prop formula

[brianyemail-nsrca at yahoo.com]

Free prop load calculator....havent used it but ran across it and thought some of you might be interested if you havent already seen it.
 
http://www.bmaps.net/software/goodies.html

"Jeff H. Snider" <jeff at snider.com> wrote:I messed around with MotoCalc to find a formula for "prop load". My
goal was to find a formula that allowed you to replace one prop with
another of a different diameter but select the pitch so that RPMs
and Amps remained the same at full throttle static. If the RPM
remains the same and the Amps remain the same, the "prop load" must
be the same. Am I right? I know motors are different from engines,
but (in theory) if the loads for two props are the same on a motor
at a given RPM, they are the same on an engine at that RPM.

The formula I reached is this:

Prop Load = Blades x Pitch x Diameter^4

That's Diameter to the fourth power. I can almost justify the
fourth power with a geometry argument, but I'm not there yet.
Anyway, the formula works perfectly within MotoCalc.

As an example, a two blade 17x13 prop (think OS 160 here) turns the
same RPM as:

2 blade 17.34 x12
2 blade 17.73 x11
2 blade 18 x10.25
2 blade 18.15 x10

3 blade 15.36 x13
3 blade 15.67 x12
3 blade 16 x11

4 blade 14.30 x13
4 blade 14.58 x12
4 blade 14.91 x11
4 blade 15 x10.7

These props aren't all commonly available ones, just numbers to try
and get close to.

I don't have a good equation for thrust, but "prop speed" (meaning
theoretical mph of the air pushed by the prop) is a pure multiple
of RPM and pitch, so when moving up to more blades if you're keeping
the same RPM keeping roughly the same pitch seems like a good idea,
unless you want to change static thrust and your ultimate top speed.

(that was a long sentence)

Do those prop sizes sound reasonable to those of you who have tried
different props on your 160s?

-Jeff

George Kennie writes:
> A little addendum to the prop formula that was on the list a couple
> of days ago.It was purported to be from Mike Nauman and went like
> this:
> No. of blades, X pitch squared, X diameter cubed.
> I tried the formula and felt that it didn't work. Then I tried it
> again today and felt that it corresponded to my experience. Then I
> tried it in a different range and it came up failing again. So I
> tried to simplify it a little and due to the fact that I find that
> the diameter is the most crucial component of the formula I decided
> to leave all else alone and just modify the diameter. So what I
> ended up with was:
> Number of blades, X pitch, times diameter squared. Applying this
> formula in several ranges seems to work for me. See what you think.
> 
> 
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041020/751034e0/attachment.html