Propeller Tip Shape
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Heart of Asia
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propeller Tip Shape
Does anyone know why some turboprops have blunt prop tips (like the Herc), while others have rounded ones (like the Dash 8)?
Thanks in advance for any responses!
Thanks in advance for any responses!
Last edited by betaboy; 26th Dec 2004 at 16:06.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hendon
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awww Milt, the boy asked a straight question!
I can't remember exactly, but propellers with rounded tips are less draggy and more efficient, but props with squared off tips have higher solidity and so you can stuff more power through them e.g. for short field aircraft.
I'm sure that someone can give you a more authoritative answer before long, but if you simply can't wait try searching on 'hercules' 'orion' etc.
Jeez, the things people think about at xmas
Happy New year,
N
I can't remember exactly, but propellers with rounded tips are less draggy and more efficient, but props with squared off tips have higher solidity and so you can stuff more power through them e.g. for short field aircraft.
I'm sure that someone can give you a more authoritative answer before long, but if you simply can't wait try searching on 'hercules' 'orion' etc.
Jeez, the things people think about at xmas
Happy New year,
N
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
betaboy,
There was an interesting thread running some months ago along your lines with the original question comparing the rounded P3 Orion prop tips Vs the 'parent' L188 Electra square tips.
This thread was in Tech Log under the title "Prop shapes" originally submitted by saudipc-9, if you care to do a search (it's still there).
My own mediocre input was as follows -
The problem with fast, fairly high flying turbo-props with large propeller radii is that the propeller tips will be the first part of the aircraft to reach the speed of sound, with resultant significant loss of thrust for the power delivered to the propeller.
Compare the L188 Electra which was developed into the P3. The L188 was optimised to fly fast (about TAS 330 Knots) and reasonably high (F/L 250). The L188 had square propeller tips, with a slightly broader blade than the P3, i.e. the same propeller area to absorb the power. Some loss of aerodynamic efficiency was acceptable to avert the much greater loss of efficiency in having the propeller tips reach Mach 1.0 at fast and high cruise.
The P3 on the other hand was optimised to spend most of it's mission time at low level, where sonic propeller tips are not a problem, and the higher aspect ratio rounded tip propellers provided the optimum efficiency. It still left the P3 with a 'respectable' high speed / high altitude transit capability, but not in the same league as it's 'parent' L188. (This loss of high speed capability may have been compensated for in the increased power (by about 500 HP per engine) on the Allison variant fitted to the P3).
One of the prime reasons why many modern fast turboprops have 5 bladed propellers is to reduce the propeller radius, thus reducing tip speed and avoiding sonic speeds.
Others had much to say on the topic also.
Good hunting,
Old Smokey
There was an interesting thread running some months ago along your lines with the original question comparing the rounded P3 Orion prop tips Vs the 'parent' L188 Electra square tips.
This thread was in Tech Log under the title "Prop shapes" originally submitted by saudipc-9, if you care to do a search (it's still there).
My own mediocre input was as follows -
The problem with fast, fairly high flying turbo-props with large propeller radii is that the propeller tips will be the first part of the aircraft to reach the speed of sound, with resultant significant loss of thrust for the power delivered to the propeller.
Compare the L188 Electra which was developed into the P3. The L188 was optimised to fly fast (about TAS 330 Knots) and reasonably high (F/L 250). The L188 had square propeller tips, with a slightly broader blade than the P3, i.e. the same propeller area to absorb the power. Some loss of aerodynamic efficiency was acceptable to avert the much greater loss of efficiency in having the propeller tips reach Mach 1.0 at fast and high cruise.
The P3 on the other hand was optimised to spend most of it's mission time at low level, where sonic propeller tips are not a problem, and the higher aspect ratio rounded tip propellers provided the optimum efficiency. It still left the P3 with a 'respectable' high speed / high altitude transit capability, but not in the same league as it's 'parent' L188. (This loss of high speed capability may have been compensated for in the increased power (by about 500 HP per engine) on the Allison variant fitted to the P3).
One of the prime reasons why many modern fast turboprops have 5 bladed propellers is to reduce the propeller radius, thus reducing tip speed and avoiding sonic speeds.
Others had much to say on the topic also.
Good hunting,
Old Smokey
