Timeline for For a same propeller solidity, what are the tradeoffs between blade activity factor and blade number?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2021 at 6:02 | comment | added | Robert DiGiovanni | (Notice the biplane also has 2 wings. It is much stronger per unit wing area, able to handle higher +/- G loads). | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 5:57 | comment | added | Robert DiGiovanni | so, you have a choice: more thin blades or increasing chord. More thin blades are better, but not nearly as strong. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 5:51 | comment | added | Robert DiGiovanni | High activity, high blade count enables more horsepower (more fuel/unit time) to make more thrust, increasing forward speed. Comparing prop to jet was irresistible. Just swinging the 2 blade faster and faster is constrained by the sound barrier. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 5:45 | comment | added | Robert DiGiovanni | @Kenn Sebesta the jet engine, with its rows of blades, is an extrapolation of high blades, high activity. It is better to have more, higher AR blades, but lower AR are stronger. Forward speed reduces blade/blade interference. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 5:29 | comment | added | Kenn Sebesta | Any chance you could update this with some more detailed examples of optimization? I don't quite follow why high activity factors will improved forward speed range. P.S. I don't understand the reference to the A6. | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 20:06 | history | edited | Robert DiGiovanni | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Better answer
|
| Jan 31, 2021 at 9:01 | history | edited | Robert DiGiovanni | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Better answer
|
| Jan 31, 2021 at 8:55 | history | answered | Robert DiGiovanni | CC BY-SA 4.0 |