You are on page 1of 60

SAND87-2118.

UC-32
Unlimited Release
Printed October 1987

Ducted Propeller Design and Analysis

Robert J. Weir
Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 8 7 185 and Livermore, California 94550
for the United States Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789

Abstract

-

The theory and implementation c) the design of a ”Jcted propeller blade are presented
and discussed. Straightener (anti-torque) vane design is also discussed. Comparisons are
made t o an existing propeller design and the results and performance of twc example
propeller blades are given. The inflow velocity at the propeller plane is givcm special
,
.

, :..
attention and two dimensionless parameters independent of RPM are discussed. UF*,
~ W D 111
off-design performance are also investigated.

SF29000(8-81I

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States
Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use wouid not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring
by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their
contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any
agency thereof or any of their contractors or subcontractors.

Printed in the United States of America
Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
NTIS price codes
Printed copy: A04
Microfiche copy: A01

Contents
vii

Symbols

1 Introduction

1

2 Discussion

1

2.1

Inlet Velocity

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

3

2.1.2

Propeller Induced Velocity

........................
Blade Design by Blade Element Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Swirl Velocity Induced by the Propeller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3

2.3

2

Duct Induced Velocity

2.2.2

Induced Velocity in Hover

............
Chord Distribution Determined by Thrust Distribution . . . . . . .

Determination of Forces on the Blade Elements

Flow Straightener Design by Element Torque Matching

...........

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

2.3.1

No Swirl Condition

2.3.2

Vane Chord Distribution Determined by Equating Element Torques

2.3.3

Determination of the Forces on the Vane Elements

..........

3 Verification

4

Design Examples
4.1

4.2
4.3
4.4

....................................
KACA 4312 Blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G6 610 Blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Straightener Vanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
111
Constraints

1

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

2.1.1

2.1.3
2.2

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

3
4

55
5

6

7

7
8

8
9
9
9
12
12

. . . . . . . . Radial Advance Ratio .1 5. .5 Comparison to Experimental Results 5. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Setup 18 18 18 28 28 6 Conclusions 37 References 38 Appendices 39 A Ducted Propeller Design Code 40 B Sample Input 45 C Sample Output 40 iv - .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Thrust Coefficient .. . . .. . .. . ... . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . Local Advance Ratio ... . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .3 5. . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .

. ... . .. .. No Twist . . .List of Figures 4 .. . . .. .. 15 16 17 19- 18 . Verification of Propeller Chord Distribution . . 5 Ducted Propeller Geometry 6 Thrust Distribution Comparison of Example Propellers 13 7 Example 1. . .. ... . . . .. . . .. . .. .. Propeller Blade Untwisted Planform 14 1 2 3 Propeller Blade Sectional Geometry . Wooden Propeller j Distribution 1' Above Ground . . . .. .... . . . . .. .. . . .. Example 2 . . . . . . . . 12 Straightener Vane Chord Distribution Comparison. . Straightener Vane Chord Distribution Comparison.... . . . .. Verification of Propeller Pitch Distribution . . ... . . ... . .. . . .. Example 2 . ..... Propeller Blade Twist Distribution . Propeller Blade Untwisted Planform . .. .... . ..... . 15 16 17 23 24 25 Wooden Propeller j' Distribution 1'' Above Ground V 23 24 25 26 32 33 34 35 .... . . .. .. .. ... . .. Ground Effect on j ' Distribution . .. . . . 27 19 Composite Propeller j' Distribution 6' Above Ground . . . 4 7 10 11 12 11 . . . Wooden Propeller CT RPM and Ground Sensitivity . .. .. .. . . . ... .. . .. . .. .... .. . Composite Propeller j Distribution Comparison . .. Ground Effect on j Distribution . ..... .... . . ... . ... .. .. . .. Propeller Blade Twist Distribution .. . .. . .. . . . .. ..... ... .. . .. ...... . 29 20 Composite Propeller j ' Distribution 1'' Above Ground 30 21 Wooden Propeller j'Distribution 6' Above Ground . . . .. Wooden Propeller j Distribution 6' Above Ground .. ... . . .. . ... . . . .. . .. .... . ..... . . .. . . .. .. . .... . .. . .. . ... ... .. .. . . . . . .. .... .. Straightener Vane Sectional Geometry . . .. ... . .. .. . . ..... ... ..... .... .. . . . .. . .. 31 22 . Twisted 20 13 Composite Propeller j Distribution 6' Above Ground 22 14 Composite Propeller j Distribution 1" Above Ground 8 9 10 Example 1... .. .. .. . . . . . Composite Propeller CT RPM and Ground Sensitivity .. .. . .. . . .. .

...... .. 36 .... .26 Composite Propeller CT Comparison To Theory vi ...

z fraction of blade span= angle of attack (unsubscripted refers to a propeller section) vii .v.Symbols A area (unsubscripted refers to annular area swept out by the prw peller blades) A1 thrust distribution exponent B number of blades (unsubscripted refers to propeller) C nondimensional force coefficient= C chord D drag F force j local advance ratio= V j' radial advance ratio= K propeller induced velocity factor L lift P input power Q torque 9 dynamic pressure= i p V 2 (unsubscripted refers to freestream) R propeller tip radius & radial position along blade span S duct length to exit radius ratio z duct airfoil cross section camber ratio (maximum camber/chord) T thrust V air velocity W velocity difference between freestream and propeller jet velocities = v. .

viii .B pitch angle setting (unsubscripted refers to the propeller) 6 duct induced velocity factor 8 angle from axial flow line to velocity vector behind the propeller P air density U ratio of clear duct area to propeller swept area=$ d angle from propeller plane t o resultant velocity vector into the propeller (I angle from straightener vane trailing edge camber line to axial flow line fl propeller angular velocity W jet swirl angular velocity subscripts 0 freest ream 4 jet A axial flow at the propeller plane D drag d duct induced (Cdrefers to sectional drag) H hub i propeller induced L lift 1 sectional lift P propeller R resultant vector T thrust (VTrefers t o propeller tip velocity) V straightener vane X force tangent t o the propeller plane of rotation Y force normal to the propeller plane of rotation .

Expressing the change in velocity as w and noting. VA = VO + 5 + vO6 W T 9A CT = . the thrust of a ducted propeller is the product of the mass flow rate.1 Introduction The use of ducted propellers as the main propulsion units on aircraft has been investigated since the end of World War 11.+6) (1) W 2VO 1 VO . theoretically. Because. the weight of the duct often negates any benefit it provides. and the thrust coefficient are. and 2) negating tip effects if the gap between the inner wall and the propeller tip is very small (i. However. and its change in velocity. the thrust. through the propeller in forward motion. This problem can be partially alleviated by using strong. This method is based on Blade Element Theory.1 Inlet Velocity From momentum. lightweight composite materials and integrating the duct into the structure. a ducted propeller is more efficient in hover than a free propeller. A V = Vob. 2 Discussion - The effects of the duct on the propeller are two-fold: 1) inducing an increment of velocity.= 2 ( 1 + . it is desirable for Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) applications.03 in. A method of designing a ducted propeller blade was investigated and developed to maximize the thrusting efficiency for the Airborne Remotely Operated Device (AROD). then the velocity through the propeller. from McCormick*. W. a VTOL surveillance platform being developed for the United States Marine Corps. losses involving friction and boundary layer separation inside the duct often decrease the efficiency gain. but uses an approach t o the propeller-duct interaction proposed by T. that half of the velocity change occurs upstream of the propeller and including the increment in velocity induced by the ducted propeller in forward motion.e. 0. tiz. 2. Sheehy'. Besides fluid losses. Crucial to the performance of a ducted propeller is the design of the propeller itself. commonly used in free propeller design.). This small gap was assumed in the analysis.

where 6 is the factor to determine the duct induced velocity into the propeller in forward motion w = v4 . between 0.v.1. For these values.431s 1+1. The paper by T. 8 .033 4. the velocity induced by the duct in forward flight can be expressed as 1 6d=1-(%?)'( + 0.089s + 2.458 4. however. z (the ratio of the maximum difference between the duct mean camber line and the chord line to the duct chord length). resulted in the propeller thrust coefficient.88s 1+0.1 vi (4- . is the duct exit radius. between 0. This.CTp.5 and 2.1. W.1) (5) Duct Induced Velocity Finding the increment of velocity induced by the duct in forward flight is accomplished by using the relation developed by Helmbold' a length to exit radius ratio. This would 2 .05 and 0. the difference in CT between the ducted propeller and the free propeller is Solving for w in equation (3) yields w = 2. being double the thrust coefficient of the propeller and the duct combined. is the propeller j e t velocity (velocity in the jet far downstream of the propeller) Vi is the freestream velocity T is the total thrust g is the dynamic pressure = SpV.0 and a camber ratio.) p is the air density A is the annular area swept out by the propeller blades= A (R2. Sheehy gives a relation for the duct induced velocity which is the negative of equation (6).893s S 2 ) '+ (6) where R.R.) R is the propeller radius RH is the hub radius V4 The thrust coefficient for a free propeller (no duct induced velocity) is So.

Vo6. there is no Vo. The above modified expression resulted in the propeller providing about half of the total thrust. The total duct induced velocity. The conclusion is that Sheehy’s statement of Helmbold’s relation is in error and that equation (6) is correct. in forward flight is then the sum of Vo6.1. there is another duct induced velocity due to the interaction of the duct and that source in forward motion. which contradicts past conclusions that ducting the propeller is beneficial. va = vc and from the conservation of mass. if the duct weight can be held low. where the value of K depends on the geometry of the shroud and the position of the propeller in the duct. so CT is based on V ’ instead of VO If the expansion is complete at the exit.2 Propeller Induced Velocity Since there is an energy source in the duct.. then 3 . denoted by subscript e. which is the prediction of the momentum analysis done by Lazareff‘. Kucheman and Weber’ provide the following expression for the propeller induced velocity term. 2. 6. namely the propeller.3 Induced Velocity in Hover In hover.imply that ducting the propeller is inherently detrimental.1. and V&. 2.

2 Blade Design by Blade Element Theory The analysis leading to the propeller design is based on blade element theory./ Figure 1: Propeller Blade Sectional Geometry where RH is the hub radius and u is the exit area to propeller area ratio. and half of the final swirl velocity iur (half is induced upstream of the propeller and half in the slip stream). or (3) through (9) if in hover.the air velocity .the rotational velocity nr. Thus'V in hover is dependent only on the desired hover thrust.CT. and the duct expansion. and V. The final values of 6. 4 .. At each station along the span of the propeller blade. air density. The air velocity is composed of the axial velocity VA. the airfoil section at that station generates lift and drag according to its sectional properties.'V and the blade pitch setting angle (see Figure 1).. This then becomes the value of the velocity VA through the propeller when in hover. propeller size. are found by iterating on equations (1) through (7) if in axial flight. Cl and Ca. CT. 2.

. e = as. 2.1 Swirl Velocity Induced by the Propeller The swirl velocity is induced by the rotating propeller blade dragging some of the air it passes through along with it.sin 4) L 1 cos 4 (h) This indicates that. 1 2 --or = P 2r stpV~ A where P is the power input into the air by the propeller= f2'pV~ is the thrust provided by the propeller r is the radial station from the hub center R is the propeller angular velocity Tp After i u r is determined. 4 can be determined trigonometrically (see Figure 1). a.2.2. Maximizing then determines what angle of attack.2 Determination of Forces on the Blade Elements The vertical and horizontal force components on the blade element are. Since. 4. 2. This velocity can be expressed. E. from Pope'.. D ( Cx = Ci sin 4 + ( "L CY = ~1 cos 4 . /3. the lift to drag ratio should be maximized. and the blade pitch angle.3 Chord Distribution Determined by Thrust Distribution The incremental thrust from each blade element is given by.the local airfoil section should have during operation to maximize the propeller efficiency. for high ratios of thrust to engine torque. and the relation for the factor e in Pope's equation.2. from Figure 1. the most efficient angle of attack of the section can be achieved by selecting the correct /3 for that section at its design operating condition. the sectional angle of attack is the difference between the air velocity angle.2.

e. The second is accomplished by equating the torque of each blade section on each blade to the torque generated by the straightener vane sections directly downstream of the blade sections. If this thrust is different from the required thrust. This relation was chosen because it is simple and easy to modify. The thrust distribution over the blade. where ZH is x at the hub and AI is first assumed. then modified during iterative passes on the propeller chord distribution.so that the local blade chord at radial station r is. The flow straightener vanes need accomplish two tasks: turn the flow after it leaves the propeller so that it leaves the duct flowing axially (i. t o arrive at the total thrust. AI is multiplied by the ratio of the old thrust to the new thrust and that value is reiterated on until a value of AI is found which will accommodate both the total thrust and the ratio of the total thrust to that of the propeller. yet very flexible with a wide range of possible thrust distributions. This thrust is multiplied by the number of blades and the ratio of the total thrust coefficient to the propeller thrust coefficient. where B is the number of blades vz q R = i2P R 2=. can be varied to yield the chord distribution necessary to produce a given thrust with maximum root chord restrictions. 6 . The present analysis uses a relation for the thrust distribution which is an exponential function of the blade radial station only. The propeller design after each iteration is checked for the thrust produced over the blade.?1 R 2. (z). The first is accomplished by choosing the vane airfoil cross section at each station to have a mean camber line at the trailing edge whose tangent is parallel to the axial flow line.3 Flow Straightener Design by Element Torque Matching Flow straightener vanes can be included in the analysis as well. taking out the swirl velocity) and counter the torque produced by the forces on the propeller in the plane of rotation. 2.

since thin airfoil theory states that the flow will follow the mean chamber line of the airfoil. i."\ Edge Figure 2: Straightener Vane Sectional Geometry 2.3. 2. The incremental torque generated by each propeller blade element is.2 Vane Chord Distribution Determined by Equating Element Torques The flow straightener vanes can be simultaneously designed to take out the torque on the vehicle produced by the propeller and the engine. This is done by requiring that the mean camber line of the trailing edge of the vane be as nearly parallel to axial flow as is practical. the swirl velocity from the propeller must be negated.3. + 0 (see Figure 2).1 No Swirl Condition To provide purely axial flow. 7 . e.

so the angle of attack of each blade element is fixed at 4" which has a C1 of 0. cXv = C. This should be taken into account by reducing the required duct-propeller thrust and recalculating the propeller required for such a reduced thrust. but in the opposite direction. for a vehicle designed by Convair'. This is then iterated on until the total vertical force component on the duct-propeller combination balances the required thrust. dQ. required thrust. The torque generated by a vane element (denoted by the subscript u) is. (cos e + -sin e) D V L V The vertical force component on the vanes then contributes to the thrust. The Convair propeller was %bladed.3 D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the Forces on the Vane Elements . RPM. The NACA 1 6 5 1 2 has an L/Dof 67 at angles of attack of 4 O and 8". The vertical and horizontal force components on the straightener vanes are determined like those on the propeller and are. 8 . = B. 2. rotated at 1860 RPM to produce 2200 lbs of thrust.c.To counter this torque.3. yields. an element of the straightener vanes of the same width and at the same radial station must generate the same torque as that produced by the propeller blade element. used a NACA 16-512 airfoil section at an L/D of 67. It is stated that the blade angle of attack is far from stall to increase off-design performance. and duct conditions were taken. and consumed 400 hp on a sea level standard day with no duct diffusion considered. the propeller blade section. 3 Verification To verify this analysis.Cxvq~ R2zdz Equating the two and noting that'V is the same for the propeller as it is for the vanes.7. The propeller blade derived by the computer was then compared to the actual seven-foot diameter Convair propeller blade.

Figures 3 and 4 show the comparison between the design of a propeller with a 7-foot
diameter by the present analysis and Convair's 7-foot diameter propeller. The agreement
is very good with the propeller chord distribution being, at most, 2% lower than Convair's
chord at any location. The propeller pitch distribution shows almost the same accuracy
with at most a 6% greater pitch angle than that used by Convair. The predicted power
consumption also compares well with 411 hp to Convair's 400 hp.

4
4.1

Design Examples
Constraints

The examples which follow were done in support of the AROD project for the Marines.
The duct geometry was for a propeller diameter of 2 ft, hub diameter of 8 in, an exit
radius of 1.14 f t reflecting a diffuser total angle of 1 4 O , and duct length to exit diameter
and camber ratios of 1.24 and 0.1, respectively, see Figure 5. This geometry resulted in an
exit to propeller plane area ratio of 1.34.
The propeller blades were restricted to 3 in number and had to produce a total duct-_
propeller thrust of 85 Ibs in hover at 7200 RPM in an air density of 0 . 0 0 1 9 2 9 . Two
blade sections were considered; the KACA 4312 and the G6 610 airfoils. The propeller
maximum root chord was limited by two constraints. The vertical distance between the
leading and trailing edges of the propeller at the root could not exceed 2 in. and the crosssectional area of the root section could not be less than the 0.6 in2 of fiber from the hub
attachment for the composite blade. Areas of 0.71 and 0.75 in2 for the NACA 4312 and
G6 610 , respectively, were used t o leave room for the resin matrix.

4.2

NACA 4312 Blade

Figure 6 shows the predicted thrust distributions over the propeller radius for the two
airfoil sections. The XACA 4312 airfoil is similar to the popular propeller airfoil, the Clark
Y. Though 3-dimensional data were available, none of the needed 2-dimensional data for
the Clark Y airfoil were found. The maximum L/D for this airfoil is 80 and occurs at an
angle of attack of 10' where the Cl is 0.8. To account for the losses at the tips and to be
conservative, the lift was reduced and the drag increased by 10% so that Ct = 0.72 and
L/D= 66.12. The resulting propeller, for a thrust of 85 Ibs, has a blade taper ratio (the
ratio of blade root chord to blade tip chord) of 2.61, a root blade pitch angle of 41.98',
and a tip blade pitch angle of 21.01". The torque necessary to rotate the propeller at 7200
R P M is 10.23 ft-lbs. This results in an engine power setting of 14.02 hp, resulting in a
propulsive efficiency (thrust power/torque power) of 92.4%. The design propeller geometry
is shown in Figure 7 and the pitch distribution is shown in Figure 8.
9

,

t

,

.

,

I

1

1

,

I

I

I

I

1

I

I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I

I

I
I
1

--I
I
I

w
I

1

I

1

I
,

I
1
1
1

I

1
I
1

I
I

I

t

I

_

.
I

1I

I

I
I

3

,

I

s

0
uj

.

d

I
I

I
I
I

I
4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - -.. -- - - - I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I
I
I

1

I

1
I

I

I

1

I
I

I
1

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

'

I

1

I
I

' i

0
0

*

! r
I

0

u5

m
n

.-r'

V

t
-1

1

------r-----I
I

c)

I
I

I
1
I

-

0

u5

cv

I
I

I
I

.
I

$

0
0

Q)

Q

N

0

0

---

uj
t
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

Figure 3: Verification of Propeller Chord Distribution
10

0
0
.-

1

I
I

:

1

I

I

1

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I
I

I

I

I

I

.

I

I

I

1

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I
I
I

I
I

I
I
I

I

I

I

I

I
I

1

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I
I
I

I

I

I
I
I

I

I

I

I
I

I
I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
1

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I
I

I
I
I

I

1

I

I

'

0
0

d

I

I

I

0

I
I

: A-

I

I

I

1

I

1

I
I

I

----------------

I -

I-

f
f
I

------_-----------------------------------------I

0
uj

A

0

1

uj
.-

1

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I
t

I

,

I
I

I

I

I

I

Figure 4: Verification of Propeller Pitch Distribution
11

-

0
0

The vane chords were restricted to be less than 13 inches t o keep them completely in the duct.26 hp. the G6 610. may be desirable because it is easier t o manufacture. The propeller geometry is shown in Figure 9 and the pitch distribution is shown in Figure 10.6". though it makes a larger and less efficient propeller. 14.3 G6 610 Blade The second airfoil section whose thrust distribution is shown in Figure 6 is a circular arc airfoil.9 and the C. This results in a slightly lower eficiency. 4. The vane pitch was restricted to 0" to embed structural members. This airfoil.40 ft-lbs. After losses are taken into account.81" at the tip. has a value of 0. 91. The resulting blade which provides 85 Ibs of thrust has a taper ratio of 1. The power requirements for the same thrust are also slightly higher.52. This airfoil section has a radius of curvature to chord ratio of 1.4 Straightener Vanes Both propellers use straightener vanes in the duct with NACA 0012 cross-sections and the vane pitch forced to 0". 10.97. The torque necessary to rotate the propeller at 7200 RPM is slightly higher.78" at the root and 11.1%. a blade pitch angle of 32.4248 at an angle of attack of 0. the maximum L/D is 52. These constraints resulted in 5 straightener vane blades in the duct t o counter 12 .mean camber line chord Figure 5: Ducted Propeller Geometry 4.

. v) 3 k 0 cd I- m 1'0 P'O Figure 6: Thrust Distribution Comparison of Example Propellers 13 0'0 .0 0 6 0 ad 0 r.c.

0 Figure 7: Example 1. Propeller Blade Untwisted Planform 14 .

-r' -U 0 ad 6 c) 0 z 6 I 0 O'SP O'OP d O'OE 0'9E 0'92 Figure 8: Example 1.0 c\j F 0 t F 0 oj n .cp G . Propeller Blade Twist Distribution 15 0'02 t 0 .

Propeller Blade Untwisted Planform 16 .CD 0 cj 0 0 0 'P 0'2 0'0 0'2(*lJ!) V P W O J j Q6P3 Q P W Figure 9: Example 2.

Ti I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I h- 0 0 c a. 0n Q 6 0 0 ad I I 1 0 1 r. Propeller Blade Twist Distribution 17 0'01 . 0 5 0 I' I I I 6 I I A A 0 Lcj 0 d O'SE O'OE 0'92 0'02 0'91 Figure 10: Example 2.

Both of these designs were investigated at three rotational speeds both with the landing ring (which is 16 in.2 Local Advance Ratio The resulting data revealed two parameters which were insensitive to rotational speed. The vane chord distributions resulting from both propellers are shown in Figure 11. only on the size and number of the straightener vanes since the vanes provide only a very small part of the thrust. The rake of probes behind the propeller was moved t o three locations for each of the conditions above. the number of vanes is reduced to 4 and the similarity between the vane chord distribution and the blade thrust distribution breaks down.1 Comparison to Experimental Results Experimental Setup To better understand the axial flow velocity at the propeller plane. j. Ambient temperature and pressure readings were taken during the entire test so that air density values could be determined by the ideal gas equation. The wooden propeller was also run at 7000 RPM and 6250 RPM while the composite propeller was run at 6700 RPM and at 6OOO RPM. When the vane pitch is allowed to vary so as to maintain an L/D over the w e . 5. an experiment was performed using a rake of 9 static pressure probes interspaced with 4 total pressure probes mounted downstream of the propeller. but on a different scale.the propeller torque. above the ground. j = $. It is interesting that the vane chord distribution curves are almost exactly the same as the thrust distribution curves on the propellers. The velocities could then be determined through Bernoulli’s equation. 3. Figure 12 shows the vane chord distribution if the NACA 0012 is held at an L/D of 100 at an angle of attack of loo. The two propellers that were investigated during the experiment were a composite blade using the chord distribution specified in the above G6 610 airfoil section design and a wooden aircraft propeller cut to fit the duct. This was to provide off-design data and to determine what factors were RPM sensitive. It is a function of the radial 18 .and the radial advance ratio. 5 5. or changing the airfoil section has almost no effect on the resulting propeller. the local advance ratio.Letting the vane pitch angle vary. Both of these propellers were run at the maximum rotational speed the engine could produce (between 7590 RPM and 7740 RPM for the wooden propeller. behind the duct exit) 6 ft above the ground and 1 in. The local advance ratio is the ratio of the inlet velocity at the propeller plane to the tangential velocity due to the propeller rotation at any blade span location. and between 7110 RPM and 7350 RPM for the composite propeller). . The scope of the test included two propeller designs.

No Twist 19 .0 Figure 11: Straightener Vane Chord Distribution Comparison.

0 d O'P Figure 12: Straightener Vane Chord Distribution Comparison.0 oj 0 ad 0 t. Twisted 20 .

Why this is is unclear. This is not done through calculating the flow resulting from the desired RPM and resulting thrust. The comparison is quite good. This figure indicates that there is very little ground effect on the composite propeller the ground effect is more pronounced on the wooden propeller. or due t o interaction between the duct wall boundary layer and the blade tip. The assumptions used in the off-design analysis are possibly not valid since the resulting thrusts and mass flow rates are matched to the desired RPM. used a varying radius of curvature to chord ratio along the span. which changed the sectional characteristics from the design. or the aerodynamic pitching moments of the blade sections. The wooden propeller’s length of transition from hub to blade is longer than that of the composite propeller. The mechanism causing this untwisting could be centrifugal force. though using circular arc airfoils. If some sections are stalled. but from the lift off of the propeller. A severe loss in induced velocity is apparent near the tip of the blade. but time consuming method would be t o determine the mass flow due to the RPM and then the thrust. This could maintain approximately the same local advance ratio at any RPM. Max. as the RPM change further from the design value. or at negative angle of attack. Another aspect shown in Figure 17 is that the local advance ratio should theoretically be a function of RPM. axial flow. but are not at other RPM. That lift is then used t o determine the total thrust which determines the mass flow rate. though variations were held within 2%. especially considering that the thrust of the wooden and composite propellers either remains the same or decreases in the presence of the ground. Med. the characteristics of the propeller would alter for the other RPM. A more accurate. and Min RPM refer to the three rotational speeds mentioned above. the local advance ratios w i 11 be increasingI y in accurate. Exact numbers are not quoted since constant speeds between runs couldn’t be maintained. The fact that the analysis assumes a constant blade cross-sectional shape while the actual propeller cross-section changes along the span may also explain the independence of RPM. The lack of dependence on RPM of the experimental values of j could be due to the blade untwisting when the RPM increases. so that the sectional angles of attack and their Cl’sincrease which induces more. The pitch distribution also differed from the design values. The effect on the tip losses of the two blades when in the ground effect region are 21 . . Tip effects are also alleviated on the composite propeller while they are enhanced on the wooden propeller in the presence of the ground. above the ground.position only (see Figures 13-16). Figure 18 compares the local advance ratios of both propellers at maximum rotational speed 6 ft above and 1 in. Figure 17 compares the experimental values of j distribution on the composite propeller t o that predicted by the design analysis for the G6 610 airfoil. considering that the experimental propeller. The most marked difference occurs near the hub of the wooden propeller so the ground effect may disturb the flow at the hub to blade transition more. apparently due to pressure leakage around the tip through the gap between the tip and the duct wall. This dependence on the RPM of the local advance ratio in the theoretical results suggests that the theory will not adequately predict off-design performance. at one RPM.

I I I I I I zii z z n ii I 0 0 I I c\! 0 T 0 Figure 13: Composite Propeller j Distribution 6' Above Ground 22 0 0 . a : CD I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I % rn I I L c I L cg 0 I I I 1 u3 0 .+ a- m- c I :a3 .

U .1 I I D a. f D - I I I 1 II 1 1 N m 0 0 I II W 0 v) 0 -? cr) 0 0 cv 0 i II n II / T 0 Figure 14: Composite Propeller j Distribution 1” Above Ground 23 0 0 .

I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I U I I 1 0 1- I I I I I I I 1 I I 3a 1 cc) a N m 0 m 0 @a -? 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 15: Wooden Propeller j Distribution 6' Above Ground 24 0 0 . I I I I . I I I I 0 F I . : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 L.1 " " .

I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I ....- a 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N II II II m o a I I 0 CQ v) 0 0 9 c*) 0 0 c\! 0 Figure 16: Wooden Propeller j Distribution 1" Above Ground 25 0 0 . a- c/) c I I U I I I 0 m: I <a...........> + > + I I a- I I I a- - I .i--"+ .'... o1 :D... + a- V I 0 I -a I I I I I I I a. 5 a 0 a c a > I I I 3 I .--.

/ 0 + O 0- I (13 U a a> 0 c 0 I 0 a 0 9 v) 0 0 m 0 c'! 0 Figure 17: Composite Propeller j Distribution Comparison 26 .

- 6 N Q X W 0 0 Figure 18: Ground Effect on i Distribution 27 .cv t 0 .+ (13 0 v U t 0 .

up to the region where tip effects occur. another nondimensional parameter is produced. 5.. Like the local advance ratio. Figure 23 shows about the same sensitivity to ground proximity as the local advance ratio has. while enhancing tip spillage with the wooden propeller. This could be due t o a number of causes: the leading edge of the circular arc airfoil is much sharper. based on propeller tip speed (VT = RR). that the ground proximity appears to lessen tip effects on the composite blade. The sensitivity of this parameter to tip effects appears to be more dramatic than the sensitivity of the local advance ratio. Though a high degree of scatter is present.also unclear. but of radial location only. how the theoretical analysis on the propeller becomes less and less accurate away from the design RPM of 7200. This appears to be the ocly clear position that is derivable from the data though. the thrust coefficient.3 Radial Advance Ratio If the local advance ratio is multiplied by the square of the fraction of the blade span 2 at each location. the method of measuring the thrust (reading an LED scale against a bright sky background). 28 . Figures 19-22 show an interesting correlation. Since the ground effect inducement of greater tip losses on the wooden propeller still doesn't produce tip losses of the magnitude of the composite propeller tip losses in ground effect. a high tip chord to tip gap ratio would be desirable.CT = tends to increase when the ground is near and decrease aP ~ T A slightly with RPM. A. Figure 26 shows. The major difference between the two propellers at the tip is that the chord of the wooden propeller is larger than that of the composite blade. The losses of the composite blade are more pronounced than those of the wooden blade. The thrust coefficient data associated with the composite propeller is more highly scattered than that associated with the wooden propeller. 5. An improvement in the analysis would be to include the blade material properties so that untwisting could be modeled. This is most likely due to the differences in blade section and twist from that of the proposed design and the possibility of blade untwisting under load. which may be called the radial advance ratio since it is dependent on the fraction of the radius at which it is calculated. The noteworthy aspect of this parameter is that it is linear with 3 radial location. the radial advance ratio is not a function of the RPM of the propeller. j'= . again. making it more susceptible to stall than the wooden blade. (i) . but the ground effect seems to be beneficial to the composite blade while being detrimental to the wooden blade. and the composite blade producing more thrust which increases the disk loading making it more susceptible to stall.4 Thrust Coefficient Figures 24 and 25 directly show the effect of RPM and the ground proximity on thrust.

00 0 1 m m- v 0 a I a. 0 C co > 2 - cv m e (CJ a m 0 0 0 T: 0 T: \ L n 0 0 o!ieu ameAptj le!petj Figure 19: Composite Propeller j ’ Distribution 6’ Above Ground 29 0 0 .

E .a- > + cn aa- a. 0 t I I I I I I I I I 1 1- 1 (CI > 3 J 1 U 0 cv 0 - - In 0 0 0 1 0 o!ieu a3ueApv p p e g Figure 20: Composite Propeller j’ Distribution 1” Above Ground 30 0 0 0 . v) I m : x w LL - rw “u f fII n I I I I -----r------ n DO^ .D I I I 0 + (13 U a- I I I I I I I I a.

t c D3 I 0 : I I I I I N - m 0 T 0 0 0 m 0 0 o!ieu aweApv le!peu Figure 21: Wooden Propeller j' Distribution 6' Above Ground 31 0 0 .

IC) 0 0 IC) 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 o!getf cnueApV Ie!peH Figure 22: Wooden Propeller j 'Distribution 1" Above Ground 32 0 .-.

a o n c .I U 6 c 0 . I CI cc) @ V 0 I as U L a> 11 N X W 0 0 7 0 0 0 o!ieu aDueApti. le!peu Figure 23: Ground Effect on j’ Distribution 33 0 0 0 .

.r-----....I I I I 1 I I .-J-----. c D I I I I 0 : I I I I ----------.....- I c i b I I I a I I I I I-- I I I I I I I U c I I 1 I I G . I <D I I I I I I I n Q 2 I I I I I I I --------r .+------+-----...- Q) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I 00 co 0 0 0 e 1 d d 0 0 Figure 24: Wooden Propeller CT RPM and Ground Sensitivity 34 0: -----..'1 I 1 I I I I U 0 I w e 9 0 .*----.r .r .0 u I - I I I I I 0 -----+------*-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 L I I & ------ c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m 0 0 *ln mJ 0 0 0 m 0 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 0 v) 9 0 I I * 0 I 1""" ' " 1 I I I I I I I -------------- I .......

. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OD 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I : 0 0 (0 I cp I 1 I I I I I I I I I a. a L . + 0 0 a- v) 0 E0 c) I I I I I I I I Io Tt 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 (0 * m (D 0 cy I I 0 <D 0 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 Walaljpo3 .0 0 cy b 0 0 0 b 0 0 Q a0 cp . asniql Figure 25: Composite Propeller CT RPM and Ground Sensitivity 35 0 0 0 0 0 (D 2 a.

c 0 0 0 0 cn b 5 e- E" 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 <D 0 0 d <D 0 0 N <o 0 0 0 CD 8 0 <D 9 0 m d 0 0 0 0 CI) 0 0 8 0 Figure 26: Composite Propeller Cr Comparison To Theory 36 5 0 .

Using this analysis to determine off-design performance is not as accurate. In fact. a fairly accurate prediction of performance for a blade designed for operation under specific conditions can be made. These drawbacks do not outweigh the speed and accuracy of the analysis at the design condition. Another possibility is inaccurateassumptions in the off-design RPM analysis. while the analysis is fairly accurate in designing a propeller blade and set of straightener vanes to yield required performance at specific design conditions. it is not trustworthy for predicting off-design performance. Flexing and twisting of the blade away from its original shape cause changes in the operating conditions not considered in the analysis. reducing the RPM of the blade 600 RPM from the design speed results in a 40% error in the thrust coefficient. A possible improvement would be the inclusion of the sectional pitching moment and blade material properties. 37 .6 Conclusions The design of a propeller blade for a ducted propeller can be very complicated. it could be a result of a combination of the above. So. using several simplifying assumptions. It is also probable that the differences in the tested blade geometry from that of the blade in the analysis could account for the differences in off-design performance. Or. however. while no potential equations need to be solved. though. However. The reduction in complexity reduces the computation time by much more than the reduction in accuracy. N o more than 6% error is seen in the design comparable to the Convair propeller design. The reason for the inaccuracies may lie mainly in structural considerations.

W. McCormick. 73-54. 1973. . Helmbold. and Von 38 - . 1953. M. . Stevenson. Technical Proposal". 10. Vol. . M. 1955. Doenhoff. Kucheman and Weber. I. Dover Publications. pp 237-289. . New York. Re- 4. W. New 7. 11. 1966. New York. "Range of Application of Shrouded Propellers". F. N. B. . GDC PIN 66-947.Y .8". E. 9. D. . Lindsey. 4-8-4-46. H. 5. W. 6. Aerodynamics of V/STOL Flight . . N . pp 8. 1967. D. . "Computer 2. Aerodynamics of Propulsion h c . KS. NACA TR-460. . . . and Pinkerton. B. . "Proposal For AID. B. Engineering port No. . Jr. Butterworths. and Harper. Lazareff. McGraw Hill Book Company. Pope. . Sheehy. Riegels. . K. AIAA Paper No. "The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoils Sections From Tests in The Variable-Density Wind Tunnel". Y. N. 3. New . London. E. Paper D.References 1. N. I. Wiley and Sons. Alan. . Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing York. Y. Academic Press. N. T. 1959. . H. . K. "Aerodynamic Characteristics of 24 NACA 16-Series Airfoil Sections at Mach Numbers Between 0. Abbott. . .3 and 0. Aided Shrouded Propeller Design-. Ward.Theory of Wing Sections. 1961. E. T. Wichita. A. Jacobs. and Daley. NACA TN-1546. Aerofoil Sections: Results From Wind-Tunnel Investigations T h e retical Foundations . AGARDograph 126. 1948. Y. University of Wichita. 189. Inc. 1966. York. . "Aerodynamics of Shrouded Propellers". Nov. R.

Appendices A Ducted Propeller Design Code B Sample Input C Sample Output 39 .

BETAV(W) .6.. SI (RP/1.-1. 6 .1~. ETC. ~ 0 . AND SECTION DATA.l9..l6. S . .342.0.2 . ~ S .24.62.STA~S=’~W’) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C DPEN(lJNIT=3.8.~. CVMAX=CVYAXI/12.STATlJS=’tEW~) INPUT DATA BLOCK TREQ DESIGN THRUST (LBS) ve DESIGN FORWARD VELOCITY (FT/S) RHO DESIGN AIR DENSITY (SLUCS/FTB) RPI RADIUS OF THE PROPELLER (IN) z CAMBER RATIO CL PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONAL LIFT COEFFICIENT GAMMA PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONAL LIFT/DRAG ALF PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONAL ANGLE OF ATTACK OMECl PROPELLER DESIGN ROTATIONAL SPEED (RPY) PI INITIAL GUESS AT REQUIRED POWER PROPELLER HUB RADUIS (IN) RHI B NUMBER OF PROPELLER BLADES BV NUUBER OF STRAIGHTENER VANES PROPELLER POSITION FACTOR Kl CLV STRAIGHTENER VANE SECTIONAL LIFT COEFFICIENT GAMMAV STRAIGHTENER VANE SECTIONAL LIFT/DRAG ALFV STRAIGHTENER VANE SECTIONAL ANGLE OF ATTACK MAXIMUM PROPELLER ROOT CHORD LENGTH CMAXI RADIUS OF THE EXIT HUB (IN) RHEI DTOR CONVERSION FACYOR FOR-DECREES TO RADIANS EXHANG EXIT ANGLE OF THE DIFFUSER SCORDI DUCT CHORD LENGTH OF ORIGINAL VEHICLE fIN> RADLI DUCT EXIT RADIUS OF ORIGINAL VEHICLE (IN)‘ CVMAXI MAXIMUM STRAIGHTENER VANE CHORD LENGTH NUMBER OF ANGLES OF ATTACK IN LIFT VS ANGLE NZ OF ATTACK MATRIX FOR PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONS MATRIX OF ANGLES Of ATTACK FOR THE PROPELLER ALF (NZ) BLADE SECTIONS MATRIX OF LIFT COEFFICIENTS FOR THE PROPELLER CLS (NZ) BLADE SECTIONS XLOD(N2) = MATRIX OF LIFT TO DRAG RATIOS FOR THE PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONS NSECT = NUMBER OF BLADE SECTIONS I FLAG-TO CALCULATE-OFF-PERFORMANCE -IFLAC .0.21.24ll2~O2~~~49~~~l~/ COVERT FROM INCHES TO FEET RP=RPI/l2. ~ 7 S .21. 2 .90. FOR HIGHEST EFFICIENCY.191.NSECT. .72S.6.C(90) .12. IT ALSO DESIGNS THE FLOW STRAIGHTENER VANES TO MATCH PROP TORQUE.0.CLV. IF PROPORTIONAL TO ORIGINAL AROD RE~RP+RP/l. 9 / 1 C C c C C d8t8 C~S/-.1FLAC/9.1/ d8t8 m l p h / .7 .12. 8 . S . . MAXIMIZE THE GAMMAS. RADL=RADLI/lP.044.DAT’.~(SCORD-RADL)rTAN(EXHANG*DTOR) RH=RP/3. 2 ./ DATA CVMAX1.-3. RWE=RHEI/l2. .5.~.6. G A U U ~ ~ A L F . .b6.283.9.42~l.287.3. SCORD=SCORDI/12.~8~l. 3 . L 6 6 .DATA TRE~.0. PERFORMANCE REQS.6~6l.-2. 8 S 4 l .824/ d8t8 ri~h/-6.88.0174633.FILE=’prop.6/ DATA RHE1. . 7 8 9 .41..878. 8 . REAL K1 .12.TORQI(W) .l0.cls(lZ) dimonsion c x (90).~/ d8t8 ~ ~ ~ / .0.-. CALCULATE EXIT RADIUS.GAM~V. 4 .Z/8S.el/ d8t8 ~l0d/-3.DAT’.43.2.EXHANG.S. ~ 1 ~ 9 .DT0R.~8~6~ -861.f f . O M E C l ~ P I .FILE=’DESIG. R H I / 0 ~ 4 Z S l S 2 ~ 0 .6. CMAX=CYAXI/lP.RP1.1~Q.7.277.l67l~2S4l. . &CORD) /RE 40 . 1 . .1/ DATA C L .6.0.ALFV.681. ~ .. RH=RHI/lZ. x lod (12) OPEN(UNIT=2. OFF-DESIGN PERFORMANCE IS ALSO PREDICTED FOR RPM DIFFERENT FROM THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE PROPELLER BLADE IS DESIGNED.BETA1 (90).3 .6.7.789.4.K1.3.8 .FX(90) .0.BETA(90) .~~~~3~9~~~ 1 23.RADL1/4.0. . 4 2 5 .FY(QB) ..976. ~ .LETE (180) DIMENSION PHIM(S0) .6. ~ .2.n~.~. 8 S ~ l ~ 6 0 ~ / d8t8 ~l~d/-l.V0.4. ~ .6.00192.SC0RD1.8lph(l2) .60. .Ducted Propeller Design Code A C C C C C C PROGRAM PROPS THIS PROGRAM DESIGNS PROPELLER BLADE CHORD AND PITCH DISTRIBUTION BASED ON DUCTED FAN GEOMETRY.0.CMAX1/3.1 .687.14. . 1 ~ 8 ~ 7 2 ~ 0 ~ 2 6 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ / DATA B.~l. 1 .3.BV.R~0..14.CV(W) DIMENSION c y ( 9 0 ) .5. 3 .47~6~.5 .

14169266/60. CT .+DEL*VB I F (V0. EFFICIENCY. 600.-SQRT(RE/RP) ( (.CONVERT PROP SECTION AOA AND VANE SECTION AOA TO RADIANS ALFrALFoDTOR ALFV=ALFV*DTOR CONVERT RPM TO RADISEC C C OMEC=OMEGl*2*3.033*4. CT=T/Q0A TL~TOQ~JA CTPN=CT CALCULATE ABOVE BASED ON VELOCITY THROUGH THE PROP INSTEAD OF V0 IF I N HOVER IF<V0rNE.0 16 THRUST=0.s. 41 . AND MAX STRAIGHTENER VANE PITCH Al=l ETA=0.893*S) *S*2**2) DELI=0. C C C C C 6 SET I N I T I A L VALUES OF THRUST EXPONENT.26*C (I LETE(NSECT+l-IXS+1)=-0.88 1 O S ) / (1+0.O. CALCULATE EXPANSION RATIO AM) THE PRODUCT OF THE FREE S T R W DYNAMIC PRESSURE AND THE DISK AREA SIC=(RE**2-RHE**2) / (RP**2-RH**2) q0A=0.6*RHO*VRSQR*RP*RP+X*DELX TORQI (I TORQ=TORQ+TORQI(I) F X (I =) .431*S)/(1+1.) DELO-1 . 8 THETAM=3./(2. ) VA=W TP=QBA*CTP DELX=l.6*RHO*VRSqR) 0) 12.- I C C W=SQRT(TREQ*SIC/(RH0*3.RnO.6*RHO*VRSQR*RP*OELX 60 CONTINUE C CALCULATE E X I T VELOCITY AND POWER AT PROPELLER PLANE VEsVA/S I C PIN=THRUST*VA/660. SET PROP S f R I P C WIDTH AND 1ST PROP STRIP NUMBER AFTER HUB C VA=VB+W/P.S INTEGRATE THRUST AND TORQUE OVER BLADE C TORQr0. . ) D C d (I /RP ) =B*C ) (I *C ) X ( I ) .XOOMEG-~AN)O*~ I F (I NE.0:) COT0 10 . LETE (I)=0. EQ.) PIN=10.089*S)*2+(2.RPoDELXoc 11).~X~OMEG~RHO~VA~~.VRSQR.14169286*(RP**2-RH*@2))) Q0A=0.RHO~VRSQR)/X**Al 2 0 C (I)=DTPDX*X**Al/(B*RP*CY (1)*0.cy (1) THRUST=THRUST+B*C(I)*CY(I)*./NSECT VTAN~PIs6S0. AND RESET NEW CT I F ( V 0 .14169266/2.NSECT X=I*l.6*RHO*VRSQR=RP*DELX*C I) *CX (I) FY (I)= . 0.6.l416~266~(RP~~~-RH~~2~RP)) PHIrATAN (VA/ (0MEC.O.NE.6 DO 60 I=IXS./NSECT XH=RH/RP IXS=XH*NSECT+B.76*C (I *12.6+RHO*W*~2*3. IXS) GOTO 20 DTPDXrCMAX~(B~RP~CY(I).NE. TOTAL THRUST.14169286*RP**2 CT=T/Q0A TL=CT*Q0A CTPNr CT DETERMINE PROP AND SHROUD THRUST COEFFICIENTS WITH HELMBOLD'S C FUNCTIONS.6*RHQ*V0**2~3.41* (SQRT(l+CTP)-l) DEL=DELO+DELI CTPN=CT-P*DEL* (SQRT ( 1 4 T P ) -1) TEST=ABS (CTPN-CTP) /CTP I F (TEST.8. GT.458+4. ALSO CALCULATE SHROUD INDUCED VELOCITY THROUGH PROP C I F NOT I N HOVER C 10 CTPICTPN W=V0* (SqRT(l+CTP)-1) iF(V0.001) GOTO 10 CALCULATE VELOCITY THROUGH PROP AND PROP THRUST.14169266*RP~*2 T=TREQ CALCULATE TOTAL THRUST COEFFICIENT.0.X-VTAN) ) PHIM (I =PHI ) CY ( I ) = C L * (COS (PHI) -SIN (PHI) /GAMMA) C X ( I ) r C L * (SIN(PH1) +COS (PHI)/CAYMA) BETA1 (I)=(PHI+ALF) / d t o r VRSQR=VAO*~+(RP. CHECK FOR RUN-AWAY POWER VALUES C I F (PIN.RP.

CLV=203.6.R H ~ ~ ~ ) / T ) ~ S ~ I . THRUST EXPONENf. / (1. ~ * ( .) ETAt2.6 SPILLS1 / (NSECT-IXSV) fF(IXS.I. 66 - .OR. I F THE CENTERBODY RADIUS IS LARGER THAN THE PROP HUB.NE.’VANE GAMMA INSUFFICIENT PICK ANOTHER’) COT0 OB 80 I F (THETAM. (ALFV.) .+CTPN)) F I (TESTS. / (2.2) CV(I)=CV(I)+SPTORqoSPILLo (COS(THETA))oo2/(BVoCXVo .e XHV=RHE/RP IXSVxXHVoNSECT4.6 T O R q V d .e .O . IXSV) BETAVR=BETAV (IXSV) I F (I CV(1) =B*C (I)oCX (I 0) (COS (THETA)) oo2/ (BVoCXVo (SIN(PHIM(1))) 0. 141692660 ( R P o o ~ .)) PRINT 6 6 FORMAT(lX. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ( R P O ~ ~ . e . ETA=PIN/PM E T A L ~ ~ ~ S ~ R T ( S I C ~ R W O ~ ~ .C C C C C C C 6s RESET POWER.GT. oX*OMEG.EQ. . I ~ ~ ~ ~ C L V O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C L V ~ I ~ ~ ) ) USE BETAV (I)= (THETA-ALFV) / dt or END I F C Y V d L V e (SIN (THETA -COS (THETA) /CAMMV) cxv=cLv.sei) COTO w T~TREQ/To(1-N) GOT0 6 CALCULATE FINAL PERFORUANCE PARAMETERS W PYxOUEC*TORQ/660. . CTPOCT=CTPN/CT lTOT=QBAeCT OUTPUT DATA BLOCK CR = PROPELLER ROOT CHORD (IN) CT P PROPELLER T I P CHDRD (IN) BETAR PROPELLERROOT-PITCH -ANGLE (DEW BETAT = PROPELLER T I P PITCH ANGLE (DEG) . AND CHECK FOR CONVERGENCE ON PROPELLER THRUST PIrPIN Al=TP/THRUSToAl TEST2rABS (TP-THRUST) /TP I F (TEST2 .I ).~ORHO~VAOVA/((COS(THETA))~O~)ORPORPOX 1 oDELX 70 CONTINUE CHECK FOR VANE EFFICIENCY GOTO 86 I F ( (1V. RERUN AT CLV AND QAWFOR MFbTHETAU’ 1 THETAM STOP ITERATE M I L ADD VANE THRUST AND COMPARE TO REQUIRED TOTAL THRUST. TAKE THE PROP SECTIONAL TORQUES WITHIN THE CENTERBODY RADIUS AND DISTRIBUTE THEM EVENLY OVER THE STRAIGHTENER VANES nw.NSECT X=Iol. LE . LT THETAM) THETAYtTHETA THEN I F (ALFV EQ. IXSV) CVR=CV (IXSV) F I (CV (I) LT.R H ~ o ~ o R P ) ) THETArATAN (VTAN/VA) IF (THETA. BETAV (11 =e.9 C A M M V ~ C L V / ( ~ ..+SQRT(l .eel) GOT0 16 S I Z E STRAIGHTENER VANES BY VANE STRIP TORQUE CANCELLING PROP STRIP TORQUE AT SAME RADIAL STATION.RHOOVAOS.’THETA < ALFV. . ~ E T A CTrCTPN+2*DEL* (SQRT (l+CTPN) -1) . ) 6rRHOe (VA/COS (THETA) ) ooPoCYV*RPeDELX TORQV=TORQV+BV~CV(I)~CXVO./NSECT VTAN=P106SB.IXSV (I) SPTORQ=SPTORQ+TORQI CONTINUE EN0 I F DO 7 I I=IXSV. CONVERGED 86 T r T + N TEST3rABS (TREq-T) /T I F (V0.IXSV) THEN DO 66 I = I X S .14169266ofHETAo0.foRHOoVAoVAo 1 XeRPoRPoDELX) I F (I EQ. C C C C C C C C C 42 . .O sPToRq=e. CVMAX) GOTO ee BV=BV+l COT0 66 60 lV=TV+BVoCV (I e.CE. CE ALFV) GOTO 86 THETAM=THETAM/DTOR PRINT . C . (cos (THETA] + S I N (THETA) /cmuv) EQ . EQ.b .

ETA = EFFICIENCY (THRUST POWER/TORQUE POWER) ETAL t THRUST EFFICIENCY (THRUST/POWER LBS/HP) T = TOTAL THRUST (LBS) PTHRST = THRUST POWER (HP) BV = NUMBER OF STRAIGHTENER VANES TORQ = TORQUE PRODUCED BY PROPELLER (FT-LBS) TPS = THRUST PRODUCED BY PROP AND SHROUO = VANE ROOT CHORD (IN) CVR = VANE T I P CHORD (IN) CVT BETAVR = VANE ROOT PITCH ANGLE (DEC) BETAVT = VANE T I P PITCH ANGLE (DEG) VA t AXIAL A I R VELOCITY (FT/S) = THRUST EXPONENT A1 CTP = PROPELLER THRUST COEFFICIENT = TOTAL THRUST COEFFICIENT CT PTORQ = TORQUE POWER (HP) TORQV = VANE TORQUE (FT-LBS) WRITE(3.o)’CVR.Al.VA.Al. l l ~ 300 120 dolprii-6.)’ 1 ’TE 1 0 4 FORMAT(lX. ’ X PROP CHORD LE VANE CHORD PROP PITCH VANE PITCH.LETE(NSECT+l-IXS+I).PTHRST.TPS‘.103) WRITE(2.NSECT bot.e) STOP OPEN(UNIT=l.PM WRITE(3. r r i t o ( 1 .ETA. ( jj ) = b o t a l ( jj ) + d o I p t o Id = t TORQr0. . BETAl (I .STATUS=’NEW’) writo(1.ETAL’.) BETAV (I) 1 0 6 FORMAT(lX.C (j ) oCX ( j) .f8.nz. 1 BETAV (NSECT) WRITE(3.17 orm~2=0nWg1+(i. ’ (IN) (IN) (IN) ’ 1 ’[IN) t IN) (DEG) ’1 DO 110‘I=IXS.f8. do 300 j j = ixs. C (1)012. o~~=onwg2*203..3.102) WRITE 12..6.TORQV 108 f o r m o t ( ’ rpm d01t. c l ) c a l l Iintorp(aIph.0 DO 260 j=IXS.116) XoRP.CTP/CT. Dmmignod o t 7280 r p m ’ do 200 i i i r 1 .CV(NSECT)ol2.PTORq‘.o) ’ Go 610 A i r f o i l Bled. * 1 cv (I)012. l 0 8 ) d o 200 i=1. n r .2~)) 100 CONTINUE WRITE 2.BOT ‘C C C C -- C C C C C C C C C C C C C m(ITE(3.b o t m ( j )o d t o r . 1 BETA1 ( T X S ) ../NSECT WRITE (2.2~.FILE=’por m.3X)) 110 CONTINUE I F (IFLAC.104) Go 610 C I R C ARC AIRFOIL V = 0 KTS 7200 RPY’) 102 FORMAT(lSX.DAT’.9 ) 0180.. / ( 2 . S r h o 2 = r h o o (14-i i i)/le.CVRol2.ETAL WRITE(3.BETAVTD.BETA1 (NSECT) .C(NSECf)~12.BETAVR.LETE(I) . o l f d .6oRH02oVRSQR*RPoRPoXoDELX TORQ=TORQ+TORQI(j) 43 ’.gonnu) CY (~)=CLO(COS(PHI)-SIN(PHI)/GAMMA) CX(j)=CLo(sIN(PHI)+CoS(PHI)/CAMMA) VRSQR=VAOO~+(RPOXOOMEG-VTAN)OO~ TORQI ( j ) -8.CVT.6.PIN.0 THRUSTr0.BV.CTPOCT.o)’CR. o ) ’dons~ity=’.T.CMAX+lP.CT.3.NSEiT ‘ X=Iol. . .2x.1416Q266/6~.rho2.o)’T.6(f8. PHIzATAN (VA/ (OMEGORPOX-VTAN)) PHIM (j ) =PHI I f . 103 FORMAT(lX.BETAT.p h i m ( j ) I f d o o If / d t o r call l i n t o r p ( 8 l p h . d o 200 i i = l . +XOOMECORHO~OVA*~.EQ.’ mlugs/cubic f o o t ’ w r it o ( l .7(F8.BETAVR.ETA.lORq. /NSECT 141692660 (RP*o~-RH+o~oRP)) VT&N=PI*S60.12.mIfd. c l m .xIod.BETAR.o)’VA.NSECT X = j e l .p t h r u m t p r o p t o r q u o vono t o r q u o 1 ’powor off # / h p ( i d o o l ) ’) 1 0 9 forrnat(lx.o) ’TORQV’ .’ .

NSECf X = j 01.881) goto 280 IF(VB.00011 GOT0 2 2 0 C CALCULATE VELOCITY THROUGH PROP AM) PROP THRUST VA=V0+W/2. 9 9 ) goto 206 DEL110.2) i f ( c t p .~. It..) W=V0* (SQRT(l+CTP) -1) DELO=l .*X*OUEC.9 C A M M V ~ C L V / ( ~ .141692660RPbo2 CT=T/Q6A TL= C 1 Q 0 A CTPNtCT C DETERMINE PROP AND SHROUD THRUST COEFFICIENTS WITH HELMBOLD’S C FUNCTIONS.torq. ~ ~ O C L V + ~ . EQ.lt.833+4.6*RHOS*VA*VA/ ( (COS (THETA) ) e.8 266 TORQVt0.~ . O .43l*S)/(l+l.rnk.8 XHV=RHE/RP IXSV=XHV*NSECT+0.893.R H * * ~ ) ) ) Q8A=8.S)/(1*0. CT.THETAM) THETAMtTHEtA CLV=2*3. IXSV) THEN DO 266 k=IXS.l41692SS*(RP~~~-RH~~2~~)) THETA=ATAN(VTAN/VA) IF(THETA. ~ * ( .LT. ALSO CALCULATE SHROUD INDUCED VELOCITY THROUCH PROP C I F NOT I N HOVER 220 CTP-CTPN I F ( V 0 ./NSECT VTAN~PI*660.RH02~3.0.NE. ) VA=W t o Id = t g o t 0 120 2 3 0 pm=onrgotorq/660. ~ ) ) C Y V d L V * (SIN (THETA) -COS (THETA /CAUMV) cxv=cLv* (cos (THETA) + S I N (THETA{ /cAuWv) TV=TV+BV*CV ( * ) .t.Ot8~ 288 c o n t i n u o STOP END 44 .14169266* ( R P o o ~ ./(NSECT-IXSV) I F (IXS .doIp.6*RH02* (VA/COS (THETA)) *.IXSV SPTORQ=SPlORQ+TORQI(k) CONTINUE END I F DO 2 7 0 j=IXSV.oETA rrito(l. 0.l09) onrg2.14169266* (RPor2-RHoe2) /T) 0668. t=thrust*ct/ctp lvr0.) o t o 268 ETALPPOSQRT(~IC. +DEL*V0 I F (V0.NE.-SQRT(RE/RP)*(( . 4 .) COT0 220 W S Q R T (TREQ*SIC/ (RHO2*3.468+4. ota=pin/pm lf(t.0.8~9*S)~Z+(2./(2. ~ ~ ~ ~ * C L V * O ~ .6*RH02mWbo2b3.S).41* (SQRT(l+ClP)-l) DEL=DELO+DELI CTPN=CT-~ODEL*(SQRT(l+CTP)-1) TEST=ABS(CTPN-CTP /CTP I F (TEST.S.2) *RPoRP*X 1 oDELX 278 continuo T-T+N I pitpin t f ((.6*RHO2*VRSQRoRPoDW( 260 c o n t i n u o PIN=THRUSTeVA/668.THRUSTtTHRUST+BeC(j)*CY(j)*.8 SPTORQ=8. I t .Z.b.RHO2*VA*~.8.2rCWoRP*DELX TORQV=TORQVdV*CV (j) r C X V * .~orqv.(t-told)/told).NE .8~ 1 .0.6 SPILL=l.14169266*THETA*0.

62.976.726.8a?2~.-2.8.RADLI/4.~66.a3.CMAXI/3.~..l~.S.044.~a~.1/ d8t8 ~lph/-7.426I.ALFV.GAMMV.2.6.~.-0.~.2.l67a. RADLI CVMAXI = MAXIMUM STRAIGHTENER VANE CHORD LENGTH t NUMBER OF ANGLES OF ATTACK I N L I F T VS ANGLE NZ OF ATTACK M A T R I X FOR PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONS = M A T R I X OF ANGLES OF ATTACK FOR T H E PROPELLER A L F (NZ) BLADE SECTIONS = M A T R I X OF L I F T C O E F F I C I E N T S FOR THE PROPELLER CLS (NZ) BLADE SECTIONS XLOD(N2) x M A T R I X OF L I F T TO DRAG R A T I O S FOR THE PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONS = NUMBER OF B L A D E SECTIONS NSECT IFLAG t F L A G TO CALCULATE OFF-PERFORMANCE TREQ DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA TREQ. 8 7 8 .Z/85.~.-1.OMEGl.lI0..~.0l74~33.?..RHI/0.CLV.RHO.624/ 45 .109.4.SCORDI.BV.918.0l~.PI.426.IFLAG/9..EXHANG.12.l4.~. 1 .El/ d 8 t 8 x 10d/-3.6. l b .-2.62.9IO./ CVMAXI..4.-.~42a.9/ d 8 t 8 cla/-..2S4..~.8.-S.GAMMA.Kl.3.21.-3.8.6~.277.8.7.90.V0.DTOR.283 3 .12.8..RPI.~.l4.~.NSECT.12.1/ CL.43.41.ALF.789.S.0.3. 1 23.681.nz.6L1192.?.084.B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Sample Input I N P U T DATA BLOCK = D E S I G N THRUST (LBS) ve = D E S I G N FORWARD V E L O C I T Y (FT/S) RHO = D E S I G N A I R D E N S I T Y (SLUCS/FT3) RPI = R A D I U S OF T H E PROPELLER (IN) t CAMBER R A T I O Z CL = PROPELLER B L A D E SECTIONAL LIFT C O E F F I C I E N T GAMMA = PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONAL L I F T / D R A G t PROPELLER BLADE SECTIONAL ANGLE OF ATTACK ALF OMECl P PROPELLER D E S I G N ROTATIONAL SPEED (RPM) t I N I T I A L GUESS A T REQUIRED POWER P I = PROPELLER HUB RADUXS (IN) RHI x NUMBER OF PROPELLER BLADES B = NUMBER OF STRAIGHTENER VANES BV Kl x PROPELLER P O S I T I O N FACTOR STRAIGHTENER VANE SECTIONAL LIFT C O E F F I C I E N T CLV x STRAIGHTENER VANE S E C T I O N A L L I F T / D R A G GAMMAV x STRAIGHTENER VANE SECTIONAL ANGLE OF ATTACK ALFV = MAXIMUM PROPELLER ROOT CHORD LENGTH CMAXI x R A D I U S OF THE E X X T HUB fIN1 RHEI DTOR = CONVERSION FACTOR FOR DEGREES TO RADIANS EXHANG = E X I T ANGLE OF THE D I F F U S E R = DUCT CHORD LENGTH OF O R I G I N A L V E H I C L E (IN) SCORDI x DUCT E X I T R A D I U S OF O R I G I N A L V E H I C L E (IN).191.4.W4 .~846~~~6l. 587.26.6/ RHEI.287.6.O/ B.

90000 9.44999 2.39040 2.90323 -1.a9829 7. be0M 8. W 7 9 0.31667 2.33333 9.63333 10.76672 -1.61684 e.64841 7.62718 9.49716 2.- 6 6.00000 0. a0369 a .69420 0.66298 9.wew 0.41664 2. 86434 0.80070 9.69301 -2.97164 -1 .19172 7. 72089 d.67777 8.67247 e.00080 9.62609 -2.18382 11.49219 -2. GO 610 R CC I PROP CHORD (IN) -a. 00009 6.46667 6.weme 9.72630 -1 . 87193 16.a7866 -2.49468 2.ewe0 6.00000 6.00000 .62022 e.26667 4.93737 -1.4s7a6 3.37899 2.e3076 9.27949 LE ARC AR IFOLI (IN) 9.69923 0.64831 2.960W 6.14481 .62367 9.86868 6.Ob236 -1 -79323 -1.68488 -2.13333 6* 26667 6.86414 e.02112 -1.eeme 0.60704 9.66667 18.00000 0.08647 1.98 686 24.87600 9. 00800 9. 1419s a.33372 -2.2atae 13 .wew 6.16817 -1.81749 2.79966 9.98260 -2.46164 -2.63333 4.00000 e.00000 9. oast4 -1.96666 2.a1234 -2.16142 a3 .98624 -1.e9911 -1.00000 9.00000 e.46667 7.86000 9.e4974 0.67211 4.92861 2.66637 0.SO838 6.17269 26.a3333 7.26667 10.46800 8.00900 9.66667 6.64164 16.a9804 14.92649 6.e8934 26.93213 i 9 .69684 18.61696 2.66667 8.63764 2.OS279 0. 613es 21 .83868 2.66682 6A1847 6.47683 0.93333 7.68660 1 .e2671 -2.96973 2.94673 6 .78626 9.21492 a2 .71746 -1.78424 -1 .40000 4.70093 2.64998 4.7a213 0.47777 -2.64679 9.41664 a .20086 ii a3333 11.68021 2.eeeee 9.79862 46 21.e7623 9.60873 2.42816 2.93333 11 .69180 0.e6646 a .00060 0.16218 8 . 90008 9.96261 2.86868 9.ewm 2a . 81721 9.a4422 1.ee186 12.72941 1.98929 18.63162 2.01166 -1 .80000 8.90612 16 .96644 7.80000 10.?a332 -1.e9832 6. a8347 6.6a608 0.68686 9.79286 9.93944 -2 .96667 6.67483 in.00Oea 9.60000 7.68929 9.86667 12.66788 9.80000 6.16213 84.ra418 a.E8239 2.19419 22.69481 2.60000 11.82692 9.61696 28.mise -1 -94921 -1.20000 9.60389 9.73333 7.a6678 -2. 04668 a.48000 6.67616 0.68891 9.98312 3 .73333 6.82833 VANE ?ITCH (DW 9. 60000 8.66667 4.77641 -1.wm .60079 9. bee00 0.84436 9.62aa9 a.143413 28.80000 4 -93333 6 ..97717 2.ee~i9 a .86667 19. 77791 9.raaos 8. 99000 0. 87912 ia .8iasi 9.46880 16. 76863 0. 77078 0 * 76386 9.60000 9.e2861 a.w000 9.11163 a.60000 8.90616 2 .24931 7. 66144 29.mea 9.28987 2.90098 9.00000 6.OB164 -1.26667 8. 23626 8.00000 .46667 9.88776 2.96788 -2 .13333 4.a3300 2.67860 16.60000 a .86021 2.e9794 12.66261 2.66769 2.86667 6.63441 0 . 62663 la.13836 a.20000 6. 66987 rr (IN) -2.29328 18.67076 9.98842 (DEG) 36. 29929 22.86086 -1 86661 -1.16179 -2.41802 18.60639 17.16426 17 le967 le.61926 9.68326 0.63333 6.63333 8.46891 27.26189 -2. 00000 0.83268 6.a1862 ai .36721 2.68316 2.ewe0 .73333 11.71606 9.77966 16.12894 -2.86667 8 .00000 e.98000 @.68049 0.be000 9.19193 4.26814 19.23268 -2.22676 2.00000 9. 26885 a.wew e. ia.92676 -1 .e6369 -2.43669 24.79437 e.- 9.09228 -1 . a3984 a.98879 a. a2196 2.69094 2.69896 2.40316 2 .63ei3 9.13333 8.42924 4.74976 -1 -74147 -1 .66644 8. 00008 e .70962 v = e KTS 7 2 w MY VANE CHORD PROP-PITCH i . e m 2 2.eee00 10. ioiao 16.72629 e .11312 -2.73800 2.67981 9 .80881 9.79690 2.62394 2.64208 1.17141 a.31110 2.19638 -2. tab13 e. amas za.43937 8.976 19 28.74429 e.00000 6.76717 2.eoew 0.60090 7 .79661 4.a9097 2.37742 a.6637’1 8.e6667 11.69774 0.89674 27.46734 2.88222 1.88060 0.00860 @.e9768 -2.60OW 9.17888 -2.08667 7.20279 a.29169 -2.48088 2.13744 2.46049 ne. i74a4 6. 607a4 19.a9989 4.eww e.6 .00000 9.06664 17.13333 10.27146 -2.- 9.191ea 16.68301 2.20000 7.66647 2.66241 -2.89339 6.49684 22.00000 6.66639 6 .88270 16.63306 -2.84962 29.e1439 -1.33333 6.seeee 9.91226 -1 .42644 -2.08814 14.47619 14.16662 2. 86000 e.82766 la.eoaw 18.60000 6.08667 9.69476 9.19433 29.66782 26 .78869 2.64192 e.21438 -2.83496 9.aiess 8.16641 6 .WMe 1.4aaea 6.02600 14 .00900 9.e7638 4. ea023 4. 68460 9.73333 9.14616 -2.77680 2.07101 -1. US64 -1.98000 8.We00 6.76716 9.71926 2.46667 11.C Sample Output Propeller Design Geometry X 4.46486 2.12440 6. 24a77 6 .93aa3 9.41661 16.00800 9.e4837 14.

8888888E40 VA.9166644 T.22281 8.33177 47 .796618 8.fORQ.c PROPELLER T I P CHORD (IN) BETAR = PROPELLER ROOT PITCH ANGLE (DEG) BETAT .PTHRST.TPS 84.3606 1.63447 TORQV 11.99263 14.ETA.Al.82833 8.BETAVR.688888 2.6824098 15.687638 8.CT.BV.BETAVT 1.608888 11.43411 CVR.ETAL 3.CVT.I PROPELLER T I P PITCH ANGLE (DEC) I EFFICIENCY (THRUST POWER/TORQUE POWER) ETA €TAL I THRUST EFFICSENCY (THRUST/POWER L@S/HP) T = TOTAL THRUST L0S) PTHRST I THRUST POWER IHP) 0v L NUMBER OF STAIXCHTMER VANES TORe I TORQUE PRODUCED 8Y PROPELLER (FT-LbS) t THRUST PRODUCED 0 Y PROP AH) SHROW TPS = VANE ROOT CHORD IN) CVR CVT I VANE T I P CHORD ( N) BETAVR = VANE ROOT PITCH ANGLE @EO) BETAVT L VANE T I P PITCH ANGLE (DEC) VA = A X I A L A I R VELOCITY (FT/S) A1 o THRUST EXPONENT = PROPELLER THRUST C O E F F I C I W CTP CT I TOTAL THRUST COEFFICIENT PTORQ = TORQUE POWER (HP) TORQV 2 VANE TORQUE-(FT-LBS) -- 4 CR.Propeller Design and Performance Summary C C C C C C C C C C C C C c C C OUTPUT DATA BLOCK CR I PROPELLER ROOT CHORD (IN) CT .16213 18.PTORQ 169. 12390 12.BETAT.279492 36.CTP/CT.666682 8.33178 84.BETAR. w e e e e B E + o e 0.

114 6.e64 86.am -a.e8808 6000 .942 67 .161 28.69888 7988.E84 1.e8880 6588.000 8.e79 17 . 247 12.e49 42.869 7 .908 7880.242 aa .e38 4.982 6.a18 11.683 8. 919 9.669 -ai .886 9.880 8.996 12. 80608 1 .888 2.631 -2.888 6688.88008 6080 .e02 11 .723 17 . 90008 1 .e78 8. 6988.880 6488 .e44 13.941 -2.900 69BB.792 191.491 4.880 6480.677 0.238 18.m 0.88808 r Pm 6408.369 67.eaa 0.438 16.812 9.272 9.a66 187.68888 6980. 1 ~ ~ 9.844 17. a21 9.666 a.00008 6608.919 19.939 17. w l 90 .663 6.468 a.me 1 .988 3.616 17.e08 6908.98808 6800 .668 aO.021 -6.e82 12.491 9.980 4 . 899 191 .698 -2.794 21.080 -8 .698 12 .e88 -a.768 -6.466 1 .941 18.693 66. 69088 6688. 642 16 .872 76. 800 1. am6 a.99880 -4.90088 6988.949 16.626 14.463 2.189 1 . .08800 6400.483 86.a79 24.e80 6688.918 11 .98000 6888.80888 6680 .497 0 .864 8.819 12. 876 0.OB4 9. ia3 6. 762 12.126 i9.897 12 .90880 6908.969 ia .794 81 .263 91 . 241 96.868 6. e99 la.291 ia. 686 18.673 9.321 10.emee 6680.726 1a.268 a.e40 9.986 d/hp (idmo I) 21 .88008 4.bee88 6600 .884 9.m t.211 16.w 12.e0800 6. 98888 -4.e77 it.962 8.280 4 .863 126.966 19 .88888 6788.644 16.968 la.000 -2.888 4.196 62.9BBBB 1 .ais 16.bee -2.267 8.88080 6808 .461 8.682 16.80880 3.679 9.486 17.916 6. 822 11 .238 9.664 9.817 4.4aa 14.492 2.232 81 .908 .906 7. 880 12.913 16.877 6.228 7.868 8.217 6.090 6.786 66.aaa a4. 196 6.a66 81.80808 6600.e67 8 .164 17.696 it.962 7.W8 14.900 9.e96 9.oeeeo 6788 .e08 8.988 1 88880 2.089 9.e08 6408 . 117 -6.876 7.e14 i6.88888 6088*em -2.963 9.062 7.913 9.749 21.E27 8.163 62.466 26 .861 11 .972 14.166 9. bee00 7888.193 -1.e0008 7088.448 9.279 77 .190 9.941 23.998 6.680 9.88080 6688.088 -1.m a 73.141 i8.764 6.688 107.662 la.021 9. 862 8.771 1.a88 9.e88 -3.698 -1 .aii 18. 849 9.979 42.811 11.a48 14.881 0.086 -9.626 14.727 6.a48 29 .296 61.98008 6688.481 9 A32 9.4a4 12.00000 6400 .920 8.477 16.e88 -4.636 12.867 72.791 6 .274 48.448 18.486 19.163 -4. 916 18.188 -23.746 2.921 -0.884 13. ai8 8 .we88 7888.723 7.ea2 0.687 6.224 9.800 1 88080 6688* 088 9.268 18.698 6900.we 3.688 e.e88 -4. 988 9.2a9 12.874 0.476 66.181 9.289 6.4i6 i .983 9 .e66 14.939 16.490 1 4 1 7 .a27 11.6aa 0.912 7 .244 la .w e 0 0 6788.688 14. 98888 7080.768 8.eia 9.926 i6.800 6688.492 29.166 9.P91 69.4~ 14.218 14 .062 9.766 4.198 11 .68888 6788.872 9.W1 19.662 19.791 4.726 11.462 16.88008 6000 .849 la.980 8.166 3.663 1.842 i4.274 a.891 9.886 9.623 9.746 0.012 10.869 11 .267 6.BB@ -4.729 6.282 38.271 6.724 96.a77 -2.626 14.80080 6400 .217 0.499 8 .246 9.834 la.see 1.8B0 6988 * we 6908.629 6.017 11. 199 6.674 12. 661 12. 00088 6780. 896 9.e91 19. 667 13.ai6 13.la16 12.436 a .e83 7.869 7.998 -4 * 69888 6980.126 7.761 2.e37 14.326 6 .648 6.880 a .979 8.899 9.e80 2.006 12.80088 6680.226 29. ai8 18.e00 6408 .e0088 6680.948 9.e99 114.087 9. in8 0.988 19.4119 0.808 -6.980 1.92a 9.e37 11.219 18.611 19.779 0. a98 19.u7 4 .667 14.El8 8.911 9.466 29. 08888 6888.4a3 6.149 6.88000 3.e80 -1.627 6.88880 6988.898 91 .680 -3.e88 6.680 16 . 869 8.e8888 2.986 16 .4s 128.249 7.863 7.747 4 .see 4.168 1 .417 8.786 9.686 16.a82 a.886 la.e49 13.E89 4.289 9.698 6680 .7a8 67.4)~ 19.677 2.000 2.866 8.111 6.68888 a.916 12.949 4.146 22 .000 6680 .682 -2.311 18.e00 6400 -900 4.698 7000.e08 -1 .278 9.770 la.am a .891 0.798 8.473 96.00888 6780 .096 7.am 18.674 0 . a32 9.268 182.888 8 .894 0.912 11 .068 11 .e00 -1.212 19.874 16.011 6.729 16.Propeller Off-Design Performance do I t 8 p -3.219 71.866 6.662 198.603 19. ieeee 6688.666 119.900 4. 889 9.009 6.186 8 .498 14.228 16.266 9.i7a 11.a m 14 .e8888 2 * 00000 a .846 86.762 23.636 2.796 0.68888 6888.116 76. eeeee 4 .e88 -2 .94a 2. 214 6.663 16.188 0. bee80 6808.796 9.688 8.08808 6788.08808 6788.see88 2.E14 18 .e61 9.812 14.690 -3.E84 4.97a 0.e00 -2.88800 6780.777 47.478 16.769 6.W9 11.e08 -3.917 6.291 113.882 6.479 16.446 91.686 29.00080 7080.868 8.92) 8.888 43.714 14-64a 1a .a36 -1.137 12.08808 6.446 11 .622 11 .994 19.296 16.673 9.064 a.633 0.676 96.978 29.4a9 14.109 17.88880 e7m.744 16.773 9.088 -1.68880 6688.976 18.126 86. i6a 1a.932 12.672 17.684 6 .8ll12.473 11 .e49 9.90808 a.90880 7088.880 -.117 9.pa7 48 mf f 8.981 2.a28 @.008 -2.88880 6080.819 ia.

00000 1.894 0.me 16.000 -2.784 113.a49 6.00000 7600. B26 6.e34 7.986 16.627 28.974 17.878 7.00000 7600.911 13 .497 6 . o w 0 0 6 .381 6.668 16.366 18.486 12.498 8 7 .00000 1 .am 8.164 ii .00000 1.262 3.a40 11.862 6.848 8 .000 7300.a02 17.216 26.062 11.966 19.622 41.4a4 12. tat 4.662 11.633 0.79s 11 .687 22 .00000 6.466 18.667 9.06000 -4 * 68000 -a.843 6.639 26.949 18.211 146.712 18.464 21.060 1.413 89 .00000 .224 12.898 6. 7600.00000 1 .00000 -4.666 2 .234 7.902 6.764 16.984 6.912 6.a63 DrOD ie.000 7600.000 7200.937 12.342 11.e37 99.00000 7400.387 10.717 13.600 7600.80000 -6.798 13.49a 9.686 7.248 9.664 98.896 16.000 -3.161 28.00000 7600.766 8 .662 106.e33 17.000 7300.469 6.861 6.889 96.337 126.a14 10.133 7.634 6.803 7.446 24. be000 -2.000 7100.00000 3.918 4.00000 -3.202 a .a74 7. 844 8.608 6.00000 7400.314 31.689 6.00000 7600.773 7 .000 1 .838 8.666 68.144 21.794 16.000 26.00000 -3.431 160.871 22.168 62.000 7700.726 0.867 3.621 13.744 13.000 3.248 12.00000 -1 .00000 7400 .00000 -2.492 124.00000 -4.000 -2.464 6.S12 6.987 6.669 i6.376 1.626 1.a06 26 .622 12.770 78.646 21.983 26.--.341 21 .832 6.231 22.662 6.338 136 .a33 10.103 12 .00000 4 .417 6.638 27.00000 a.468 11.294 16.368 20.790 9.a96 16.000 7600.496 169.072 112.000 7100.841 7.741 29.00000 -3. a20 66.663 7. 884 0.386 26.694 12. 910 8.000 7600.E33 -6.000 2.444 8. 889 6.669 0.689 12 .218 12 .989 6.492 6.974 la.986 40.126 19.166 23.673 30.000 4.689 11.692 7.00000 3.720 20.777 10.00000 7300.000 7700.868 0.171 6.e17 6.630 8 .000 7700.726 7.00000 -2.836 6.6Zl 7 .000 7200.891 4.087 6 .000 7 7 0 0 .469 2.68800 6.000 6 .000 1 .216 14 .637 12.E62 8.000 7200.a86 19. 432 20. 898 6.722 6.788 13.600 7700 .774 14.900 144.000 7300.00000 2.000 6.649 4 .00000 -1.944 17.00000 6.192 9.768 122.ea6 9.964 9.747 11 .630 12.m 7.488 16.831 9 .713 14.e41 19.00000 3. a m ii.e39 161.672 8.426 67. 00000 4.616 12.836 104.730 47.00000 7400 .179 2.864 12.00000 -6.818 6.817 6.766 13.978 16.802 0.864 6.688 7700.712 11.941 91 .000 7300.e76 19.419 6.961 8.000 6.626 111.837 6 .663 6 .884 6 .619 18.247 138 .793 16.434 73.943 46.199 23.607 6.849 17.ow 8.468 14 .e00 7700.266 16.832 13.986 8 .000 do I t 8 p 6.916 6 .607 11 .176 13.263 8.00000 - 6 .000 7300.792 9. 00000 7700.00000 7400 . 166 6.460 9.000 7300.400 6.80000 -1 .677 12.618 8.692 16.633 23.000 7100.636 7.898 6 * 878 8.460 6.407 19.607 18.e63 as.00000 7400.737 8 .606 67.106 7. 138 12.304 11.W4 16.616 107.4e4 12.669 17.786 11.000 7200.874 6.343 72.669 16.00000 -0.401 6.000 0.489 146.000 7100.136 21 . 876 6.000 7200.697 36.748 28 -893 22 .00000 7600.146 19.761 4. ~ i e 24.683 4.269 18.867 8.784 16.711 8.869 6.867 22.687 8.662 132.000 7100.614 4.000 1 .00000 6.620 1.878 0.a76 14 .000 7200.744 8 .447 9.00000 thrurt 132.000 -4.634 12.00080 7600.877 7.000 7200. 00000 7700.106 8.. 867 e .00000 2.00000 4.00000 7600.361 33.826 8.641 8.889 6 .917 26.184 94. 662’ 1 49 ett 6.822 9.677 126.00000 2.000 7100.e88 26.973 8.363 176.192 0.000 7300.837 22.326 14 -697 21.696 1 .766 3.000 -6. a29 78.276 6.893 6 .000 3 e0000 7600 000 -2.772 20.000 -1 .00000 4.000 7300.e00 2.00000 4.232 118.978 21.00000 1. 812 6.166 17.263 169.163 9.a89 19.663 a6 .916 6.m9 6.a76 101.e0000 7600.00000 -2.00000 3.1J1 9.663 162.00000 -6.009 119.812 2.966 7.169 11 .970 24.649 96.718 18.430 86 .684 62.000 7100.e78 11.219 11.483 12.107 ia .228 13.639 8.898 8.086 8.478 a3.000 4.662 8.4a6 8.966 166.879 6. 839 8.621 8 .862 ai .000 -6.00000 - -. a82 6.we00 0.360 6.196 7.898 162.179 14.637 6.363 6.612 2.000 2.E62 0. torauo nowor 17.681 18.671 6.000 -3.486 6.869 139.296 21 .ne8 16.421 61 .767 62.rpr.634 6.164 11.163 19.00000 7400.607 6.613 3.618 3.a36 16.W9 e.648 8.740 16.101 166 .992 9.989 14.e0000 7600.00000 7600.762 17.796 8.668 12.966 2.000 7200.630 0.000 7700.414 18.904 8.600 7200.308 14.883 26.000 -6.000 1 .874 ai.448 7 .00000 2.a87 10.167 4.827 67.000 3.181 4 .00000 7400.846 11.781 6.686 e.843 6.786 12.982 10.486 33.776 14.e61 101.669 8. 848 6.000 7100.264 16.see 6 . 816 6.863 130.129 132.261 toraua van.000 -4.00000 7600.sea 12.947 26.627 4.793 6.499 18.000 7600.247 16.686 20.263 6. 6ae 10 .e37 .000 7200.674 12.00000 7400 .000 7200 .000 7700.000 7100.000 -4. 916 6. 7000.418 27.7a9 7.736 11 .697 116.681 16.604 8.669 24.366 17 .910 16. -6.169 17.a63 9.000 7100.966 6.982 6 .831 6.918 6.168 7.739 8.a11 aO.712 14.e10 16.671 23.286 9.732 16.00000 -4.647 26.000 7300.00000 7600.000 -6..882 84.866 6.482 138 .183 24.773 20.400 16.000 6.760 6 0 .968 16.784 +/hp (1 der 1) 7.00000 7600.663 8.682 9.189 16.00000 7600.677 io.863 8.063 29.638 14.00000 7408.e62 11.000 7100.000 7300.223 168.869 in .689 12.00000 7400.e71 9.818 6.408 9.I33 12. 697 6.843 6.363 79.621 6.00000 7600.687 7 .

m 6.e0000 4 .?E8 8.981 21.322 168.876 9.00000 -2.000 6.866 8.e46 in.00000 n .7248 96.166 7.916 18.000 7800 .961 0.611 8.086 9.in9 11.636 .00000 2.628 4.626 ie.181 16 .038 116.774 6 . n a #/hP (id. 7800.873 12. 00000 7900.00000 1908. a .696 26. a96 66.839 14.872 188.664 26 .260 9.00000 6.rpr.aa7 9 .927 166. .682 18.aee0.666 20.714 16.822 76.444 16. 134 14.666 8.800 s m 0 .762 177.80000 .964 66.668 18.764 9. ne7 83. D6B 6..463 0.496 6.224 70.I10 2 3 .876 6.984 8.e m 8000.e00 7000.e12 50 7.674 21.483 12.000 8000.se4 * . mff (1.e0000 7900.810 e.a72 3 4 .412 6.491 48.176 8.e00 ~ 0 0 .e00 7800 .048 9.462 ie.800 8000.680 11 .846 22 .268 26. 573 10.829 6.961 8.984 17 .633 17.697 a8 iae 42. b0B 8000 .80000 -4.a67 27.228 194 .a91 a.461 24 .00800 a . 173 18 a 4 1 19.e42 4.788 18.e0000 7900.e0000 -2.00000 -6. 802 e.wa 9.00000 -1 .272 11.e26 19.000 do I t a p -6.e10 6.671 181 .876 112. a23 61.662 i72.114 128.466 21 .666 18 A33 16. m e 26. 0 7 6 143. aee 8.680 8 .e08 0 8000.e08 7800 .826 is.e0000 7900.e00 0 8000.800 7 e ~e00 ~ . 937 a6 .6ie 184.a61 17.880 e000.842 6 .7(19 11.6ai 46.117 11 .083 14.e00 1. e0000 1.774 8.e51 149.00000 7900 .e38 27.6n8 26.867 @.687 6.837 128 .844 9.983 .661 16.121 20.642 0.768 21.287 12.766 8.894 16.766 23 .00000 -4 .mi 0.886 8.3(16 9.766 22. be000 -4 80000 -8.e0000 0 .698 161. a71 21. a m 18.423 18.269 166.e00 7800.987 88.621 14.803 171.a46 a2.648 9.271 126.887 140.711 7.a17 20.894 9.e60 7.631 14.868 9. 689 6 .800 -2.683 84.sm 6.00000 7 0 ~ .797 e.BBBBB -3 .8W 9.677 8 .e10 i a .e0008 r9m .126 23. 866 9. 00000 1 e0000 2.272 a6.a14 8.WQ (1. toe i e . ~ 9 38 .666 17 .866 8. e0000 -1 .689 11 189 18 616 9 748 8 ma 8 279 7 66 1 7 181 6.000 4 . 078 22.464 134 .800 7000.77a 2~.e00 7800. e00 ~ 0 0 0e00 .479 19. 804 8. 613 11.897 24.00000 7908.689 7.6e2 28.136 6 .832 8 .00000 thru8t prop t o r q u e ran.967 10. 329 22.401 18.879 7. 826 0.927 8.000 -6.118 11.867 11. me -1 .614 89.463 6 .684 8 .e00 2.e0000 6.711 a i .000 -3 .000 7800 .e00 7800 .925 torque power a.691 11 .e0000 e.786 8 . eee 29.137 82.ee0 7900. 7800 . a22 12.147 6 . 1) 11. 107. 879 6. 00000 4.438 16 .

D. Ladenberger (5) 3151 W . White 9132 J. Maydew 1551 J . Jr. W. Jacobs 5261 C. Watts 9132 J . D. W. McBride 1553 S.Distribution . Arlowe (5) 9120 M. E. Garner (3) R. Peterson 1530 L. A . Davison 1550 R. 1554 D. 1510 J. Cole 1551 R. Phelan 51 . C. Hartwigsen (4) 5261 C. K . Greenholt 5261 K . J. C. J . W . D. P. Henfling 1555 W. 3141 S. Oberkampf 5260 J. D. Aeschliman 1554 J . F. M. C.L. Barton 1556 W. Newsom 9130 R. Andreas 9132 A. Kunziato 1520 C. Boultinghouse 5261 H. L. McAlees. Weir (10) 1552 D. R.

B. Dalin (28) for DOE/OSTI 8024 P. W. Washington. VA Prof. G. D. R. W. J. Hawaii 96734-0997 Prof. E. Columbus. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Carderock Laboratory Bethesda.O.Boehler Aerophysics Company 3500 Connecticut Ave N. W. D. Eversman The University of Missouri-Rolla Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Rolla. Lee The Ohio State University Aeronautical and Astronautical Research Laboratory 2300 West Case Rd. Ohio 43220 Dr.3154-1 C. C. Young Department of the Navy Naval Ocean Systems Center Code 5302 P. Missouri 65401-0249 Prof. H. USMC Marine Corps Development and Education Command Quantico. Dean COL R. H. Chaplin Department of the Navy David W.Box 997 Kailue. Maryland 20084-5000 M. Bowles. Missouri 65401-0249 52 . 20008 Dr. Oetting The University of Missouri-Rolla Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Rolla.