008

0.009 .032 .062 .067 .043

0.001

.ool

.004 .007 .008 .006 .003

0.014 .041 .077 .084 .063

.021 -.021

0.001

0.016 .051 .OgO

0.001

.oo6

.loo

.OlO . 0 1 1

.082

.olo
.oo6 .003
0 .002

-.038 -.051
-.001

-.00l

-.040
-.OOl

1.05
X

.ool
0.983

.004

.ool -.oo~
.004

.005

.040 -.005 -.026

0

.oo1
0.402

.oo1

0.322 0.024 .077 .137 .172 .164 .117 .033

0.002

0.20 .35 .48 .60 .71 -81 .89

1.00

0.019 .061 .lo3 .117 .058 .008 -.016

0

0.002

0.022

.oo6
.0ll

.loo

.012
.011

,007 .oo4
.OO~ 0

-.oo~

.074 .124 .144 .132 ogo .025

0.002 .oo7 .012 .015 .013 oog .oo6

.oo7 .013 .016 .016

.on
0

1.05

.oo1

.OO~ 0

o .001 .oo1

.006 o
o

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLF: 1 2 . - WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL

- Continued

Thruet and torque

76
T A B L E 12.- WAXX SURVEY DATA; MODEL 5

NACA TN N o . 1834

- Continued

Thrust axld torque

ax

NACA TN No. 1834 TAJ3LE 12.- WAKF, SURVEY DATA; MODEL 5 [PO

77

- Continued

752 = 37O]

Thrust and torque

dc~

3 dx
-0.003
.002

d C ~ 2 dx dx
1 734
-0.021
-0.002

dc~
d x

d c ~

5 dx
0.001

1 798
0.20

1.661

1 591

-0.026
.001

1.00

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

.043
.082

.lo3 .Og7 .066 .031

-.OlO 0

.014 .026 .031 .028

.021

.013 -.004
0

.014 .065 .115 .136 .130 .egg .052 -a014

0

.005 .Olg ,031 .037 .035 .026 .018

-.OOl 0

-0.014 -0.001 -0.010 .030 .OOg .041 .025 ,090 .112 .169 ,143 .039 .165 .046 .193 .165 .198 .044 .161 .034 .133 .078 ,023 .0g8 0 -.OX1 -.O14
0
1.222

.013
.Oal

.046 .056 .055 .044 .031

0

1.05

.OOl

-.008

-002

1 515

1.371 .016 .035 .052 ,063 .062 0 5 .036 0.016 .078 .158
.212

0.940 0.030
. 1 1 1

0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.002

0.002

0.005
.020

'1.05

-. 0

.061 .138 .206 .242 .245 .189 .I39 007 0.720

.001
-002

,254 .264 ,229 .l7O

-.008

-.004 0.510 0.042 .136 .300 .416 .351 .273 .138 .052 .003
0

.038 .053 ' .064 .065 .054 .042 .003 .004

-.

0.025 .og8 .172 .244 .289 .311 .272 .204 005 -.004

0.006
.022

0.006
.020

.038 ,054 .067 .070 .060 .048 .004 .003

.207 .309 .368 .387 .302 .069

.039 .062 .081 .084 .073 .050 -005

. O &

0.20

1.00

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

0.035 .124 .246 .386

0.005
.020

0.005
.022

.go

.333 ,194 ,048

1.05

.045 .076 .086 .085 .078 .048 .013 .004

.054 .084 .084 .088 .089 .057 .026 009

>

78

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 12.- WAKE SURVEY DATA; M O D E 5 - Continued

NACA TN No. 1834

T P i B L E

1 2 . -

WAKE SURVEY DmA; MODEL

5 - Concluded

Thruet and torque

d c ~ dx
3 678

d c ~
dx

a%
dx

d c ~
dx

dc~
dx

ac~
dx

d c ~
dx

a c ~
bx

3 . 5 3 4 0 . 0 0 8 .158 .240 . 3 1 2 . 3 0 6 . 2 g 4 . 2 3 6 . 1 4 9 . 0 6 9 . 0 4 1 2 . 6 9 9 0 . 0 1 9 . 1 5 6 . 2 5 0 3 5 0 3 9 4 -431 3 7 2 . 2 8 3 . 0 5 1 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 3 2 . 0 8 3 .128 -173 ,207 ,217 -193 ,154 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 2

'

3 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 . 1 6 0 . 2 4 6 .340 357 . 3 2 6 . 2 8 5 . l 9 l 055 . 0 2 9 0 . 0 4 5 . 1 1 9 . 1 7 1 . 2 0 0 . 2 1 5 . 2 0 1 . 1 6 4 . I 2 2

. o o 2

3 . 2 6 6
0 . 0 1 3

0 . 2 0 3 5 .48 . 6 0 7 1 . 8 1 89 95 1.00 1 . 0 5

-. 0

0 . 0 2 1 .167 .240 .306 .294 .284 .208 . 1 2 1 0 5 3

0 . 0 4 8 .124 .I64 . 1 8 5 . 1 8 8 .167 1 3 3 . 0 9 6

.oo2

0 . 0 4 6 . 1 2 1 . 1 6 9 .198 .207
.lgl

.158 . l l 9

1 7 3 . 2 6 1 3 4 7 3 5 1 . 3 4 6 .291
.lgl -. 067 . 0 3 5

0 . 0 4 3 . 1 1 6 . 1 6 1 197 . 2 0 9 . 1 7 6 .140 . o 1 0
.0l3

.014

.004

-.

. a
0 . 0 2 9 077 . 1 2 2 . 1 7 1 . 2 0 9 . 2 2 1 . 2 0 0 . 1 5 2 -015 .010

2 . 9 8 2 0 . 2 0 -35 . 4 8 . 6 0 7 1 . 8 1 89 95 0 . 0 1 8 ,174 .258 3 5 2 . 3 8 2 3 9 6 . 3 4 8 . 2 4 6 056 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 3 7 .097 .140 . 1 8 1 . 2 0 8 . 2 1 2 . 1 8 2 . 1 4 6 . 6 1 1

.OO~

2 . 5 4 8 0 . 0 2 4 . 1 5 0 .247 358 . 4 0 2 . 4 3 4 0 3 7 2 . 2 5 2 0 4 6

2 . 2 6 3 0 . 0 2 7 . 1 4 4 . 2 4 5 3 9 3 . 4 4 0 3 6 5 . 2 5 1 . 1 3 4 -.a8 034 0 . 0 2 5 . 0 6 8 . 1 1 3 1 7 3 . 2 1 3 . 2 0 6 . 1 6 8 . 1 1 5 . 0 1 6
-007

1:

-.

-. -.032

-.

1 . 9 7 0.20, 3 5 . 4 8 . 6 0 7 1 .81 89 95 1.00 1 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 5 . 1 4 6 . 2 8 5 . 4 5 2 . 3 4 8 . 2 4 9 . 1 4 1 .058 037 . 0 2 9

-0

1 . 8 3 6 0 . 0 2 1 .061 . 1 1 6 . 1 8 2 , 1 8 3 . 1 6 5 1 3 9 . 1 1 4 . 0 3 8 . 0 0 6 0.040 .151 . 3 2 4 .480 .318 . 2 4 2 . I 4 4 .048 . 0 2 1 . o o 6

1 . 6 9 1 0 . 0 4 2 . 1 4 2 . 3 1 1 .443 .290 . 2 1 4 0094 . 0 1 2 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 1 9 .060 . l l g 1 7 9 e l 5 7 -153 . 1 3 1 , 1 2 5 . l o 4

-020

1 558 0 . 0 3 7 -133 . 3 1 6 . 3 8 2 ,310 . 2 6 1 . 1 2 2 .M2 . 0 0 4 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 1 8 055 . 1 1 6 .157 157 . I 5 4 ,131 . l 2 7 . 1 2 0 . 0 4 9

0.020 0 5 9 . 1 2 0 . 1 8 5 .168 .158 1 3 3 .118 . 0 7 3 . 0 1 2

-.w

1 . 2 7 5
0 . 2 0

0 . 8 6 8 0 . 0 3 6 . 1 8 3 .260 . 2 4 6 .278 .250 . I 3 1 . 0 6 5 . 0 9 2 . o 4 0 0 . 0 1 9 .061 . l o 5 ,139 .160 .168 . 1 5 1 . 1 2 9 1 3 9 ,120

'

3 5 . 4 8 . 6 0 .71 . 8 1 89 95 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5

0 . 0 3 1 . 0 8 5 . 2 6 6 377 .300 . 2 4 9 . I 1 2 . 0 2 3 . 0 6 2 0

0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0
.lo2
.

.I47 1 5 2 . 1 4 7 1 3 9 1 3 9 . 1 5 1 . l o 8

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 13

.- WAKE SURVXY DATA;

MODEL 6

Thrust
and

dcT -

torque

ax

~ C T d c ~ dx ax

.x

~ C T d c ~ ax dx

0.563
0.20

0.525
0.010

1-00

035 .48 .60 .71 .81 .89 .95

0.003 *025 .041 .047 .026 -.007 -.O4O -.054 -.006

o
0

0.005 .006 .004 .002

.OO~

0.006 .031 .052 .063 ,046 -013

-.OX8

0.001

0.001

-004 .006 .007 .006 .oo4

.002

.039 .064 .077 .064 .031

-.002

.008
.007 .oo5 .OO4 .003 .007

.007

1.05

0 -013

-.037 -a007

,002
-010

-.O24 -.006

o
0.324

.oo1

0.485 \ l n D X 0.20 .35 .48 .60 .71 81 .89 .95 0.013 .048 .077 .og2 .081 .050 .016 -.014 -.003
0.001

0.404 .005 0.026 .07g .130 .156 .146 206 .060 -.003 0.002
.008 .012

.008

1.00

1.05

.oo1

.oog .007 .005 .005 .005

.o10

.015 .014
.oil .008

o o

.oo1 .oo1

.005

0.024 .063 .114 248 4 .112 .073 -.002

0.002 .005 ,010 .014 .013

,011 .008 .001

o o

o o

NACA TN No. 1834

^ I

TABLE 13. - WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 6

- Continued

Thrust and torque

d % dx

d~

%-d
dx

dx

p dx

%
dx

d~

%
d~

0.874 0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 a89 .95

0.850
0

0.804 -4.002 .039 .078 .113 .114 .og5 .060 .025 -.005 0 0.006
.012

0.702 0.006 .051 .og5 ,132 .138 .127 .Og5 .054 -.002
0.001

1.00

..

1.05

-0.014 -0.001 -0.007 .007 .002 .020 .026 .005 .045 .043 .008 .067 .oo7 .063 .035 -017 .005 .046 -.006 ,004 .O2O -.021 .oo4 003 -.ou .006 -.ole -.003 o -.002

0.004 .007

.on
.OU

.017
.018

-.

-007 ,006 .003

.009
o

.015
.012

.oog

.007 .013 .018 .olg ; 017 .014

.oo1

.002

.o10
.001

.001

\ x p , -T
0.20 35 .48 .60 71 -81 89 95 1.00 1.05

0.602 0.017 ,067 .118 6 8 .188 .175 .140 .061

0.002 .008

0.503 0.024 .068 .llg .173

2 .220

0.403 0.027 .073 .125 .183 .225 .245 .227

-.012 -.002 0.002

0.303
0.029

0.002

-014
.021

.024 .022 .018

.012 .002

-.ool

.oo1

.188 .005 .001

.007 .013 .020 .025 -025 .021 .007

.001

.007 .013 .020 .025 .026 ,024 .004

.oo1

.oo1

,001.

.078 .135 .1g5 .242 .259 .232 -.032 -.oo6

0.002

.oo7 .014 .022 .026 .027 .026 .003

.oo1
.001

82
TABL,E 1 3 . - WAKE SURVEY DP3CA; MODEL

NACA TN N o . 1 8 3 4

6 - Continued

Thrust and torque

d C ~
dx

d c ~
dx

d c ~
dx

d c ~
dx

d C ~
dx

d C ~
dx

d C ~
dx

d C
dx

1 . 2 4 6 0 . 2 0

1 . 1 3 7

1 . 1 2 7
'

1 . 0 6 3

0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 1 7 l-O.OO10 . 0 1 0 -.ool o . o 1 2 . 0 0 3 , 0 2 3 . 0 2 6 . 0 0 6 . 0 4 1 . 0 0 9 . 0 5 8 . 6 0 . 0 5 6 . 0 1 2 . 0 7 8 . 0 1 6 . l o 2 . 0 6 6 . 0 1 4 . 0 9 1 . 0 1 9 . 1 1 8 7 1 . 0 6 0 . 8 1 . 0 1 4 0 1 9 ,089 . . 1 1 2 . 0 4 1 . 0 1 3 . 0 7 2 . 0 1 7 -89 . 0 9 9 . 0 2 2 . o 1 0 . 0 4 1 . 0 1 3 . 0 6 7 -95 ' . 0 0 9 1 . 0 0 . o o 1 . 0 0 6 . o o 1 . 0 0 2 0 1-03 0 0 0 0

.35 .48

.,

0 . 0 0 5 . 0 1 2 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 4 . 0 2 4 . 0 2 2 , 0 1 6 . 0 0 2 -001

0 . 0 0 6 . 0 3 0 . 0 7 4 , 1 2 3 , 1 4 4 . 1 4 8 . 1 2 6 . 0 8 6 . 0 0 6 . 0 0 3

o
0 . 0 0 7 . 0 1 4 . 0 2 4 . 0 2 9 . 0 2 9 . 0 2 6 , 0 1 9 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 1

1 . 0 0 2 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 1 . 0 3 7 . 0 9 8 . 1 5 5 . 1 8 0 . 1 8 6 . 1 5 9 . 1 1 7 0 0 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 8 . 0 1 8 . 0 2 8 . 0 3 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 2 . 0 0 3 . o o l

0 . 8 7 9 0 . 0 1 2 . 0 6 7 . 1 2 4 . 1 8 0 . 2 2 3 0 . 0 0 2 .oil . 0 2 0 . 0 2 9 . 0 3 7 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 8 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 2

0 . 7 5 5 0 . 0 2 2 . 0 7 2 . 1 2 9 . 1 9 0 . 2 3 9 . 2 6 8 . 2 6 3 . 1 9 7 . O O l 0 . 0 0 3 . o 1 0 . 0 1 g . 0 2 9

0.637
0 . 0 2 6

35 . 4 8
. 6 0 .71 . 8 1

.077
. 1 3 8 . 2 1 0 . 2 6 1 2 9

247
. 2 2 4 . 1 6 7 . 0 0 l . 0 0 3

.037
. 0 4 0

8 9 95
1 . 0 0 1 . 0 5

.o40
. 0 3 6 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 2

285
. 2 0 6 . 0 0 3

0 . 0 0 3 .ole . o l g . 0 3 1 . 0 3 9 . 0 4 1 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 6 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 2

\v/m
X

0 . 5 1 4 0 . 0 2 8 . 0 8 6 0 . 0 0 3 , 0 1 0 . 0 2 2

0 399

0 . 2 0

0 . 0 3 0

35 .48
. 6 0

6 5
228 . 2 7 0 . 2 9 7 . 3 0 3 . 0 8 7 . 0 0 7

.egg
. 1 9 5 . 2 3 1 . 2 6 3 2 8 . 2 9 O . 0 9 4 . 0 0 9

.034
. 0 4 3 . 0 4 5 . 0 4 1

0 . 0 0 3 .oil . 0 2 6 . 0 3 6

7 1 .

.048
. 0 5 0 . 0 4 5 . 0 3 1 . 0 0 4

'j

. 8 1

8 9 95
1 . 0 0

.033
. 0 0 5 . 0 0 2

1 . 0 5

.ool

I j
I
= i q N p y 7 '

NACA TN No. 1834

8 3

TABLE 1 3 . - WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 6 - Continued

84 TABLE 13

NACA TN No.

1834

.- WAKE SURVEY DATA;

MODEL

- Continued

NACA

TN No. 1834
TABLE: 13.WAgE SURVEY

DmA; MODEL 6

- Concluded

Thrust
and

torque

0.027
.062

.og8 .146 .187

.210 ,214

.185
.025 oog

NACA

TN No. 1834

TABLE 1 4 . - WAKE SURVEY DATA; MODEL 7

Thrust
and

d c ~

d c ~
ax

torque

NACA TN No. 1834

TABLE 14.- WAKE S U R V X Y D N A ; MODEL 7

7

- Continued

88
TABLE 14.- WAKE S U R V E YD m A ; MODEL 7

NACA TN Noo 1834

- Continued

Thrust and torque

dc~ d c ~ dx dx
1.283 -0.007
.012

d c ~ a(% d x d.x
1.163 0.006 .036 ,011 .065 .015 .096 .lo2 .017 .009 .070 .006 .043 .004 .Olg o -.006 .002 -.oo3 .006

dc~ dx dx
1.102

d c ~
dx

1.221

0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 .89 .95

1.00

0.003
.008

.032 .o50 .045 .004 016 -.026 -.OO5

. o
.002 0 .OO1

-.

.012 .004

0.026 .051 ~ .076 .076 .038 , .017

-.OOl -.OO8 -.002

0.001

0.002 .007 .013 .019 .021 .014

.ole

0.011 0.003

.045
.081

.114 .126 .071 .040 -.008 0 793

.loo

.009 ,015 .022 .025 .020 ,015

.OlO O

.OO7

1.05

-.oo1

-.oo1

-.oo1

.oo1

1.040
0.20

0 975
.ole

0.914
0.021

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

0.015 .051 .095 ,135 .145 .136 ,104 ,065 -.003

-.002

0.003 .017 .O25 .029 .025

.020

.014
.001

0.019 .059 .lo7 .I51 .172 .168 .139.og4

-.001

0.004
.OU

0.004
.oil

,019 .027 .032 ,029 .025 .018

.001 .002

1.05

.oo1

-.oo1

.066 .I20 .170 .193 .189 .172 .131 .004

.oo1

.020 .029 .034 .031 .O29 .023 .003 Do3

0.025 .078 .I40 .195 .227 .220

.202

0.004
,012

6
.OO~

.021 .03O .036 .034 .031 .026 .003

.001

0.611
0.20

0.367 0.03k .116 .020 .167 .O~L .237 .041 .256 .040 .273 .036 .257 .031 -.016 .004 -.oog 0 .002

0.028

0.003

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

.088 .152 .219 .261 .268 253 .168

.ou

0.003 .015 .025 .040 .051 .053 .046

.008

.005
.001

1.05

NACA TN NO. 1834

TABIX

14.- WAXE SURVEY DATA; M O D E L 7

- Continued

torque

90
TMLE 14.- WAM% SURVEY DATA; MODEL 7
PO.

NACA TN No. 1834

- Continued

75R

480]

Thrust and t o r pue

0.20

1.00

35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.05

0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1 . 0 0

1.05

0.20 35 .48 .60 71 .81 89 95

1.00

1.05

NACA TN No.

1834
TABU

1 4 . - WAKE

SURVEY

DmA; MODEL 7 - Concluded

Thrust and torque

d c ~
dx

d c ~
dx

NACA TN No. 1834

NACA TN

NO.

1834

95

Figure 2.-

Basic width curves. (b/D)o = sinS 0 cosC6 ; 8 = cos-I (r/R).

Figure 2.-

Adjusted width curves. A.F.

6250

0.15

b r 3 (-)(-) ) ( ; ! D R

92.4.

(All models. )

NACA

TN No. 1834

P'-P;,

deg

$, percent

r/ R

Figure 4.-

Thickness and twist curves.

NACA TN No. 1834

NACA TN No. 1834

Figure 6.

Installation of total-head and yaw tubes.

Figure 7. - General arrangement of pressure -recording equipment.

NACA

TN No. 1834

Figure 8.

Close-up of total -head and yaw tubes.

NACA TN N o .

1834

103

All dimensions are in inches.

Angle of yaw,

q, deg

Figure 9.-

Shielded total-head tubes.

NACA TN No. 1834

All dimensions are in inches

Yaw-tube tip

Angle of yaw, $, deg

Figure 10. - Yaw -head details and .calibration. K

PY

q sin 2Jr

NACA

TN No. 1834

Figure 11.- Component parts of total-head and yaw tube.

NACA TN No.

1834

NACA

TN No. 1834

109

Figure 13. - Sample computation sheet.

110

NACA TN No. 1834

V/nD
Figure 14.

Charac.teristics of model 1.

NACA

TN No. 1834

Ill

V/n D
Figure 15.

Characteristics of model 2.

1U

NACA TN N o . 1834

V/nD
Figure 16.-

Characteristics of model 3.

NACA TN N o . 1834

113

V/n D
Figure 17. - Characteristics of model 4.

114

NACA

TN No. 1834

V/nD
Figure 18.Characteristics of model 5.

NACA TN N o . 1834

V/nD
Figure 19. - Characteristics of model 6.

116

NACA TN No.

1834

V/n D
Figure 20.Characteristics of model 7.

Figure 21.

Thrust grading curves.

= 12'.

-a

I-' I-'

118

NACA TN N o .

1834

Figure 23.-

Thrust grading curves. P ().75R = lgO.

120

NACA TN No. 1834

NACA TN N o . 1834
121

NACA TN N o . 1834

NACA TN No. 1834

Figure 28. - Torque grading curves. 8 0 . 7 5 ~ = 37'.

Figure 29. - Thrust grading curves.

= 48'.

NACA

No. 1834

NACA TN No. 1834

NACA TN No.

1834

NACA TN No. 1834

129

NACA

Tm No. 1834

Figure 35.- Power absorbed by models 1 to 6.

NACA TN No. 1834

0

134

NACA TIT No. 1834

NACA TN No. 1834

Figure 39.

Characteristic curves. Cartesian coordinates.

NACA TN No. 1634

Figure 40.

Efficiency envelopes.

Figure 41. - Constant-speed efficiency curves. Model 1.

V/n D
Figure 42.

Constant -speed efficiency curves. Model 2.

NACA TN No.

1834

137

V/nD
Figure 43.

Constant-speed efficiency curves. Model 3.

V/n D
Figure 44.

Constant-speed efficiency curves. Model 4.

1 3 8

NACA TN No. 1 8 3 4

NACA TN No

1834

NACA TN N o . 1834

.3

.2

.I

---model I ---model 2 m o d e l 6

. I

.5

1 0 .

1 . 5

V/nD

Figure 48. - Forces on corresponding elements of equal width.

W A TN No.

1834

V/nD
Figure 49. - Efficiency envelopes.

V/n D
Figure 50.Constant-speed efficiency curves. Models 7 and 0.8E.

V/n D
Figure 51. - Constant-speed efficiency curves. Models 7 and 6.