. .

An Acoustic Sensitivity Study of General Aviation Propellers K.D. Korkan and G.M. Gregorek, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; and I. Keiter Cessna Aircraft Co., Dayton, Ohio

AlAA AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS MEETING

August 4-6, 1980/Anaheim, California
1

For psrmirrion to copy or rapublish. contact !ha Amarkan Institute of Aaronaulics and AstronauN~~.1290 Avanun of the Amarkas, New York. N.Y. 10019

AN ACOUSTIC SENSITIVITY STUDY OF GENEFAL AVIATION PROPELLERS"

Kenneth D. Korkan Gerald M. Gregorekf The Aeronautical and A s t r o n a u t i c a l Research Laboratory Department of Aeronautical and A s t r o n a u t i c a l Engineering The Ohio S t a t e University Columbus, Ohio

**

Abstract This paper d e s c r i b e s t h e r e s u l t s of a study in which a systematic approach has been taken i n studying t h e e f f e c t of se- . l e c t e d p r o p e l l e r parameters on t h e charact e r and magnitude of p r o p e l l e r ndiae. Four general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t were chosen, i . e . , a Cessna 1 7 2 , Cessna 210, Cessna 441, and a 19 passenger C m u t e r concept, t o provide a range in f l i g h t v e l o c i t y , engine horsepower, and g r o s s weight. The p r o p e l l e r parameters s e l e c t e d f o r examination c o n s i s t e d of numb e r of blades, RPM reduction, t h i c h e s s / chord reduction, a c t i v i t y f a c t o r r e d u c t i o n , p r o p l e t s , a i r f o i l improvement, sweep, posit i o n of maximum blade loadin?, and diameter reduction.
I.

i n t h e d e s i g of general a v i a t i o n propell e r s , and provide a b a s i c understanding of pnopeller n o i s e .

This paper d e s c r i b e s t h e r e s u l t s of such a s t u d y , in which f o u r g e n e r a l a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t shown in Figure 1 were chosen, i . e . , a Cessna 1 7 2 N , Cessna 21OM, Cessna 441, and t h e 1 9 passenger Cessna STAT C m u t e r Concept, t o provide a range i n f l i g h t v e l o c i t y , engine horsepower, and g r o s s weight (Table 1 ) . The a i r c r a f t f l y over n o i s e o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n was chosen, * . e , , a t 1000 f e e t a l t i t u d e a t f u l l power in accordance with FAR 36 r e g u l a t i o n s . The p r o p e l l e r parameters s e l e c t e d f o r examination c o n s i s t e d o f :

Introduction

Because of t h e ever i n c r e a s i n g emphasis on f u e l e f f i c i e n c , t h e r e has been a renewed i n t e r e s t in t x e use of p r o p e l l e r s . For example, it has been estima that i n , a fuel t h e u s e of t h e prop f a n concept savings of approximately 36% can be r e a l ized over t h e turbofan through proper prop e l l e r design. Also, r e c e n t s t u d i e s have shown a 5 t o 7% savings in f u e l e f f i c i e n c y can bT2ybtained f o r genera& a v i a t i o n a i r craft through improvements i n p r o p e l l e r design and c r i t i c a l examination of propell e r - n a c e l l e i n t e r a c t i o n s . However, in ad-:. d i t i o n t o maintaining p r o p e l l e r performance, t h e r e i s t h e a d d i t i o n a l element of meeting t h e requirements d i c t a t e d by v a r i o u s noise r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t have been and w i l l be imposed on t h e general a v i a t i o n i n d u s t r y . During t h e p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s , much e f f o r t has been expended i n both t h e o r e t i c a l and experimental a c o u s t i c evaluations of n o i s e emanating from a p r o p e l l e r . These s t u d i e s : have r e s u l t e d i n h s u c c e s s f u l modeling of n o i s e sources(5.e) from a p r o p e l l e r , however t h e r e has not been an extensive study of t h e various p r o p e l l e r parameters which a f f e c t t h e c h a r a c t e r and maqnitude of p r o p e l l e r n o i s e . Such a study would be extremely u s e f u l in determining t h e w i d e l i n e

FfP

sweep p o s i t i o n of maximum blade loading diameter r e d u c t i o n

11. Acoustic Model

Fol@Ting Ffowcs Nilliams and , t h e a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e , p-PO, Hawkings due t o a rip,id moving p r o p e l l e r a t t h e f i e l d point (observor) x(Ol, 02, ly ) and time t n e g l e c t i n g t h e e f f e c t s of L ? g h t h i l l stress t e n s o r s , is given by:

Here p n i s t h e f o r c e per u n i t area e x e r t e i ' o l t h e a i r by t h e p r o p e l l e r blade s u r f a c e , S; V i s t h e outward normal component (n ) o? t h e blade s u r f a c e convect i o n v e l o k t y V; p d i s t h e undisturbed a i r

NASA Contract **Research S c i e nNASs t 3-21719 t i , Department

-'?his

study was p a r t i a l l y funded by N S Lewis Research Center under AA

of Aeronautical & A s t r o n a u t i c a l Engineering, Associate Fellow AIAA +Professor, Department of Aeronautical & A s t r o n a u t i c a l Engineering, Hember A I M ++Supervisor. Technical S e r v i c e s , Member A I M .. . . .
Copwighl @ American Instllu~eol Armnaolkr and Aslmn~udc%lnr..1 9 M ) . A l l r i g h l s r ~ . r d .
~~

d e n s i t y ; r i s t h e r e t a r d e d d i s t a n c e between t h e f i e l d p o i n t and t h e soyrce o i n t a t emission t i m e T = l e ; and is the Doppler f a c t o r . These i n t e g r a s a r e taken over t h e e n t i r e p r o p e l l e r blade s u r f a c e and t h e a c o u s t i c d e n s i t y p e r t u r b a t i o n has been replaced by t h e a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e , p-po. The f i r s t term of t h i s equation i s t h e n o i s e generated b y t h e blade f o r c e , i . e . , loading n o i s e , and t h e second term r e p r e s e n t s t h e e f f e c t s of blade thickness commonly r e f e r r e d t o a s thickness n o i s e .

,l-llfP

The a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e s i g n a t u r e f o r t h i c k n e s s , loading. and o v e r a l l n o i s e i s computed l@yed on t h e method of Woan and Gregorek , The r e s u l t is then u t i l i z e d in a Fourier s e r i e s a n a l y s i s program t o o b t a i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l s p e c t r a of t h i c k n e s s , loading and o v e r a l l n o i s e . The performance of t h e s e programs is demonstrated in Figure 2 , and t h e good a g r e m e n t between experimental measurements and p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s i n t h e time and frequency domains i s shown in Figure 3 . The b a s i c approach in t h i s study cons i s t e d o f conducting a b a s e l i n e a c o u s t i c a n a l y s i s of t h e e x i s t i n g p r o p e l l e r configu r a t i o n f o r each a i r c r a f t . The method used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s c o n s i s t e d of u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e l o c a l a i r f o i l Nach number, angle-ofa t t a c k , and Reynold's number t o determine t h e local a i r f o i l pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n a t t e n r a d i a l l o c a t i o n s along t h e p r o p e l l e r blade by use of t h e a i r f o analyses programs o f 7 p e t a n a , e t . a l . t k ) and/or Sauer, , These p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t data et. al. were then placed i n t o a format compatible t o t h e Aeronautical and A s t r o n a u t i c a l Rdseary9)Laboratory (Ma) a c o u s t i c a l program which, a s .ndidA&d ,earlier, c a l c u l a t e s values of sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l (SPL) i n dB, d B ( A ) , d B ( B ) , and dB(C) a s w e l l a s a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e s i g n a t u r e and frequency c o n t e n t as s e p a r a t e values of p r e s s u r e o r loading n o i s e , t h i c k n e s s n o i s e . and t o t a l noise. A s an example of t h e method used and t o demonstrate t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in a c o u s t i c p r e d i c t i o n s when considering l o c a l subc r i t i c a l and s u p e r c r i t i c a l flow, t h e acoust i c baseline condition (fly-over noise) for t h e 1 9 passenger Cessna STAT COmrmter prop e l l e r was c a l c u l a t e d . The l o c a l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were f i r s t c a l c u l a f g y using t h e a n a l y s i s of Smetana, e t . a l . which i s only a p p l i c a b l e t o s u b c r i t i c a l flow and s p e c i f i c a t i o n of t h e , l o c a l Xach number, a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k , and Reynolds number by t h e McCauley Accessory Division, Cessna A i r c r a f t Company. The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Figure 4 and i n d i c a t e s t h e load d i s t r i b u t i o n over t h e p r o p e l l e r f o r t h i s f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n . The corresponding p r o p e l l e r a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e s i g n a t u r e and frequency spectrum a r e shown i n Figures 5 and 6 . Careful examination of each a i r f o i l s t a t i o n f o r t h e above c a s e , however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e l a s t f o u r s t a t i o n s on t h e p r o p e l l e r have gone s u p e r c r i t i c a l , i . e . , where t h e l o c a l Xach number on the a i r f o i l has exceeded u n i t y . The a p p r o p r i a t e a i r f o i l
2

a n a l y s i s code t o be used under t h e s e c i r cumstances wou then be t h e method of Bauer, e t . a.', li) which does p r e d i c t t h e l o c a t i o n and s t r e n g t h of t:he e x i s t i n g shock waves an t h e blade s u r f a c e . Therefore, f o r t h i s mixed c a s e of both s u b c r i t i c a l and s u p e r c r i t i c a l flow, both a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s codes o f Smetana, e t . a l . and Bauer, e t . a l . were used with t h e r e s u l t s shown i n F i g m e 7. Comparison between t h e sub and sub/ s u p e r c r i t i c a l loading d i s t r i b u t i o n s (Figures 4 , 7) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e prop e l l e r t i p a r e r a d i c a l l y changed when cons i d e r i n g t h e more r e a l i s t i c c a s e of both s u b and s u p e r c r i t i c a l flow. Examination of t h e a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e s i g n a t u r e s (Figures 5 , 8 ) and t h e frequency s p e c t r a (Figures 6 , 9) f o r t h e s u b and s u b / s u p e r c r i t i c a l flow i n d i c a t e no major d i f f e r e n c e s . However. a t a b u l a t i o n of t h e p r o p e l l e r n o i s e v a l u e s f o r t h e s e c a s e s show t h a t a lower v a l u e of SPL i s predicted f o r t h e sub/supercritical case than or t h e s u b c r i t i c a l c o n d i t i o n , e . g . , (Subcritical) 76.62 dB(A) 77.34 dB(A) 79.57 dB (A) (Sub/Supercritical) 75.27 dB(A) 76.33 dB(A) 78.65 dB(A)

Thickess Noise Loading Noise Overall Noise

t a b l e a r e small and shows t h a t t h e a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s code of Smetana, e t . a l . can be used with confidence i n a c o u s t i c e v a l u a t i o n s f o r g e n e r a l a v i a t i o n p r o p e l l e r s . However, it t h 8 l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s do become excessive where severe s u p e r c r i t i c a l flow i s encount e r e d on t h e a i r f o i l , t h e p r e s e n t a c o u s t i c a l model does come under question s i n c e i t does not include a l l p o s s i b l e n o i s e sources.

The d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e above

111. Acoustic Analysis

The study was i n i t i a t e d by conducting a b a s e l i n e a n a l y s i s f o r each of t h e s u b j e c t m o p e l l e r s . i . e . , 1C160 p r o p e l l e r (Cessna 172N), 8OV p r o p e l l e r (Cesima Z l O M ) , 935 p r o p e l l e r (Cessna 441), and t h e 1 9 passenger Cessna STAT C m u t e r Concept. The following geometrical and performwce values were a l s o taken a s b a s e l i n e and u t i l i z e d in t h e study. Diameter (inches)
RFN

(1C160) 75.0 2700 17.45' 0.0245 0.8775

(8OV)

(935)
90.0
2000

(STAT)

80.0
2700 24.44' 0,0692 0.8903

110.0
1700

50.75~
CP n

36.00'
0.2853 0.9133

39.68' 0.2532 0.9286

where E Y555R i s t h e p r o p e l l e r t w i s t angle s t a t i o n , CP i s t h e power c o e f f i a t the

c i e n t , and peller.

I?

i s t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e pro~~y
~~ ~~ ~ ~~~

After conductine t h e b a s e l i n e a c o u s t i c a n a l y s i s [-each o f t h e p r o p e l l e r parameters previously mentioned was analysed a s t o i t s e f f e c t on t h e c h a r a c t e r and magnitude of n o i s e . This was accomplished by holding a l l p e r t i n e n t geometrical parameters cons t a n t , changing only t h e p r o p e l l e r parameter of i n t e r e s t , and c a l c u l a t i n g t h e r e s u l t a n t noise.
~

match t h e b a s e l i n e power c o e f f i c i e n t (C ) by determining t h e necessary blade incrgment anhle. This a n g l e is considered p o s i t i v e f o r increasing and negative for decreasing t h e b a s e l i n e v a l u e when adopting t h e two, t h r e e , or four blade c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The performance parameters under t h e assumed conditions were determined t o be: (1C160 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 1 7 2 N ) )

No. Blades

Cp

A@

i l

CT

Number of Propeller Blades(') s t u d y , t h e following conditions have been imposed: (a) maintain same t o t a l a c t i v i t y factor; (b) a d j u s t chord of each p r o p e l l e r station; (c) maintain same thicknesslchord radial distribution; (d) maintain same a i r f o i l shape and WM; (e) maintain same diameter; ( f ) maintain o r i g i n a l twist d i s t r i bution and engine horsepower; (g) a d j u s t p r o p e l l e r blade angle s e t t i n g t o absrb engine power. The b a s i c condition of a constant t o t a l a c t i v i t y f a c t o r r e s u l t s in

In t h e number of p r o p e l l e r blades

2 (B.L.) 3 4
2 3 (B.L.)

0.0245 0 0 ' .0 0 . 0 2 4 5 O.0lo 0 . 0 2 4 5 -0.03' 0.0697 O.OOo .0 0.0692 0 0 ' 0.0692 -0.01' 0.2854 0,2853 0.2854

0.8775 0.8723 0.8687 0.8928 0.8903 0.8886 0.9141 0.9133 0.9126

0,0291 0.0289 0.0288

(80V P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 210M)) 0.0619 0.0618 0.1765 0.1763 0.1762

0.0620

( 9 3 3 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 4 4 1 ) ) 2 3 (B.L.)

O.0lo O.OOo O.OOo

O.0lo

(STAT P r o p e l l e r ) 2 3 (B.L.) 4 0.2356 0.2532 0.2534

0.00'

O.OOo

0.9300 0.9285 0.9274

0.1247 0.1243 0.1243

s1-s 2
while changing t h e number of blades. condition r e s u l t s i n the c m r e s s i o n

(2)
This

A s t h e chord of each a i r f o i l s e c t i o n i s changed f o r t h e above c a s e s , t h e l o c a l flow conditions in terms of Reynold's number a t each of t h e a i r f o i l s t a t i o n s along . t h e p r o p e l l e r blade a r e a l s o changed. Taking these l o c a l conditions i n t o account a s provided bygyhe AARL p r o p e l l e r p e r f o r mance program , t V 8 ) a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s code of Smetana. e t . a l . was used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e new l o c a l a i r f o i l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i butions a t each a i r f o i l s t a t i o n alon t h e p o p e l l e r blade. These pressure C o e f f i c i e n t d a t a were then placed i n t o format c w p a t i b l e t o t h e AARZ. a c o u s t i c a l compllter proA s noted e a r l i e r , a l l a c o u s t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s were conducted f o r an observor l o c a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d t o t h e "fly-over n o i s e condition" corresponding t o t h e e x i s t i n FAR 36 requirements, i . e . , a t an a i r c r a f t a l t i t u d e of 1000 f e e t a t standard sea l e v e l conditions. These v a l u e s , i n terms of dB(A) f o r 2 . 3 . and 4 blade c o n f i g u r a t i o n s f o r each a i r c r a f t studied a r e shown i n Figure 1 0 . A s noted in t h i s Figure, a considera b l e reduction in n o i s e l e v e l may be gained in t h e Cessna 172N case in going from t h e b a s e l i n e two blade configuration t o e i t h e r t h e t h r e e or four blade c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Xowever, t h i s reduction is n o t as apparent in t h e case of t h e Cessna 210M, Cessna 441, or Cessna STAT, i . e . , d e v i a t i o n s from t h e t h r e e bladed configuration b a s e l i n e . The c o r r e l a t i o n s shown i n Figure 10 i n d i c a t e t h a t when thickness n o i s e predominates, a d d i t i o n a l blades tend t o decrease t h e

where B is t h e b a s e l i n e number of blades. B2 i s the new number o f b l a d e s , b l is t h e b a s e l i n e chord, b i s t h e new chord, and K i s a constant.Sim$lification of Equation ( 3 ) r e s u l t s in

(4)
which i n d i c a t e s t h a t going t o fewer blades than t h e b a s e l i n e configuration r e s u l t s i n a wider chord, conversely gtiiqg t o more blades than t h e b a s e l i n e configuration r e s u l t s i n a smaller chord which i s i n t u i 07 t i v e l y c o r r e c t . The 1C160, 8', 9 3 5 , and STAT p r o p e l l e r s were studied f o r 2 , 3 , and 4 blade configurations using t h e concept given i n Equation The AARL p r o p e l l e r performance program was u t i l i z e d t o

(44,

t h e n o i s e whereas when p r e s s u r e or loading n o i s e is predominant as i n t h e c a s e of t h e Cessna 210M. 441, and STAT, t h e r e d u c t i o n i n n o i s e due t o t h e a d d i t i o n of blades maintaining t h e same t o t a l a c t i v i t y f a c t o r i s not a s s i g n i f i c a n t . Rvu eol
'

(10)

The following c o n d i t i o n s were applied i n t h i s segment o f t h e s t u d y , i . e . , ( a ) i a i n t a i n j r o p e l l e r geometTfplanform, t w i s t d i s t r i b u c i o n . :hickness/chord d i s t r i b u t i o n . a i r f o i l shape, and diamecer; (b) u t i l i z a t i o n of an engine t h a t d e l i v e r s sane horsepower a t reduced RPM; ( c ) a d j u s t p r o p e l l e r blade angle s e t t i n g t o absorb engine power. The b a s e l i n e v a l u e s of t h e ! M f o r each W p r o p e l l e r were then reduced t o approximately 87% and 75% of t h e i r b a s e l h e v a l u e s and t h e AARL p r o p e l l e r performance program was again u t i l i z e d t o determine t h e incremental blade angle needed t o maintain a constant power c o e f f i c i e n t . In these calculations, t h e b a s i c assumption was made t h a t t h e eng i n e supplied t h e horsepower a s i n t h e b a s e l i n e c o n d i t i o n a t t h e reduced RPM. The i n c r a n e n t a l blade angles (AS) f o r each p r o p e l l e r a r e i n t h e following t a b l e s in ' a d d i t i o n t o t h e performance parameters. (1C160 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 172N))
RPM

i n t o account a s provided by t h e AARt prop e l l e r performance program and applying t h e O B t o the baseline angle-of-attack, the a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s computer program of Smetana, e t . a l . , was used again t o determine t h e new l o c a l a i r f o i l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t each a i r f o i l s t a t i o n along t h e p r o p e l l e r blade. These p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t d a t a were then placed i n t o a format compatible t o t h e AARt a c o u s t i c a l computer program with t h e r e s u l t s shown in Figure 11.

ihicknesa/Chord Reduction(Z1)

2700 2350 2000

(B.L.) 0.0245
0,0244

0.0244

O.OOo
2.44' 5.53'

0.8775 0.8532 0.8089

0.0291 0.0246 0.0198 reduced by t h e d e s i r e d arnmt. I n t h i s approach t h e aerodynamics of each a i r f o i l station i s m f n t a i n e d i n t:erms of C T , Cn, and &Cc/4) thereby not a f f e c t i n g tfie pgrformance of t h e p r o p e l l e r . As will be n o t e d , t h i s has been accomplished f o r t h e v a l u e s of CT. and C,,,(c/4) with t h e Cn v a l u e s being lower-than tlie b a s e l i n e values due t o t h e reduced thickness/chord v a l u e s . P r o p e l l e r performance v a l u e s were n o t computed f o r t h i s study, but it i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e would exceed the! b a s e l i n e v a l u e s due t o t x e reduced drag c o e f f i c i e n t s a t each a i r f o i l s t a t i o n . I n t h e a n a l y s i s of each p r o p e l l e r , a g r a p h i c a l p l o t was made of t h e percent thickness t o chord r a t i o versus percent s t a t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l propellei-. Using t h e 759, s t a t i o n a s a r e f e r e n c e p o s i t i o n , t h e b a s e l i n e percent t h i c k n e s s t o chord r a t i o was determined t o be. 8.60% (1C160), 8.07% (SOV), and 6.79% (935). The coord i n a t e s of t h e thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n of each a i r f o i l s e c t i o n were reduced i n o r d e r

(80V P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 21OM) )

2700 2350 2000

(B.L.) 0,0692 O.OOo

0.0691 0.0692 2.96' 6.50

0.8903 0.8923 0.8890

0.0619 0.0539 0.0458

(935 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 441)) 2000

1750 1500

(B.L.)

0.2853

0.2855 0.2856

0 . 0 0 ~ 0.9133
1.88O 5.14'

o.8192 0.8693

0.1763 0.1384 0.1259

(STAT P r o p e l l e r ) 1275 1480 i_ .n n 7. . 0.2452 2.57' 0.9159 0.245a -0.830 0.9308 0.2451 O.OOo 0.9286 0.0890 0.1050 0.1203

As t h e RPM i s reduced f o r each of t h e ab&e c a s e s , t h e l o c a l flow c o n d i t i o n s i n terms of Wach number, Reynolds number, and angle-of- a t t a c k a t each of t h e a i r f o i l s t a t i o n s along t h e p r o p e l l e r blade a r e a l s o changed. Taking t h e s e l o c a l conditions 4

(B.L.)

t o achieve a thicknesslchord r a t i o a t t h e r e f e r e n c e p o s i t i o n of 5% and 2% f o r t h e 8OV-1C160 p r o p e l l e r s and 4% and 2% f o r t h e 935 p r o p e l l e r (Figures 12, 13, 14). This was done by keeping t h e same chord l e n g t h and multiplying t h e thickness about t h e mean-camber l i n e by t h e proper c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r . Also, t h e adopted thicknesslchord d i s t r i b u t i o n was f a i r e d i n t o t h e b a s i c hub region t o manitain s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y .
The Smetana, e t . a l . . ( 6 ) a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s code was then u t i l i z e d , which provides t h e pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s of each a i r f o i l s e c t i o n f o r s u b c r i t i c a l cases. For a l l cases t h e same l o c a l conditions as b a s e l i n e were used, i . e . , Mach number, angle-ofa t t a c k , and Reynolds number. A g r a p h i c a l comparison was then made of t h e e f f e c t s of reducing t h e thickness t o chord r a t i o on the aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e prop e l l e r . A s an example, t h e e f f e c t s on CL, CD , and Cm(c/4) a r e shown in g r a p h i c a l form in Figures 15 through 17 f o r each t / c d i s t r i b u t i o n used in t h e a n a l y s i s f o r t h e 1C160 propel I&. The AARL p r o p e l l e r acoust i c s program was then u t i l i z e d , and a comparison of t h e sound pressure l e v e l s (SPL) v e r s u s t h e percent reduction of t h e thicknesslchord r a t i o determined t o invest i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s of reducing t h e t h i c k ness/chord r a t i o of each p r o p e l l e r . The r e s u l t s of t h e above a n a l y s i s a r e shown i n Figure 18 where t h e b a s e l i n e t h i c k ness/chord value i s i n d i c a t e d . In each case, t h e r e i s a r e s u l t a n t decrease of t o t a l n o i s e with t h e reduced thickness t o chord d i s t r i b u t i o n . However, it i s int e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t in t h e case of t h e Cessna 172N (lC160), t h e decrease i n t h i c k ness n o i s e r e s u l t s in t h e pressure n o i s e t o become predominent and t h e decrease in t o t a l noise from t h a t point i s n o t as s i g n i f i c a n t . This i s a l s o t r u e for t h e Cessna 21oM (8OV) c a s e and is f u r t h e r emphasized in t h e Cessna 441 (935) case. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that when p r e s s u r e n o i s e predominates over t h i c k ness noise: t h e b e n e f i t s of going t o a t h i n n e r thicknesslchord d i s t r i b u t i o n may n o t be s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o warrant t h e use of a composite material from an a c o u s t i c point of view. A c t i v i t y Factor Reduction(13)

determine t h e necessary blade increment ang l e needed t o match t h e b a s e l i n e power coeff i c i e n t (C ) as well as t o c a l c u l a t e the l o c a l flowPconditions such a s Reynolds nunber and angle-of-attack. The performance parameters under t h e assumed conditions were determined t o be:

(1C160 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 172N))

% AF Reduction
Baseline
Cp
AB
i l

10 20

0.0245 0.0241 0.0240

CT

O.OOo '0:8775 0.270 0.8718 0.63O 0.8639

TAF

% AF Reduction
Baseline 10

20

0.0291 0.0284 0.0281

C p
AB

156.01 140.41 124.81

n

(8OV P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 210M))

% A Reduction F
Saseline 10

20

0.0692 0.0893 0.0689

CT

0.34 0.71

0.00

0,8903 0.8796 0.8654 TAF

% AF Reduction
Baseline

10 20

0.0612 231.07 0.0612 208.05 0.0599 184.94

cp
AB

(935 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 441))

% AF Reduction

Baseline 10

20

0.2853 0.2851 0.2852

CT

0.87 2.06

0.00

0.9133 0.9138 0.9287

TAF

% AF Reduction

Baseline 10

20

0.1762 0.1762 0.1791

(STAT P r o p e l l e r ) C,

292.50 263.25 234.00

n

% AE 'Reduceion
Baseline

AB

In t h e a c t i v i t y f a c t o r reduction study, a l l geometrical parameters were held cons t a n t with t h e exception of t h e l o c a l v a l u e s n f t h e chord. Therefore, reduction of t h e t o t a l a c t i v i t y f a c t o r by 1 0 and 20% can be accomplished by use of Equation (3) by reducing t h e l o c a l chord (b) by t h e approp r i a t e amount d e s i r e d . i . e . . 1 0 and 20%. The a d d i t i o n a l assumption of maintaining t h e b a s e l i n e thickness t o chord d i s t r i b u t i o n then r e s u l t s i n no d i s t o r t i o n of che l o c a l p r o p e l l e r a i r f o i l shapes. Adoption of a smaller chord by t h i s approach then r e s u l t s i n a reduced thickness a t each r a J d i a l s t a t i o n , which would be acceptable according t o s t r u c t u r a l analysis. The new chord d i s t r i b u t i o n was then placed i n t o t h e AAEZ p r o p e l l e r performance program t o
5

10 20

0.2451 0.00 0.2450 0.37 0.2450 0.83

CT

0,9286 0,9320 0,9346

TAF

g, AF Reduction

Baseline 10

20

0,:1203 : 1111.50 0.1207 100.35 0.1210 89.20

Taking t h e l o c a l flow conditions as a r e s u l t of t h e reduced t o t a l a c t i v i t y , t h e Smetana, e t . a l . a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s computer program was again used t o determine t h e new l o c a l a i r f o i l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a t each a i r f o i l s t a t i o n along t h e p r o p e l l e r blade. These pressure c o e f f i c i e n t d a t a were then used i n t h e AARL a c o u s t i c a l computer program t o p r e d i c t t h e n o i s e a s a function of t h e reduced a c t i v i t y f a c t o r s

a5 shown i n Figure 1 9 A s noted in t h i s F i g u r e , t h e conclusion can be drawn from t h e s e c a s e s t h a t a s ion$ a s t h i c k n e s s n o i s e predominates, n o i s e r e d u c t i o n can b e achieved by reducing t h e t o t a l a c t i v i t y f a c t o r . Nowever, a s can b e seen i n t h e case of t h e Cessna 441 where p r e s s u r e o r loading n o i s e predominates, a r e d u c t i o n i n t o t a l a c t i v i t y f a c t o r can r e s u l t i n an inc r e a s e i n t h e t o t a l n o i s e . This i s a r e s u l t of f u r t h e r loading a h e a v i l y loaded blade by a d j u s t i n g t h e necessary blade increment a l a n g l e t o absorbthe engine horsepower thereby f u r t h e r i n c r e a s i n g t h e p r e s s u r e noise. Utilization of ~roplets(1')

(8OV P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 210~))

7hIR
0 2.5 5.0

R m

CP

'1

CT

2700 2650 2575

0.0692 0.0703 0.0685

0.8893

0.886b

0.8903

0.0619 0.0629 0.0598

(935 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 441)) Xh/R 2.5 5.0

0 RP?I
CD
1

2000 1975 1950

0.2853 0.2850 0.2858

0.9133 0.9199 0.9152

CT 0.1763 0.1795

0.1811

(STAT P r o p e l l e r ) %h/R 2.5 3.5

0

In t h e a n a l y s i s of che p r o p l e t , i . e . , an a i r f o i l shaped extension placed a t t h e t i p of t h e o r i g i n a l p r o p e l l e r a t a s p e c i f i e d a n g l e of i n c i d e n c e and d i h e d r a l t o t h e p r o p e l l e r b l a d e a x i s , t h e b a s i c assumption is made t h a t t h i s device allows t h e propell e r t i p t o c a r r y a f i n i t e load i n s t e a d of going t o z e r o a s i s u s u a l l y found. In previous S t f t h e p r o p e l l e r performance increaseYf3'f67 using p r o p l e t s , a n a l y t i c a l r e s u l t s using liftinc l i n e t h e o r y and w o p t e x theory o f p r o p e l l e r s having p r o p l e t s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f i n i t e v a l u e of dCp can b e c a l c u l a t e d a t t h e p r o p e l l e r t i p . Using t h i s premise. t h e AARL performance program was u t i l i z e d u s i n g an extended r a d i u s of che p r o p e l l e r . The extension has been assumed t o be i d e n t i c a l t o t h e h e i g h t (h) of t h e p r o p l e t , and i s placed i n terms of h / R where R i s t h e p r o p e l l e r r a d i u s . u s e of che extended r a d i u s r e s u l t s in a nigher power c o e f f i c i e n t , which is then reduced t o equal t h e b a s e l i n e C by reducing t h e RPM. In e f f e c t , t h e u s e 8 f p r o p l e t s allows t h e p r o p e l l e r t o absorb more power than a v a i l a b l e and t h e RPM must be reduced. The r e d u c t i o n i n terms of n o i s e can then be found a t t h e reduced %)by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e Reduced RPM Study (Figure 11). The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Fiqure 20 and i n d i c a t e a c o n s i d e r a b l e r e d u c t i o n in n o i s e by the u s e of p r o p l e t s . I t may a l s o be noted t h a t t h e apparent d e c r e a s e in dB(A) i s most evid e n t f o r l i g h t l y loaded p r o p e l l e r s , e . g . , Cessna 172Y. As t h e n o i s e i s n o t a s s i g n i f i c a n t , which appears t o be t h e r e s u l t of a h i g h l y loaded t i p on t h e 935 b a s e l i n e propeller configuration.
The performance of t h e s e p r o p e l l e r s when using p r o p l e t s is t a b u l a t e d below. Note however t h a t no o p t i m i z a t i o n has been attempted h e r e and t h e u s e of such a device may r e q u i r e r e d e s i g n of t h e p r o p e l l e r .

W M

C P 0.2532 0.2526 0.2527

n 0.9285 0.9327 0.9332

CT
0.1243 0.1292 0.1312

1700 1410 1325

The use of t h e p r o p l e t , wSlth i t s assoc i a t e d i n c r e a s e i n performance and d e c r e a s e in n o i s e mav be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e "apparent" i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e l l e r diameter. This appare n t i n c r e a s e i s r e a l i z e d without extending t h e Dhysical diameter, hence t h e same h e l i c a l t i p Nach number under t h e b a s e l i n e o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n . This a n a l y s i s must b e f u r t h e r examined s i n c e t h e dC vs. r / R d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h t h e f i n i t e loa8inK a t the p r o p e l l e r t i p has been a r r i v e d a t without a t t e n t i o n given t o t h e a n g l e of incidence o r d i h e d r a l n e c e s s a r y t o a r r i v e a t t h e dC, vs. r / R d i s t r i b u t i o n . u s e d . A i r f o i l Improvement (I7)

'w'

In t h e a r e a of p r o p e l l e r a i r f o i l improvement from an a c o u s t i c s t a n d p o i n t , care must be e x c e r s i e d n o t t o degrade t h e a i r f o i l performance in producing t h r u s t , i . e . , cogn i z a n c e of the a s s o c i a t e d l i f t and drag v a l u e s . Therefore a systematic approach must b e used t o maintain a i r f o i l p e r f o r mance y e t manipulate t h e v a r i o u s components of an a i r f o i l t o determine t h e e f f e c t on t h e a c o u s t i c a l p r e s s u r e signature. Therefore, t h e a i r f o i l s must be modified o r designed f o r a reduced n o i s e level vet maintain aerodynamic performance.
The approach t h a t has been i n v e s t i gated i n t h i s study w a s t o adopt t h e superp o s i t i o n technique, i . e . , t o break t h e a i r f o i l i n t o components of camber l i n e and t h i c h e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n . The p r o p e l l e r would then be made up of two s e p a r a t e prop e l l e r s , t h a t i s a p r o p e l l e r c o n s i s t i n g of s r n e t r l c a l a i r f o i l sections: ( t h i c k n e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n s ) and a propell.er made up o f camber l i n e s . The camber li.ne p r o p e l l e r and t h e t h i c k n e s s d i s t r i b u t i . o n p r o p e l l e r would then be evaluated s e p a r a t e l y t o determine t h e a c o u s t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n of each t o determine t h e component whose n o i s e c o n t r i b u t i o n i s predominant. This component, i . e . , t h e thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n o r camber l i n e would then be modified t o reduce t h e a c o u s t i c a l s i g n a t u r e , followed by reassembling t h e a i r f o i l , and f i n a l l y

(1C160 P r o p e l l e r (Cessna 1 7 2 4 ) ) %h/R 2.5

0

W M

CP 0.0245 0.0254 0.0248

ri

CT

5.0

2650 2600

2700

0.8775 0.8746 0.8766

0.0291 0.0336 0.0298

evaluating t h e a i r f o i l ' s aerodynamic and a c o u s t i c a l performance. In t h i s approach, a s with t h e aerodynamic u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e superposition technique, a c o u s t i c c o n t r o l can be excersied over t h e camber l i n e and thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n r a t h e r than a r b i t r a r y changes i n a i r f o i l contour t o reduce t h e a c o u s t i c a l s i g n a t u r e . In g e n e r a l i z i n g t h i s approach, f a m i l i e s of camber l i n e s and thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n can be described a n a l y t i c a l l y and evaluated aerodynamically and a c o u s t i c a l l y , s i m i l a r t o t h a t which existgls?day f o r t h e superposition t e c h nique however which is only being applied from an aerodynamic s t a n d p o i n t .
A s an example of t h i s methodology, t h e 935 p r o p e l l e r a s s o c i a t e d with t h e Cessna 441 has been analyzed f o r t h e "fly-over n o i g f ) c o n d i t i o n " . The AxRt a c o u s t i c analysis has been u t i l i z e d with t h e a c o u s t i c a l pressure signature for the baseline case shown in Figure 21. The a c o u s t i c compon e n t s of t h i c k n e s s , loading, and t o t a l n o i s e a r e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d . Also, t h e frequency content of SPL v s . m u l t i p l e s of t h e fundamental frequency (harmonic) a r e shown f o r each of t h e s e a c o u s t i c components i n Figure 22 through'%.

emphasize t h i s p o i n t , Table 2 i n d i c a t e s t h e a c o u s t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n of each p r o p e l l e r a i r f o i l componenc i n terms of dB(A), Here i t can e a s i l y be seen t h a t t h e major cont r i b u t o r i s t h e camber l i n e o r how t h e a i r f o i l s e c t i o n has been p r e s s u r e loaded, To decrease t h e n o i s e l e v e l of t h e p r o p e l l e r would then n e c e s s i t a t e modification of each of t h e a i r f o i l s e c t i o n camber l i n e s , but s t i l l maintain t h e l i f t c o n t r i b u t i o n a t a i . It may a l s o be noted from examination of t h e frequency c o n t r i b u t i o n of each a i r f o i l component f o r t h i s c a s e (Figures 22 through 24) t h a t t h e above example a l s o holds t r u e , however t h i s conclusion must be s t u d i e d f u r t h e r t o determine t h Impact of t h i s approach on each harmonic.
A t t h e present time, t h i s methodology is being examined i n d e t a i l and a p p l i e d t o a h o w n c l a s s of a i r f o i l s . Attempts w i l l be made t o a s s i g n a c o u s t i c evaluation of SPL and frequency content t o t h e a i r f o i t h a t a r e iven i n Abbott and'VonDoenhoffI f 2 ) a s r e l a t e % t o t h e s u p e r p o s i t i o n technique hence t h e aerodynamics. This approach w i l l then e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a i r f o i l aerodynamic performance, predominant n o i s e source, and a s s o c i a t e d n o i s e l e v e l by a i r f o i l thereby a l s o i n d i c a t i n g a method or technique by which t o design a i r f o i l s Waf perform q u i e t l y and e f f i c i e n t l y .

It may be p o s t u l a t e d t h a t a s i n t h e superposition technique f o r aerodynamic performance, t h e r e a r e t h r e e a c o u s t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n s f o r an a i r f o i l , i . e . .

v

Sweep (18) Each p r o p e l l e r w a s analyzed f o r t h e b a s e l i n e condition using t h e Smetana, e t . a l . a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s program t o determine which a i r f o i l s e c t i o n along t h e p r o p e l l e r blade had gone s u p e r c r i t i c a l , i . e . , where t h e l o c a l Mach number on t h e a i r f o i l has exceeded u n i t y . Once t h e s u p e r c r l i t i c a l s t a t i o n s were determined, t h e preceding a i r f o i l s t a t i o n s , i . e . , t h e s t a t i o n s on t h e r o o t s i d e of t h e p r o p e l l e r blade was used a s a j u n c t i o n point f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n of a s t r a i g h t sweep which i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 31. Various sweep angles ( A ) were then chosen t o determine t h e value of V (normal component) which would y i e l d su@ c r i t i c a l flow t h e t i p a i r f o i l s t a t i o n of t h e p r o p e l l e r under a n a l y s i s . The normal component of t h e Mach number f o r hhis i n i t i a l A vas then used i n t h e Smetana, e t , a l . a i r f o i l a n a l y s i s program t o determine the resultant a i r f o i l pressure d i s t r i b u tions f o r each unswept s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l s t a t i o n . These p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t d a t a were then placed i n t o t h e AAFL acoust i c a l . computer program. One a d d i t i o n a l A = A . was a a i n choseri and t h e procedure repeated t o %etermine t h e t r e n d of t h e a c o u s t i c a l s i g n a t u r e s with sweep. The e f f e c t of sweep can be seen by examination of t h e a c o u s t i c p r e s s u r e s i g n a t u r e , i . e . , a c w p a r i s o n of t h e b a s e l i n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n and t h e r e s u l t a n t s i g n a t u r e when the blade i s swept. Taking t h e STAT p r o p e l l e r comparisons were made between the baseline acoustic pressure signature (Figure 32) and with blade swept a t 6 0 ' (Figure 3 3 ) . Here it can be seen t h a t t h e thickness n o i s e s i g n a t u r e i s a f f e c t e d

(1) Thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n a t a = Oo
(2) T h i c h e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n a t a o -a (UAa c t u a l angle-ofattack)

( 3 ) camber l i n e a t

( I

(ideal

These values in SPL and frequency content when compared t o t h e t o t a l a i r f o i l would then i n d i c a t e t h e major c o n t r i b u t o r t o hhe o v e r a l l n o i s e l e v e l and provide a b a s i s f o r a i r f o i l m o d i f i c a t i o n . Ten s t a t i o n s f o r t h e 935 p r o p e l l e r , which e x h i b i t s a NACA 1 6 a i r f o i l , were broken i n t o t h e camber l i n e and thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n s . P r o p e l l e r s were then c r e a t e d c o n s i s t i n g of camber l i n e and analxzed a t 0. thickness d i s t r i b u t i o n a t O. 0 , and t h l i k n e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n a t an a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k c o n s i s t i n g of a The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Figures 25A;&u;eh 3 0 i n terms of t h e t h r e e - d h e n s i o n a l p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n and a c o u s t i c a l p r e s s u r e signat u r e . It may be noted t h a t t h e r e i s no thickness n o i s e , j u s t loading n o i s e , f o r t h e camber l i n e operating a t a i (Figure 2 6 ) and t h a t t h e r e i s an i n s i g n i f i c a n t amount of loading n o i s e with t h i c h e s s n o i s e predominating f o r t h e t h i c h e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n a t a = Oo (Figure 2 8 ) . The a n g l e o f - a t t a c k contribution, i . e . , t h i c h e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n a t CI uA- e . i s shown in Figure 30 and c o n s i s t s of hoth thickness and loading n o i s e . Therefore it can be seen t h a t a i r f o i l s can be a c o u s t i c a l l y analyzed using t h e superposition technique and manipulated accordingly t o maintain aerodynamic p e r f o r mance and c o n t r o l t h e n o i s e l e v e l . To

It is interesting to note several only slighty when incorporating sweep while attempts were also made to manipulate the there is a considerable reduction in the AC distribution by changing the planform loading noise acoustic pressure signature resulting in a lower total noise signature. a d the twist distribution independently This result is also evident in an examina- with little success due to the apparent insensitivity of the &Cp to these parameters. tion of the three-dimensional loading distribution given in Figure 3 4 , where it can The local flow conditions are now difbe seen that with the element of sweep, the propeller tip becomes unloaded resulting in ferent from the baseline values since the angle-of-attack has been changed by the new a noise decrease. aL0 and A6. Taking the new n into account ?he results of the present study have at each airfoil station along the blade, the indicated that for heavily loaded blades, Smetana, et. al. airfoil analysis program i.e., where pressure noise is the dominant was used to determine the new local airfoil noise source as in the Cessna 441, sweep of pressure distribution at each airfoil stathe propeller blade is instrumental in retion. The pressure coefficient data were ducing the total noise value as shown in then placed into the AARL acoustical com?igure 35. However, when thickness noise puter program. is the major noise source,e.g., for the Cessna 172N. 210M, ans STAT propeller, the The results are given in Figure 39 and, blade has little effect or can possibly as noted for the Cessna 172N, it can be seen increase the overall noise level. that movement of the maximum AC inboard does provide a reduction in tot11 noise. Position of Maximum Blade Loading(211 However if this approach is continued, pressure noise increases due to the increased (26f has been noted in previous studAB necessary toa&orb the engine HP resulties that there was a reduction in noise ing in an increase of the total noise. when the power coefficient maximum loading Therefore there appears to be an optimum point on the propeller was moved inboard location of maximum t for this propeller. C from the ' However in this previous In the case of the 8 0 8 movement of maximum analysis (5'p; a redesign of the propeller ACp,aCtually increases the noise until the was also utilized. In the present approach, position of maximum loading goes inboard of all the parameters have been held constant approximately 60%. The same type of trend with the exception of airfoil shape. Here, is also exhibited for the 935 propeller the AC loading as a function of r/R was where the total noise is always larger than manipueated by changing the zero lift angle- for the baseline value regardless of maxiof-attack (aLo) distribution across the mum ACp location. blade from the tip to the hub (Figure 3638). This approach did vary the ACp distri- Reduced Diameter bution, however it was also necessary to include an incremental blade angle (A61 to Assuming the same RPM and horsepower match the baseline power coefficient (C I available, the diameter of the four propelto insure that the propeller absorbed tge lers under study were reduced by 2.5% and engine horsepower. These performance data 5.0%. An appropriate change in the chord are included in the following tables. was made to maintain a constant total activity factor. The thickness to chord (1C160 Propeller (Cessna 172Nl) ratio at each station was held constant, a condition that was considered reasonable Position of based upon structural purposes. In all cases, radial location values of each airMaximum Cp i? CP CT AB foil station were held constant and in effect Loading " , 1 ( just the total propeller diameter was reduced. Since the radius and chord was re0.8775 0.0245 0.0291 O.OOo 0.89 ( B . L . ) duced to maintain the same total activity 1 0.8655 0.0243 0.0285 1.01 0.73 (nod 1 factor, an incremental blade angle (A61 0.61 (Mod 2) 0.8583 0.0244 0.283 1.44 setting had to be used to insure all of the available engine horsepower was absorbed. (8OV Propeller (Cessna 210M) 1 The w t propeller performance program had R been used to match the c value through the Position of use of the d @ . The propihar performance Maximum CCp l l CP CT AB results are tabulated below for each proLoading ( r / R l peller. 0.8903 0.0692 0.0619 0.00' 0.99 (B.L.1 (1c160 Propeller (Cesana 172Nl) 0.88 (Mod 1) 0.8876 0.0691 0.0616 0.75O~ 0.74 (Mod 2) 0.8710 0.0693 0.0606 1.02O % Diameter ri cP CT , LB Reduction (935 Propeller (Cessna 44111 O.OO' 0 (B.L.) 0.8463 0.0261 0.0299 Position of 2.5 0.8581 0.0262 0.0297 -0.020 Maximum bCp CT A6 1 Ce 0.310 5.0 0.8785 0.0261 0.0295 Loading (r/R) 0.94 (B.L.1 0.9133 0.85 (Mod 1) 0.8965 0.74 (Mod 2) 0.9045 0.2853 0.2853 0.2851 0.1762 O.OOo 0.1730 0.72O 0.1744 1.88O
8

'W'

(8OV Propeller (Cessna 210M))

%

Diameter Reduction
0 (B.L.)

CP

CT

A8 -.0 01' 0.28'

0.00'

2.5 3.5

0.9239 0.9288 0.9450

0.0627 0.0581 0.0626 0.0569 0.0627 0.0565

(93J Propeller (Cessna 4411)

%

study. It may also be noted that the present study concentrated on the fly-over or far field noise condition. An identical study should be conducted for the near field case due to its relationship to interior or cabin noise. AS a result, both study efforts could then be used in the design of future generation propellers for general aviation aircraft thereby insuring quiet yet efficient propellers. Acknowledgements

Diameter Reduction
0 (B.L.1

CP

CT

A8

2.5 5.0

0.8900 0.2774 0.8976 0.2774 0.9044 0.2772

0.1670 O.OOo 0,1642 - 0 . ~ 7 ~ 0.1611 - . 1 11'

(STAT Propeller)
%

Diameter Reduction
0 (B.L.1

n
0.9285 0.9302 0.9318

CP 0.2532 0.2531 0.2534

CT
0.1243 0.1214 0.1186

A8
-0.26

who provided the necessary technical coordination, and the students of The Ohio State University Aeronautical and AstronauSince the chords of the airfoil sec. tical Research Laboratory who assisted in tions have now been changed in addition to producing the theoretical predictionsthe local Mach number. angle-of-attack, and M r . A. Levatter, M r . a. Mutzman, Mr. B . Reynolds number, the Smetana, et. al. airHalsey, Mr. M. swick, Mr. T. Logan, Mr. a. foil analysis program was utilized to deter- Catalano, M r . B . Moorefield, M r . G. Ruff, mine the new local airfoil pressure distriand M r . D. McConaughy. butions at each airfoil station along the propeller blade. These pressure coefficient data were then placed into the AARL acoustical computer program. References -0.36 AS shown in Figure 40, a reduced dia1. meter for the 1C160, BOV, and STAT propellers results in a considerable reduction in total noise mainly attributed to the decrease in thickness noise. However, for the 935, the reduced diameter shows that an increase in total noise results due primarily from the increase in thickness noise. Therefore from these results, it can be 2. seen that in general a diameter reduction results in a noise reduction for light to moderately loaded blades. However, when the propeller blade is heavily loaded ini3. tially, a diameter reduction may increase the total noise. Mikkelson, D. C., Blaha, 8 . J., Mitchell, G. A . , and Wikete, J. E., "Design and Performance of Energy Efficient Propellers for Mach 0.8 Cruise", S A E Paper 770458, March 1977 (Also NASA TM X-73612). Keiter, I., "Low Speed Potential", NASA Conference Publication 2126, General Aviation Propulsion Conference, VASA Lewis Reseach Center, November 1979. Woan, C. J., and Gregorek, G. M., '"The Exact Numerical Calculation of Propeller Noise", A I M Paper NO. 78-1122, AIAA 11th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, July 1978.

2.5 5.0

0.00

IV.

Summary

Examination of the present results in- 4. dicate that, from an acoustic point-of-view, variation of a propeller parameter may result in a reduction in noise for one aircraft/propeller combination and an increase in noise for another aircraft/propeller combination, the result of which is depend5. ent on the predominant noise source. Therefore, the approach taken in this. study, i.e.. maintaining all propeller parameters Constant with the exception of the study component results in a realistic evaluation of noise reduction or increase realized by application of that component. With this method, the study component resulting in the largest noise reduction with no loss in efficiency can be identified for further
I

6.

!. 1

Smetana, 7. O . , S~mmey, . C., Smith, D S., and Carian, a. K . , "iiqht Aircraft Lift, Drag, and ?loment Prediction A Review and Analysis", XASA CR-2523, 1 9 7 5 .

17.

7.

Bauer, F., Garabedian, P., Korn,

D.,

and

Korkan, K. D . , Catalano. R., and Gregorek, 5 . !<. , "Azcustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP (Airfoil Improvement - cessna l72N. 210M. 4 4 1 1 , GA/;IDAC TDR 79-24, 1 9 7 9 . Korkan, K. D., Logan, T., Swick, M., and Gregorek, G. M., "Acoustical Study of General Aviation Propellers - GAP (Sweep - CeSSna 1 7 2 N . 2 1 0 M , 4411, GA/ADAC TDR 79-27, 1 9 7 9 . (Sweep - 1 9 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept), GA/ADAC TDR 80-15, 1 9 8 0 . Sullivan, J . P., "The Effect of Blade Sweep on Propeller Performance", AIAA Paper 77-716, Paper Presented at the AIAA 10th Fluid and Plasmadynamics Conference, June 1 9 7 7 . Succi, G. P., "Design of Quiet Efficient Propellers", S A E Paper 7 9 0 5 8 4 , SAE Business Aircraft Meeting, April 1 9 7 9 . Korkan, K. D . , Levatter, A . , and Gregorek, G. M., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP (Position of Maximum Loading CeSSna 172N, 21OM, 4 4 1 ) , GA/ADAC TDR 79-23, 1 9 7 9 .

' 9

18.

3.

Korkan, K. D., Levatter, P. ., and Gregorek, G. N., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation PropellersGAP (Number of Blades - Cessna 1 7 2 N , 2 1 O M , 4 4 1 ) , GWADAC TDR 79-27, 1 9 7 9 . (Number of Blades 1 9 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuzer Concept], GA/ADAC TDR 80-13, 1 9 8 0 .

19.

3.

Korkan, K. D., Mutfrnann, R. and Greaorek. G. M.. "Prooeller Performance MetGod uiing V&tex-%iory" GA/ADAC TDR to be published.
~

20.

10.

Korkan, K D., Levatter, A , , and . Gregorek, G. M., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP (Reduced RPM - Cessna 172N, 210M, 4 4 1 1 , GA/ADAC TDR 79-28, 1 9 7 9 . (Number of Blades 1 9 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept), GA/ADAC TDR 80-19, 1 9 8 0 .

21.

22.

11.

Korkan, K. D., Halsey, 8 . . and Gregorek, G. M., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers - GAP Cessna 172N, (Reduced Thickness/ Chord 210M, 4 4 1 ) , GA/ADAC TDR 79-21, 1 9 7 9 .

12.

Abbott, I . H . , and Vonuoenhoff, A. E., Theory of Wing Sections, Dover Publications. New York ( 1 9 49 1 . Korkan, K. D., Swick. M., Logan, T., and Gregorek, G. M., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP ( Reduced Activity Factor - Cessna 172,Y, 210M, 4 4 1 ) , GA/ADAC TDR 79-29, 1979. (Reduced Activity Factor 19 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept), GA/ADAC TDR 80-16, 1 9 8 0 .

Korkan, K. D., Moorefield, B., and Gregorek, G . M., "?.cowtical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP (Reduced Diameter - Cessna 172N, 21OM, 4411, GA/ADAC TDR 79-26, 1 9 7 9 . Korkan, K. D., Ruff, G. A . , and McConaughy, D. E., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP (Reduced Diameter Cessna 172N. 210M. 4 4 1 , STAT), GA/ADAC TDR 8 0 - 2 1 ,

1980.

13.

14.

Korkan, K. D., Levatter, A . , and Gregorek, G. M., "Acoustical Study of Advanced General Aviation Propellers GAP (Proplets - Cessna 172N. 21OM, 4 4 1 1 , GA/.ADAC TDR 79-25, 1 9 7 9 . (Proplets 13 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept), GA/ADAC TDR 80-20, 1 9 8 0 .

1 -

13.

Suiltvant, J., "Private Communication", Purdue University, 1 9 7 9 . I m i n , K., and .Xutzman. R . , "Propeller Proplet Optimization Based Upon,,Analytical and Experimental Methods , A I A A Paper 80-1241, Paper presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASNE 16th Joint Propulsion conference, June 1 9 8 0 .

16.

Figure 1. Cessna 1 7 2 N

10

Table 1. A i r c r a f t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

Aircraft Cessna 172M Cessna 210M Cessna 441

Gross !?eight 2307 l b s . 4000 lbs.

9 . 9 2 5 lbs

Cruise Velocity

HP Per Engine

Propeller Fixed P i t c h Constant Soeed Constant Speed ( F u l l Feather and F.everse! Constant Speed ( F u l l Feather and Reverse!

120 Knots

(8009 f t .!

120 214 47 6

170 Knots (6500 ft.) 290 Knots ( 2 4 , 0 0 0 ft.) 290 Ynots (15,000 f t . )

Cessna STAT Comuter Conce?t (19 Passenger)

15,958 l b s .

760

Figure 1. (cont . ) Cessna 441

..

- 2

Figure 1. (cont. ) Cessna 210M

Figure 1. ( c o n t . ) 19 Passenger Cessna STAT Comuter Concept

11

(A)

acousTIc

SIGNATURE

(C)

HAIRIIONIC NUMBER

LOADING NOISE

(8)

HARMONIC NUMBER THICKNESS N O I S E

(0)

OVERALL NOISE

I1zure 2 . Thickness. Loading, and Overall Acouscii P r e i s l r e S i g n a t u r e s and S p e c t r a .

,-PRESENT RESULl

Figure &. P r e s s u r e Loading D i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e 1 9 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept - Flyover ConditionISubcritical .

,/

:,-

,-MEASURED PRESENT RESULT

PERIOD

9.324

a6EC

in --

15 (IS1 HAIRIIONIC =

HARMONIC NUMBER

107.25

2s
HZ)

Figure 3. Corngarison Setween Present Acoustical Model and Experiment. 12

. .-

-,>.-

. 1 Figure 5 . P r o p e l l e r Acoustic Pressure Signature

.,.-,-<, . . .i J

Eor t h e l? Passenser Crssna S; T; ; Comucer Concept - Flyover CondicionISubcritical.

.: :.; c;:

--r-e %;[:a=,

._

'igure 6 . Frequency Spectra f o r t h e 1 9 Passenger Cessna STAT Conrmuter Concept Flyover Condition/ Subcrf t i c a l .

MF

Figure 7. Pressure Loading Distribution on the 19 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept Flyover ConditionISub-Supercritical.

Figure 8 . Tropeller Acoustic Pressure Signature f o r the 19 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concepc - Flyover Condit ion1Sub-Supercritical.

-++LUFDIN;

rb

Nr:

- - + +

OL'"fic\LL

14

Figure 9 . Frequency Spectra f o r The 19 Passenger Cessna STAT Commuter Concept - F1:iover Csnditionl Sub-Supercrit Lcal .

j. IS

7.50

ESSNA ZlO>lI

'i-

CESSNA 441

3NA STAT

,.

L 2 3 i NUMBER OF BLADES Figure 1 0 . E f f e c t of Number of Blades on Noise Generated by Various P r o p e l l e r s .

15

79
, ;

-hiches -- _ _ ILoading s ; ---_ ,

.~tal

CESSSA 172s j

'-

73

!-

i t
r
I

'i
!
i

I
!

16

20

24

28

I 16

20

24

28

14

100

-. .'.sure

I P M x 10-2 11. Effect of Reduced WX on Noise Gene

18

22

26

12

16

2'3

:ed by Various P r o p e l l e r s

100

80

80

60
%TIC

60
% TIC
Baseline 5% TIC @ 0.75
40

40

i
Baseline i 5% T I C @ 0 . 7 5 2% T I C @ 0 751

20
0

2 2 T I C @ 0.75
20

n
0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

rlR F i g j r e 1 2 . Variation of Thickness/Chord Ratio as f u n c t i o n o f Radial Location - 1C150 P r o p e l l e r .

Figure 13

16

Variation o f '?hickness/Chord R a t i o a s Function o f Radial Locaticn - 80V P r o p e l l e r .

r/R

100

. ,
1.c

80

0.5

7.4 60

%T / c
40
Baseline

i .

.3

1.2
0 Baseline

\;{4%
20

TIC @ 0.75

2% TIC @ 0 . 7 5

0.1

0 5% T I C @ . 7 5 r l R

0 2% T I C @ . 7 5 r 1 R

0 0

0.2
r/R

0.4

r/R

0.6

0.8

1.0

? i & u r e 1 4 . Variacicn of ThicknessIChord -i ' . : v..nc?icn o f Sad'.ai -;. . - 933 P r o p e l l e r

:.

Figure 15. L i f t C o e f f i c i e n t vs Radial Location f o r Baseline and Reduced T?.ie!czss/Chord

-0.05

; 045 ,

Propeller.

><j:ri>u:;;cs - ;c:ijo
!

0.040

Baseline @ 5% TIC e0.75 rlE 0 27. T / C @0.75 r/E

5

-0.06

0.035

-0.07
!

0.030

-0.08

'.025

-0.09

0.020

c&l4) -0.10

0.015

-0.11

0.010

-9.12

0.005

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1,~;

-0.13

0.2

0.4

0 6

2.8

1.0

52

r--- '
-1

------- L o a d i n g
-TDtal
78

-Thrckness
7

66

62

58

54
i?

! 0

~ i g u r e1 9 . E f f e c t of A c t i v i t y F a c t o r R e d u c t i o n on N o i s e G e n e r a t e d bv Various P r o p e l l e r s . 18

10 15 20

25 D

10

15

21

15

I.

3n .

15

20 3 0

I L

10 1 5

20

25

32

-~

C'SSYA

li2?1

, --Thickness L
I '-Total

V , CESSNA STAT ;!
i

__---Loadins

78t

5.3

Figure 20. E f f e c t of P r o p l e t s on Noise Generated b y Various P r o p e l l e r s

. i
Figure 21. Acoustic P r e s s u r e Signature for 935 P r o p e l l e r Flyover Condition. 19

Baseline

CAMBERLINE AT A ,

THICKNESS A'I'.%=U TIiICKNESS A T K f O

\'

F i g u r e 2 2 . S p e c t r a l Content of 935 P r o p e l l e r

T h i c h e s s Noise.

Ld

CAMBERLINE AT

z;

0 THICKNESS DIST

AT OCZO

F i g u r e 2 3 . S p e c t r a l Conten:

of 93J Fropeller
20

Loading Yoise.

0 CAMBERLINE AT CC;

0 THICKNESS DIST ATU-0

0 THICKNESS DIST

ATCifO

Figure 2 4 . S p e c t r a l Content o f 935 P r o p e l l e r

Total Noise.

21

Figure 26. Acouscic Pressure Signature f o r Camber Line at d = di 22

Figure 27. Three-Dimensiona .1 P l o t of Pressure Distribucions f or_Thic%ness D i s t r i b u t i o n s a t c* = u

~

_.

'1!

Figure 2 8 . Acoustic Pressure Signature f o r T h i c h e s s D i s t r i S u t i o n a t K = 04

23

F i g u r e 2 9 . T h r e e - D i m e n s i o n a l P l o t of P r e s s u r e Distributions for T h i c h e s s ( D i s t r i b u t i o n s ac c = &A- A i .

F i g u r e 30. A c o u s t i c ? r e s s u r e S i p a c u r e for T h i c h e s s 3 i s t r i b u t i o n a t CL=o(A-cii.

24

- ....._I.._-. ...... -._..-

Table ___ 2 .

A i r f o i l Component Acoustic Contributions

. -

__
Total Propeller
(d
MA)

.. . .. .-

Camber Line (=4= Xi) Thickness Noise Loading Noise Overall Noise

Thickness Distribution ( d = Oo)

Thichess Distribution (d-O(*- Cti)

0
7 2 . 7 4 dB(A) 7 2 . 7 4 dB(A)

66.08 dB(A)
36.13 dB(A)
6 5 . 8 1 dB(A)

66.08 dB(A)
5 8 . 2 3 dB(A) 6 4 . 6 2 dB(A)

6 6 . 1 9 dB(A)
6 9 . 0 2 dB(A)
7 1 . 2 4 dB(A)

__

, /' "

Unswept s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l stations First subcritical a i r f o i l s t a t i o n (junction point)

Figure 31. Method o f Incorporation o f S t r a i g h t Sweep.

25

F i q r e 3 2 , B a s e l i n e ?repeller Acousric Pressure Sienarure - STAT Propeller - Flyover

e'-:Kc!?!:

'-1 , .

Figure 3 3 . P r o p e l l e r Acoustic Pressure Signature f o r 60' Sweep of STAT P r o p e l l e r - F l y - + p over Condition.

THICKNESS

+U R O J N G L

-, 2

. < .uz

-5.20

-4.uc

-2.110

TIME

[MSECJ
26

uo

2 ,[IO

4 . r.9

3. c;:

1 . c:

(a) Unswept Propeller Tip

6' 0

Sweep of Propeller Tip

Figure 3 4 . Comparison of Pressure Loading D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Swept/Unswept STAT P r o p e l l e r .

27

I ,

._

75

-___

CESSNA 172?1

. .

Thickness Loading Total

0.06

Ii

0 Nod 1

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

F i g u r e 3 6 . l q 1 6 0 l r o p e l l e r S p a n w i s e Power C o e f f i c i e n t D i s t r , L b u t i o n .

23

0.20
'W

3.15

0.10
DCP

0.05

-0.05

KIR
Figure 3 7 . 8OV P r o p e l l e r Spanwise Power C o e f f i c i e n t D i s t r i b u t i o n .

1.0

Baseline
Mod 1

0.8

3 Mod 2

0.6

DCP
0.6

0.2

0.

0.3

0.4

0.5

?/R

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 3 8 . 933 Propeller Spanwise Power C o e f f i c i e n t D i s t r i b u t i o n .

29

ESSNA 172N

CESSSA 21OY

CESSNA STAT
1 1 . -

10ol

j I - : - 90 1
+hickness Loading Total
I

'

'

Base

il
1.00.5

/"
\

\
Base

0.5 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.00.5 0 . 6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.7

0.8

9.9

1.G

Figure 3 9 . E f f e c t of P o s i t i o n of ?laxi.mm Loading on Noise Generaeed b y Various P r o p e l l e r s .

30

CESSXA 172N 52!--T------! Thickness 1 Loadin:: 'T o t a l

CESSWA 210M

CESSXA 441

CESSNA STAT

-_____

75-

r. -,
L
\

\
6

, j
2
9,

DIAMETER REDUCTION

F i g u r e 4 0 . E f f e c t of Diameter Reduction on N o i s e G e n e r a t e d by V a r i o u s Propellers.

31