Propeller design reinvented

Last edited:
And what is really interesting is the USN has just contracted an Australian company to secure their leading edge 3D printing technology, including the likely ability to 3D print submarine propellers.
 
See fig. 3:

Another publication by GKN Aerospace, the inventor of the boxprop propeller:
https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/208320/local_208320.pdf
 
Last edited:
See fig. 3:
What I find especially intresting is the turbocompound drive in this project, see also:

 
Similar?
 
I dont think so, they are using more blades, but not a totally different design. MT is following this path as well (I guess we allready have a video of a nine blade MT Prop somewhere here)
 
May I suggest a toroidal biplane racer?
The top wing would look like an exageration of the (currently popular) Schumann planform with wing tips curving down to meet the bottom wing.
The bottom wing would be a reverse Schumann planform to capture vortices shed by the top wing and channel those vortices towards wing root. The bottom leading edge would be a complex, curved forward sweep with even more forward sweep in the curved trailing edge.
Forget about making this in wood and fabric.
To derive all of the aerodynamic benefits, you would need to 3D mill female molds, then lay up composite (perhaps graphite) skins within the molds.
Hint: Greg Catto (of propeller fame) had already built composite wings for several Formula One racers that competed at Reno.
 
May I suggest a toroidal biplane racer?
The top wing would look like an exageration of the (currently popular) Schumann planform with wing tips curving down to meet the bottom wing.
The bottom wing would be a reverse Schumann planform to capture vortices shed by the top wing and channel those vortices towards wing root. The bottom leading edge would be a complex, curved forward sweep with even more forward sweep in the curved trailing edge.
Forget about making this in wood and fabric.
To derive all of the aerodynamic benefits, you would need to 3D mill female molds, then lay up composite (perhaps graphite) skins within the molds.
Hint: Greg Catto (of propeller fame) had already built composite wings for several Formula One racers that competed at Reno.
The problem you can run into in that case is the down wash from the forward higher wing changes the local alpha of the bottom wing, greatly reducing it's efficiency.
 
The zipdrone here has unusual double propellors on the same side:
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWDNBu9DkU&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fup-ship.com%2F&feature=emb_logo


I don’t know if that would scale up well…they look less like partially open scissors.


As a counter-weight…I might have the loop type propellor opposite the scissor type…perhaps given a twist to play with vortices a bit? How odd it might be that the perfect prop-design looks like the breast cancer ribbon loop:


That drone’s cloud-car might replace fast-roping if it scales up well.
 
Last edited:
May I suggest a toroidal biplane racer?
The top wing would look like an exageration of the (currently popular) Schumann planform with wing tips curving down to meet the bottom wing.
The bottom wing would be a reverse Schumann planform to capture vortices shed by the top wing and channel those vortices towards wing root. The bottom leading edge would be a complex, curved forward sweep with even more forward sweep in the curved trailing edge.
Forget about making this in wood and fabric.
To derive all of the aerodynamic benefits, you would need to 3D mill female molds, then lay up composite (perhaps graphite) skins within the molds.
Hint: Greg Catto (of propeller fame) had already built composite wings for several Formula One racers that competed at Reno.
The problem you can run into in that case is the down wash from the forward higher wing changes the local alpha of the bottom wing, greatly reducing it's efficiency.
We are hoping that trapping wing tip vortices will provide a greater advantage than the loss due to biplane interference. The other issue is positioning the top and bottom wings far enough apart both vertically and staggered to minimize interference. Vertical spacing should be more than 1.5 chords. Horizontal staggering would displace top and bottom wing roots more than 1 chord.
Finally, we hope that firmly attaching wing tips we will gain a structural advantage.
 
Any chance of a graphic example please?
 
Are we looking at the DeLanne formula problem ? IIRC, Germans tried to reverse-engineer it from his nimble prototype, but could not get it right. Seems they got dysergy instead of synergy for the wings' interactions, were not amused. Subtle 'counter-intuitive for that era' stuff, perhaps ? The UK's Lysander conversion, done with DeLanne's approval, worked as intended....
 
Well it seems to work for ships props...

 
Well it seems to work for ships props...

I allready linked it in the second posting...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom