Drag: Windmilling vs Dead Prop
#41
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 25
The great thing about providing data, is that it can be scrutinized. I suggested it be taken with a pinch of salt. Others factors relevant to a particular installation and flight condition may well influence the relationships posited. No consideration has been made of how propeller effects the lift characteristics of the wing.
Following is an abstract from another dangerous fool.
Abstract:
This investigation sought to determine which has more drag, a windmilling propeller or one that is held stationary. A measurement of the drag on stationary and windmilling propellers was conducted considering the length, pitch, rotational frequency of the propeller and the wind velocity. It was found that there is a point at which the drag of a windmilling propeller and a stationary propeller are equal. This crossover point was found to be dependent on the pitch and length of the propeller and independent of wind velocity.
You can find the report here. Keep in mind, unlike the NACA report this one does not consider or provide the necessary data to account for the negative torque on an attached engine. (i.e. friction)
#42
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 51
1. Energy used to turn over the engine, or the resistance/friction of the engine is the not the cause of the drag. It does have an effect, depending on the blade angle it can mak ce or in the case of a very flat blade angle (> 7degrees) engine friction can actually reduce the drag. Energy used to turn the engine is a red herring.
So far so good. The issue here is you've been putting the cart in front of the horse in your analysis. We do not fly airplanes based on propeller drag curves - our characteristic speeds are dominated by wing performance. So the fact that these graphs are done as a function of ND/V (inverse of prop advance ratio) means that you are only looking at data at specific speed/rpm combinations that results in the prop blade flying at a specific angle of attack for the blade. Useful if you are specifying a propeller design for an airplane, but dosen't make much sense to us in an engine out situation. Here, forward speed is the primary input - and if you are flying in a fixed pitch prop (which seems to be the focus of your analysis), the resulting RPM is whatever you end up with - being a function of both forward speed and engine drag.
(And throttle position for minimal pumping losses is also engine specific. For most normally aspariated engines like your little 172, opening the throttle fully actually results in the lowest pumping loss - a closed throttle inpedes flow while any additional air drawn into the cylinder merely acts as a spring regardless of throttle position. What you are saying generally only applies to turbocharged engines due to higher backpressures there.)
Relevance. You dont come across as someone who knows a lot about either flying airplanes or the engineering behind them. But you present your 'findings' in a tone as though you do, Captain Beaker.
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 25
1. Energy used to turn over the engine, or the resistance/friction of the engine is the not the cause of the drag. It does have an effect, depending on the blade angle it can mak ce or in the case of a very flat blade angle (> 7degrees) engine friction can actually reduce the drag. Energy used to turn the engine is a red herring.
So far so good. The issue here is you've been putting the cart in front of the horse in your analysis. We do not fly airplanes based on propeller drag curves - our characteristic speeds are dominated by wing performance. So the fact that these graphs are done as a function of nd/v (inverse of prop advance ratio) means that you are only looking at data at specific speed/rpm combinations that results in the prop blade flying at a specific angle of attack for the blade. Useful if you are specifying a propeller design for an airplane, but dosen't make much sense to us in an engine out situation. Here, forward speed is the primary input - and if you are flying in a fixed pitch prop (which seems to be the focus of your analysis), the resulting rpm is whatever you end up with - being a function of both forward speed and engine drag.
Actually the NACA diagram (figure 4) has a lot of interesting information if you take the time to understand it.
(and throttle position for minimal pumping losses is also engine specific. For most normally aspariated engines like your little 172, opening the throttle fully actually results in the lowest pumping loss - a closed throttle inpedes flow while any additional air drawn into the cylinder merely acts as a spring regardless of throttle position. What you are saying generally only applies to turbocharged engines due to higher backpressures there.)
Closing the throttle reduces the manifold pressure, so that mass of air that is compressed and heated and then finally expanded is reduced. While the air acts a spring that heat loss is not recovered. Open throttle may be most efficient when the engine is running for real, the reverse applies without ignition. It is a exceptionally minor point in any case.
relevance. You dont come across as someone who knows a lot about either flying airplanes or the engineering behind them. But you present your 'findings' in a tone as though you do, captain beaker.
As it happened I do have relevant qualifications, but effectively saying 'I have lots of experience, so what I say is right' does not count. I have supplied data to support my assertions, and would happily have anyone show how the data is wrong...
Happy New Year, and safe flying
#45
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 25
FlyingChicken,
I reread your post, I wanted to edit my post and wanted to include...
I think you do appreciate some of what I have posted, and took some time to read the data. I apologise if I suggested how to suck eggs. Regarding specific speed/rpm and propeller advance, both reports covered variations in airspeed. Certainly through the gliding range of a 172. On putting the cart before the horse, how else would you suggest analysing this other than actually looking at the quantitative data?
This is primarily an engineering question, and explaining the basis for certain pilot actions and aircraft performance. It is not about changing any pilot actions.
I reread your post, I wanted to edit my post and wanted to include...
I think you do appreciate some of what I have posted, and took some time to read the data. I apologise if I suggested how to suck eggs. Regarding specific speed/rpm and propeller advance, both reports covered variations in airspeed. Certainly through the gliding range of a 172. On putting the cart before the horse, how else would you suggest analysing this other than actually looking at the quantitative data?
This is primarily an engineering question, and explaining the basis for certain pilot actions and aircraft performance. It is not about changing any pilot actions.
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Guppy Capt
Posts: 151
Closing the throttle reduces the manifold pressure, so that mass of air that is compressed and heated and then finally expanded is reduced. While the air acts a spring that heat loss is not recovered. Open throttle may be most efficient when the engine is running for real, the reverse applies without ignition. It is a exceptionally minor point in any case
#47
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 25
????? So what does the MP read when you are on the ground with the engine stopped? Have you ever started a chainsaw or lawnmower? Hint, it's easier to pull the motor through with the throttle open. With all due respect, it's time to stop arguing. You're not making any sense.
But to be fair, I have not provided any data to support this, so perhaps lets put that aside...
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Guppy Capt
Posts: 151
Why put it aside if it's germane to the conversation? So if you are windmilling the prop with the throttle at idle the MP would be what? Where does the extra energy come from to create a vacuum? Try holding a flat plate out the window at 90 mph and compare that to the force required to rotate an engine at 1300 rpm. Remember that energy has to come from somewhere.
(I tried not to chime in but couldn't help myself....next.....)
(I tried not to chime in but couldn't help myself....next.....)
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 25
Your more than welcome, I had never though about the starting scenario. So you learn something everyday Your even more welcome if you want to contribute a critique to the data that's been presented.
I will make the widely unsupported assertion that some would like to prove this Muppet wrong. Well you can count me in on that group, but you'll need to provide some new data or demonstrate the research reports I submitted are incorrect.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post