Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:17:31.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aeroelastically adaptive propeller using blades’ root flexibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

Y. Sandak  and
A. Rosen
Y. Sandak
Affiliation:
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Engineering, Haifa, Israel
A. Rosen
Affiliation:
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Engineering, Haifa, Israel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Usually a fixed pitch propeller is designed to be optimal at cruise speeds. Thus the efficiency is quite low at takeoff or low speeds, as well as during other flight regimes. The present paper shows that by introducing a flexible element into the blade root, the propeller efficiency can be improved over a wide range of velocities. The flexible element reacts to root flap or torsion moments by changing the blade pitch at the root. The root flexibility and the pitch angles at the root at zero loads are chosen such that efficiency will increase during problematic regimes without decreasing the propeller thrust. In the case of straight blades the torsional moment at the root is too small to be used. In the case of swept blades this moment component is significantly increased and can contribute to the design of an optimal aeroelastically adaptive propeller.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1086 , August 2004 , pp. 411 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

References

1. Rosen, G. Thrusting Forward — A History of the Propeller, 1986, Eastern Press, USA.Google Scholar
2. Munk, M.M. Propeller containing diagonally disposed fibrous material, United States Patent Office, Patent No 2,484,308, Patented 11 October 1949.Google Scholar
3. Dwyer, W.J. and Rogers, J.B. Aeroelastically tailored propellers, 1977, Society of Automotive Engineering Meeting, SAE Paper No 770455.Google Scholar
4. Annon, Global aircraft puts flexible propeller under test, Flight International, 1997, 152, (4590), pp 25.Google Scholar
5. Chattopadhyay, A., Mccarthy, T.R. and Seeley, C.E. Decomposition-based optimization procedure for high-speed prop-rotors using composite tailoring, J Aircr, 1995, 32, (5), pp 1026–1033.Google Scholar
6. Soykasap, O. and Hodges, D.H. Performance enhancement of a composite tilt-rotor using aeroelastic tailoring, J Aircr, 2000, 37, (5), pp 850–858.Google Scholar
7. Mccormick, B.W. Aerodynamics of V/STOL Flight, 1967, Academic Press, New York, pp 73–100.Google Scholar
8. Aljabri, A.S. Prediction of Propeller Performance and Loading in Uniform and Nonuniform Flowfields, 1978, MSc Thesis, Dept of Aerospace Engineering, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
9. Hartman, E.P. and Bierman, D. The aerodynamic characteristics of full scale propellers having 2, 3 and 4 blades of Clark Y and RAF6 airfoil sections, 1937, NACA Report No 640.Google Scholar
10. Evands, A.J. and Liner, G. A wind tunnel investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of a full scale swept back propeller and two related straight propellers, 1951, NACA RM L50T05.Google Scholar
11. Grace, A. Optimization Tool Box for Use with MATLAB, 1992, Mathworks, USA.Google Scholar