r

i DEPMTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ultimi TtdMkai laJnmitinn Sitvkt

AD-A025 281

EXPERIMENTAL SPINDLE TORQUE AND OPEN-WATER

PERFORMANCE OF TWO SKEWED CONTROLLABLE-PITCH
PROPELLERS

DAVID

W,

TAYLOR NAVAL SHIP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

CENTER

DECEMBER

1975

00 EXPERIMENTAL SPINDLE TORQUE AND OPEN-WATER PERFORMANCE

OF TWO SKEWED CONTROLLABLE-PITCH PROPELLERS
by
R J, BO*A*H
JJ. Ndka
R.D. Kader

<

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC REl EAftE: DISTRIBUTION UNLWMTED

SHIP PERFORMANCE DEPARTMENT

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT HEPORT

Dwarobw 1975

NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE

Raport4753

i.. S [( f Afc! jti y.S L'f C'JMItlRCl

sf* v,^ HLJ VA .'2ib:

i.jjsVtt:/ias*',v^'-vi?-U':^i^?'.--if"J*->*.N>.-,*:,**-.-. .V!sw,'.A*rj;*Si-_^*v.. $* -iu.*.'-. *

MAJOR DTNSRDC ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS

TWSRDC
COMMANDER

__
00
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
01

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
CARDEROCK
05

SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT

OFFICEP JN-OHARGE
ANNAPOLIS

11

SHIP PERFORMANCE
DEPARTMENT
15

AVIATION AND
SURFACE EFFECTS
DEPARt&fcNi
16

STRUCTURES
DEPARTMENT

COMPUTATION
AND MATHEMATICS
DEPARTMENT
18

17

SHIP ACOUSTICS
DEPARTMENT

*9

MATERIALS
DEPARTMENT

PROPULSION AND
AUXILIARY SYSTEMS
DEPARTMENT 2?

CENTRAL
INSTRUMENTATION
DEPARTMENT I
29

-Iffln.ASSTFTKD
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whmt Dmtm Enfrtt)

1
11

READ INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

RERORT NUMICR

Z. GOVT ACCESSION NO. t.

4753
S.

14. TITLE (and Subt'tlm)

|
[7.

1
1

EXPERIMENTAL SPINDLE TORQUE AND OPEN-WATER

PERFORMANCE OF TWO SKEWED CONTROLLABLEPITCH PROPELLERS

4.

PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMRER

|fl

I- CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMRERf)

AuTMORf;

Robert J. Bosvell, John J. Nelka

and Richard D. Kader
10

David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and

Development Center
Bethesda, Maryland 20084

PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

AREA * WORK UNIT NUMtERS

Program Element 63508N

Task Area S4622, Task 17425
Work Unit 1-1544-278

12. REPORT OATB

111. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

TYRE OF RERORT * RERIOO COVERED

Final

IS- PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOOREIS

j
1
1

RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

December 1975

Naval Sea Systems Command (S0331G)

Washington, D.C. 20362

I 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 AODRESSff* dUlmtmnt ham Controlling Oltle)

tl. NUMRER OF PAGES

IS. SECURITY CLASS, for thla tapan)

IS.

DECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRAOING
SCHEDULE

11

OlSTRiBl TlON STATEMENT fol Mt Hmport)

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

I ?.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thm mba'tacl mnftod t Block 39, H dtUtmt ham Kapoet)

lit

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Canthma an rararaa Ida */ nacaaamy and idmnUty ay

1
j
I
ISO.

MAC*

mm**)

Skewed Propeller
Controllable-Pitch Propeller
Spindle Torque
Propulsion

ABSTRACT (Cantlnua -w rwr alda II MtHurr and idantity ay alatk mmaat)

Experimental results are presented on the spindle torque ind open-water

performance of two skewed controllable-pitch propellers. Both *
^w*..,
have radial distributions of skew specified so that the section raidchord
is forward of the spindle axis at the inner radii and aft of the spindle
axis at the outer radii. One propeller has no rake and the other has
substantial forward rake. The experiments were conducted at steady
(Continued on reverse)

DO .IT 1473

EDITION OF t NOV 41 IS OBSOLETE

S/N 0I02-014 4401

'
1
1
1
!
1

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wham Dmtm VmimtmQ

Wi

UNCLASSIFIED
seeumTv

CLASSIFICATION

or

THIS

pAoermnn o< Entpr*<r>

(Block 20, Continued)

conditions in uniform flow in a towing basin over a range of positive
and negative pitch ratios and a range of positive and negative advance
coefficients so that the complete maneuvering envelope of the ship
was simulated in a quasi-steady manne; .
The experimental open-water performance was correlated with calculated values based on a least-squares fit to previous systematic
experimental data. The correlation indicates that the calculation
procedure may be adequate for preliminary dynamic simulation studies
in cases where open-water data are not available on a similar model
propeller.
The experimental hydrodynamic spindle torque results are generally
consistent with previously reported experimental results. These
results suggest that realistic highly skewed propellers can be designed
with spindle torque characteristics comparable to those of equivalent
propellers without significant skew. No definite conclusions
could be drawn regarding the effect of forward rake on spindle torque.
The experimental values of centrifugal spindle torque generally
agreed with analytically calculated values over a range of pitch
ratios.

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

TM|

PkGtfWhm

DM*

Knfn4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1

ABSTRACT
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

DESCRIPTION OF PROPELLERS

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
FACILITY
DYNAMOMETRY
CALIBRATION
ACCURACY

9
9
10
U

12

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS

12
14

EXPERIMEITTAL RESULTS
OPEN-WATER PERFORMANCE
SPINDLE TORQUE

14
14

U
16

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

THRUST AND TORQUE

HYbRODYNAMIC SPINDLE TORQUE
CENTRIFUGAL SPINDLE TORQUE
SPINDLE TORQUE AT DESIGN CONDITIONS

JJ
20
23
30
31

SUMMARY

33

RECOMMENDATIONS

33

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

34

161

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4572

35

2 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4575

36

3 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4496

36

4 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4536

37

5 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4535

37

6 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4517 .

38

7 - Arrangement of Experimental Equipment

38

8 - Instrumentation for Spindle Torque Experiment

39
40

9 - Blade Spindle Mechanism

10 - Spindle Torque Dynamometer

40

11 - Pitch Settings and Experimental

Operating Conditions

12 - Variation of Thrust Coefficient IL, with Advance Coefficient

*3

J for Propeller 4572

13 - Variation of Torque Coefficient KL with Advance Coefficient J

for Propeller 4572
7

.
*X

14 - Variation of Thrust Index C* with Advance Angle 6* for

Propeller 4572
!

_0
**

15 - Variations of Torque Index C* with Advance Angle 0* for

Q
Propeller 4572

0/

16 - Variation of Thrust Coefficient K_ with Advance Coefficient J

for Propeller 4575
J

..

..

17 - Variation of Torque Coefficient Kn with Advance Coefficient J

for Propeller 4575
7

ftl
J

18 - Variation of Thrust Index C* with Advance Angle 0* for

Propeller 4575
I

0
yi

19 - Variation of Torque Index C* with Advance Angle 0* for

Propeller 4575
"

QO

IV

Page
20 - Variation of Modified Hydrodynamic Blade Spindle Torque
Coefficient KjR with Modified Advance Coefficient Jf
for Propeller 4572

107

21 - Variation of Kcdifled Hydrodynamic Blade Spindle Torque

Coefficient Kin with Modified Advance Coefficient J'
115

for Propeller 4575

22 - Variation of Hydrodynamic Blade Spindle Torque Index
K*H with Advance Angle B* for Propeller 4572

23 - Variation of Hydrodynamic Blade Spindle Torque Index

K*H with Advance Angle 8* for Propeller 4575 . .

._-

24 - Faired Experimental Results Showing Variation of Blade Spindle

Torque Index K* with Advance Angle 8* and Pitch Ratio
(P/D)0

for Propeller 4572

139

25 - Faired Experimental Results Showing Variation of Blade

Spindle Torque Index K* with Advance Angle B* and
Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q

for Propeller 4575

140

26 - Faired Experimental Results Showing Variation of Blade

Spindle Torque Index K* with Advance Angle 8* and
Pitch Ratio {P/D)Q

for Propeller 4496

141

27 - Faired Experimental Results Showing Variations of Blade

Spindle Torque Index K* with Advance Angle B* and
Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q

for Propeller 4536

142

28 - Faired Experimental Results Showing Variation of Blade

Spindle Torque Index K* with Advance Angle 6* and
Pitch Ratio (P/D)c

for Propeller 4535

143

29 - Faired Experimental Results Showing Variation of Blade

Spindle Torque Index K* with Advance Angle 8* and
Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q

for Propeller 4517

144

30 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

Ksc with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ? for Propeller 4572

...

31 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

Ksc with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ? for Propeller 4575

. ,

32 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

Ksc with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ; for Propeller 4496

,_
* '

Page
33 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient
K^ with Pitch Ratio (P/D)0#7 for Propeller 4536

148

34 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

Kgg with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ? for Propeller 4535

149

35 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

K^ with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ; for Propeller 4517

150

36 * Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

t^ with Pitch Ratio (P/W0#7 for Propeller 4402
37 - Analytical Valuea of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque
Coefficient over a Range of Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q .
for Varioua Propellera
i

...

13i

..,
*

LIST OP TABLES
1 - Characteristics of DTMSRDC Model Propeller 4572

153

2 - Characteristics of DTMSRDC Model Propeller 4575

154

3 - Characteristic uf DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4496

155

4 - Characteristics of DTMSRDC Model Propeller 4536

,156

5 - Characteristics of DTMSRDC Model Propeller 4535

157

6 - Characteristics of DTMSRDC Model Propeller 4M7

158

7 - Characteristics of DTMSRDC Model Propeller 4402

159

8 - Experimental Spindle Torque at Design Advance

Coefficient for Various Propellers

160

NOTATION

Expanded blade area

Propeller disk area uD2/4

Lift coefficient of blade section

Torque Index, Q/[(p/2)(V|)2A0D]

Thrust index, T/Kp/lXV*)2^]
Thrust leading coefficient, T/((p/2) V2 A^]
Blade section chord length

Propeller diameter
Camber of propeller blade section

Advance coefficient, J - V./uD

Modified advance coefficient, ^/[vj nV]1/2
Torque coefficient, Q/(pnD )

Centrifugal blade spindle torque coefficient, Qer/(Ppn D )

K*

Hydrodynamic blade spindle torque index,

sc

I(P/2)(V )2A D)

V
^H

Modified hydrodynamic blade spindle torque coefficient,

IpD3(V
n2 2>1

A+

Thrust coefficient, T/(pnD )

Propeller revolution per unit time

Propeller blade section pitch

Propeller torque

Qs

Blade spindle torque arising froa hydrodynaaic and

centrifugal loading

QSA

Blade spindle torque arising fro aerodynamic loading

Qgr

Blade spindle torque arising froa centrifugal loading

Qs

Blade spindle torque arising froa hydrodynaaic loading

Propeller radius

Reynolds nuaber, cn ,V*/v

u. / K
Radial coordinate froa propeller axis

Skev back of propeller blade section aeasured froa the spindle

axis to the aidchord point of the blade section, positive
towards trailing edge

Thrust of propeller, positive forward

Maxiaua thickness of propeller blade section

Propeller speed of advance

Circumferential aean longitudinal velocity at local radius

V*

Vector sua of speed of advance and rotational velocity at

the 0.7 radius, (V* + (0.7 TmD)2),/2

VBJ

Nondimenstonal radial position, x - r/R

Number of blades
Z_

Rake of propeller blade section measured from the propeller

plane (plane normal to propeller axis and containing
spindle axis) to the generator line (intersection of
pitch helices and the plane containing the spindle axis
and propeller axis), positive aft

2^

Total rake, Z^ + 6g tan $

0*

Propeller dvance angle at 0.7R, tan" [V /(0.7imD)]

Skew angle measured from spindle axis to projection of

blade section mldchord onto propeller plane (plane normal
to propeller axis and containing spindle axis), positive
towards trailing edge, (S cos $)/r

Kinematic viscosity of water

Mass density of water

p.

Mass density of air

p.

Mass density of propeller blsde

Pitch angle of propeller blade section, tan" (P/(nxD)]

Subscripts*

Vaxue at design conditions

Value at the propeller hub

0.7

Value at the 0.7 radius

IX

MMMMMNHMV

ABSTRACT
Experimental results are presented on the spindle torque
and open-water performance of two skewed controllable-pitch
propellers. Both propellers have radial distributions of skew
specified so that the section midchord is forward of the spindle
axis at the inner radii and aft of the spindle axis at the outer
radii. One propeller has no rake and the other has substantial
forward rake. The experiments were conducted at steady conditions in uniform flow in a towing basin over a range of positive
and negative pitch ratios and a range of positive and negative
advance coefficients so that the complete maneuvering envelope
of the ship was simulated in a quasisteady manner.
The experimental open-water performance was correlated
with calculated values based on a least-squares fit to
previous systematic experimental data. The correlation
indicates that the calculation procedure may be adequate
for preliminary dynamic simulation studies in cases where
open-water data are not available on a similar model propeller.
The experimental hydrodynamic spindle torque results are
generally consistent with previously reported experimental
results. These results suggest that realistic highly skewed
propellers can be designed with spindle torque characteristics
comparable to those of equivalent propellers without significant skew. No definite conclusions could be drawn regarding
the effect of forward rake on spindle torque. The experimental
values of centrifugal spindle torque generally agreed with
analytically calculated values over a range of pitch ratios.
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
The work reported herein was funded by the Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA 033) Program Element 63508N, Task Ar** .

6.

Task 17425.

The

work was performed under David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center (DTNSRDC) WorV Unit 1-1544-278.

INTRODUCTION
Controllable-reversible pitch (CP) propellers can achieve astern
thrust by reversing pitch while maintaining ahead shaft rotation and
therefore do not require reversing gearboxes.

Such propellers are of

interest for ships powered by gas turbines and also offer several
advantages for ships which must operate over a range of conditions,
i.e. over a range of propeller thrust loading coefficients.

For these

applications, pitch control nay enable the propeller to operate efficiently at off-design advance coefficients with less cavltation than
fixed-pitch propellers.

CP propellers are ideally suited for power

plants which have high efficiencies over a United range of rpn and for
high-speed craft in which weight is critical and shaft reversal gearing
is to be avoided if possible.

CP propellers also have an advantage over

fixed-pitch propellers for maneuvering and stopping since the propeller

blades can be rotated to astern pitch with the full power of the ahead
turbine available.

Background information on CP propellers is available

1-4
in the technical literature.
Design problems for CP propeller blades are similar to those for
fixed-pitch propellers except for (1) the additional parameter of spindle
torqve and (2) the restrictions on blade outline shape dictated by the
requirement that the blades must pass through zero pitch to achieve
pitch reversal.

At the design condition, strength (with the additional

complication at the palm), cavltation, and propeller-induced vibratory

forces can be handled by exactly the same methods used for conventional
propellers.

At off-design pitch, performance (thrust as a function of

1
Rusetskiy, A.A. "Hydrodynamics of ControHable-Pitch Propdters," Shipbuilding Publishing Home, Leningrad (1968)
(in Russian). A complete listing of references is given on page 161.
2

Gunsteren, L.A., van, "Hydrodynamics of Controllable-Pitch Propeller,*' in Design and Economical Consideration on
Shipbuilding and Shipping, Report of the Pott Graduate Course, May 1969, University of Delft, the Netherlands,
a Veenman En Zonen N.V., Wageningen, the Netherlands (1970) pp. 212-252; alto presented as "Detfcn and Performance
of Controllable-Pitch PropeUen," New York Metropolitan Section, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (Mar 1970).
?

Schanz, F., "The Controllable Pitch Propeller at an Integral Part of the Ship's Propulsion System," Transactions Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Vol. 75, pp. 194-223 (1967).
4

Boatwright, GM and J. Strnden, "Controllable-Pitch Propellers,'* Fourth Annual Technical Symposium, Association of
Senior Engineers, Naval Ship Systems Command, Washington, D.C (31 Mar 1967).

pitch, rpra, and speed of advance) can be estimated fron uniform flow
CO

experiments of previous designs.

Strom-Tejsen and Porter

have pre-

sented analytical expressions for estimating the off-design performance

g
of CP propellers based on the experimental data of Gutsche and Schroeder.
The problems associated with propulsion, cavitation, strength, and
vibration-excitation forces are aggravated by the pitch-changing and
reversing requirements of CP propellers.

The requirement that the

blades must pass through zero pitch limits the maximum blade area and
generally leads to blade shapes which are narrow at the root and wide in
the tip region.

Neither the total blade area limitation nor the resulting

chord length distribution are favorable for delaying or preventing blade

cavitation, erosion, and performance breakdown.

CP propellers which are

designed to absorb high power and/or operate in a wake with significant

circumferential variation generally have thick blade root sections for
strength purposes.

The combination of small blade chord and large root

thickness produces blade root sections with high thickness/chord ratios

which are subject to cavitation and erosion, particularly when the
propeller Is applied to high-speed vessels.
The magnitude of the spindle torque is, of course, an important
consideration in the design of a CP propeller.

Three phenomena con-

tribute to the net spindle torque which must be overcome in order to

change the pitch:
1.

Friction in the'pitch-changing mechanism.

2.

Distribution of hydrodynamic loading on the blade.

3.

Distribution of centrifugal loading on the blade.

The friction in the pitch-changing mechanism is essentially independent

of the design of the propeller blades.

Therefore the design of *he

Ttuchida, K*, "Design Diagrams of rhrf t-Bleded Controllable-Pitch Propeller," Proceeding!. Fourth ONR Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C (Auf 1962).
"Yazaki, A., "Model Teats on Four-Haded Controllable-Pitch Propellers," Ship Research Institute, Toyko, Japan, Paper 1,
(Mar 1964).
7

Yaxaki. A. and S. Nobuo, "Further Model Tests on Four-Bladed ControuaWe-Pitch Propellers,** Ship Research Institute,
Tokyo, Japan, Paper 16 (Aug 1966).
Gutscht, F. and a Schroeder, "Fretfahrvcrtuche an Propellern mit fetten und verstellbaren Hgeln voraus und zurck
(Open Watet Tests on Fixed-Haded and Controlbbie-Pitch PropeDers in Forward and Backing Operations), Schiflbauforachung,
VoU 2, No. 4 (1963).
9
Srrom-Tejaan, J. and R.R. Porter, "Prediction of CofttroCaMe-Pitch PropeUtr Performance in Off-Design Conditions,**
Third Ship Control Systems Symposium, Oath, England (Aug 1972).

external propeller can significantly influence only those components of

spindle torque produced by the hydrodynamic end centrifugal loading on
the blades.

The primary design objective related to spindle torque is

generally to minimize the magnitude of the Largest ipindle torque to be

encountered in the operating profile of the propeller.

Depending on the

design application, it is often a secondary design objective to obtain a

min-imum or slightly positive hydrodynamic plus centrifugal spindle
torque at the design condition where positive spindle torque tends to
rotate the blade toward higher ahead pitch.

If a positive spindle

torque is obtained, then a failure in the pitch-control mechanism will

result in a tendency of the blade to rotate toward a positive pitch
condition, which will allow the ship to proceed in the ahead direction.
The achievement of the desired spindle torque depends on (1) an
accurate technique for predicting spindle torque as a function of design
variables and (2) design tradeoffs with efficiency, strength, cavitation,
and unsteady forces.

Prediction techniques are discussed later.

Design

tradeoffs primarily involve hydrodynamic spindle torque because it is

much more sensitive than is the centrifugal component to variables over
which the designer has some reasonable control.

Hydrodynamic spindle

torque is essentially the product of the component of hydrodynamic net

force on the blade normal to the spindle axis and the distance between
this force and the spindle axis.

Therefore, the controlling geometric

parameters are (in approximate descending order of importance) skew,

spindle axis location, blade width, rake, and design pitch.

Centrifugal

spindle torque depends only on the geometry of the blade and propeller
rotational speed.

For all practical cases, it is directed such that it

tends to change the blade pitch to small positive values.

Within

constraints dictated by considerations of efficiency, strength, cavitation,

and unsteady forces, the only significant control which the designer has
over centrifugal spindle torque is in the selection of rake and spindle
axis location.

Analytical techniques for calculating spindle torque have been

developed by several investigators including Rusetskiy, Tsao,
Boswell,
12
and Klaasen and
loldus.
As stated previously, the centrifugal
component of spindle torque is a function only of the geometry and
propeller rotational speed; therefore, it is fairly straightforward to
develop an analytical technique for calculating this component.

However,

any calculation of the hydrodynamic spindle torque requires accurate

knowledge of the distribution of hydrodynamic loading over the blade.
At the present state-of-the-art, the distribution of hydrodynamic loading
can be accurately calculated at design pitch setting and advance coefficient, but is has not been demonstrated that it can be accurately calculated at substantially off-design pitch and/or advance coefficient.
recently developed procedure described by Tsao

The

is the most refined

technique known to the authors for calculating off-design loading and

spindle torque.

However, this technique has not been correlated with

experimentally determined spindle torque.

Further, it is not reasonable

to expect a technique which is based on potential flow to accurately

predict hydrodynamic spindle torque under conditions at which the blade
sections are stalled, i.e., under simulated crash-astern or crash-ahead
conditions.
Therefore, although existing techniques should yield reasonable
predictions of centrifugal spindle torque at all conditions and hydrodynamic spindle torque at or near design conditions, hydrodynamic spindle
torque at maneuvering conditions must presently be determined experimentally because the hydrodynamic load distribution cannot be predicted
with sufficient accuracy.

For design purposes it is obviously desirable

to have a method that can predict the hydrodynamic component over the
entire operating profile of the propeller, including crash-astern and
crash-ahead maneuvers.
An experimental program was therefore undertaken at DTNSRDC to
measure thrust, torque, and spindle torque on a systematic series of
s^s TM, "Pocnmartatfoa *f ^y* t~ * ATITT^ of Ptrfimtam inl Spindle Torque of fomrorfibta PHch
FtopdlMC Massachusetts Institute of Tedmolofy, Department of Ocean Engineer* Report 75-8 (May 1975).
ll

BotwefltIU.,"AMth<*ofCaicufc^
David Taylor Model Basin Report 1529 (Aug 1961).
TOaaeen and AraoMua. "Actuating Forces in ControDable-Fhcn hopsDen," Tansactiom toatftete of Marine 1
Vol. 76, No. 6 (Jun 1964).

propellers in the towing basin* over a vide range of pitches and over a
complete range of advanc. coefficients from locked shaft ahead to locked
shaft astern, Including the bollard pull condition. Experimental results
under the first phase of this program have already been reported.

In that phase, thrust, torque, and spindle torque were measured on four
propellers which were Investigated to evaluate the effects of blade
width and skew.

The parent propeller of this series was almost identical

to the propeller evaluated by Denny and Nelka.

The present report

presents the experimental results under thi second phase of this program.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPELLERS
Two existing models, designated DTNSRDC Propellers 4572 and 4575,
were evaluated in the phase of the investigation reported here; see
Figures 1 and 2 and Tables 1 and 2.

These two propellers were designed

independently for separate specific applications and therefore do not

represent a strict systematic variation of any single design parameter.
They were selected for evaluation because they represent a rational
extension of the systematic series of propellers on which spindle torque
had been measured previously;

see Figures 3-6 and Tables 3-7.

The

new parameters evaluated in these propellers are rake and different

Earlier experiments13~15 had mated that hydrodynamic spindle torque cannot b property determined in a water tuna!
un<ler simulated crasb-estern and crash-ahead maneuver* because under inch condrons, the tunnel walls significantly influence
the flow Into the propeller, thereby exerting a first order influence on the spindle torque. To avoid these waB effects, subsequent
experiments * were conducted in a towing basin. Moreover, the balance employed in some of the earlier measuremenu13'14
was found to cause a significant interaction between spindle torque and other components of blade loading (thrust, tangential
force, radial force and two component of bending moment about axes normal to the spindle axis). Since that interaction
tended to reduce the accuracy of the measurements, later experiment**5,16 and the present study were conducted with a
balance which had no measurable influence of the other components of blade loading on spindle torque.
1
hiMm, ILL, "Spindle Torque Tests of Four CRP Propeller Blade Designs for MSO-421," David Taylor Model Basin Report
1137 (M19*41

"Hansen, E.O., maust and Blade Spindle Torque Measurenwnts for Five Controllable-Pitch Propeller Designs for MSO-421,"
David Taylor Model Basin Report 2325 (Apr 1967).
15
Denny. S3, and U. NeJka, "Blade Spindle Moment on a Ftva-Bladed Controllable-Pitch Propafier,** NSRDC Report 3729
(Jan 1972).
l6
Denny, S.B. and H.G. Stephens, "Blade Sou-lie Moment on ControDaWe4itch Propellers," NSRDC SPD Report 011 -14
Old 1974).
1
'Stephens, H.a. "Open Water Performance of a Controllable-Pitch (C-P) Propeller Series,*' NSRDC SPD Report 011-13
a1974).

distributions of skew.

In addition, these two propellers were designed by

18 19
20
lifting surface procedures *
and were candidates for Fleet applications*
Both Propellers 4572 and 4575 were designed so that the spindle
axis coincided with the propeller reference line and with the radial
distributions of skew specified so that the midchord position is forward
of the swindle axis at the inner radii and aft of the spindle axis at
the outer radii. Such distributions of skew are called "balanced'1 skew
distributions. A balanced skew distribution may be necessary to simultaneously meet the following three design objectives:
1. To reduce propeller-induced vibration excitation below values
for an unskewed propeller 21 * 22 (depending ou the distribution of velocity
in the propeller plane).
2. To provide for attaching the section at the blade root to the
palm in such a manner that it possesses sufficient strength without
blade overhang at the leading edge.
3.

To ensure a zero or small positive value of spindle torque

resulting from hydrodynamic and centrifugal loading at design conditions

(positive spindle torque tends to increase ahead pitch).
The third design objective required locating the center of pressure
sufficiently forward of the spindle axis so that the hydrodynamic spindle
torque will counteract the centrifugal spindle torque which inherently
tends to reduce pitch to small positive values.

Positive net spindle

torque is desirable so that the blades will tend to go to a large ahead

pitch in the event of a hydraulic failure in the pitch-changing system.
The projected skew angle 6 measured from the spindle axis to
s
the section midchord varies for Propeller 4572 from -9.7 deg at the

1S

Cheng, .M., "Hydrodynamk Aspect of Propeler Design Based on Lifting-Surface Theory," Part 1. David Taylor Model
Basin Report 1802 (Sop 1964) and Part 2 DTMB Report 1803 (Jim 1965).
19

Kerwin, J.E. and R. Leopold, "A Deafen Theory for SubcavitatJns Propellers" Transactions, Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, VoL 72, pp. 294-345 (1964).
20

Denny, S.B. et aL. "Hydrodynamic Design Considerations for the CoatroUebto-Pttch Propeller for the Guided Missile
Frigate," Naval Engineers Journal, pp. 72-81 (Apr 1975).
21

Cumming, RJL et at, "Highly Skewed Propellers," Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Vol. 80 (1972).
22

Boswell, RJ. and G.G. Cox, "Design and Model Evaluation of a Hh^ Skewed Propeller for a Cargo Ship," Marine
Technology, VoL 11, No. 1, pp. 73-89 (Jan 1974V

50-percent radius to +24.7 deg at the blade tip (skewback la positive).

For Propeller 4575, 9

varies fro -5.9 deg at the 50-percent radius to

+11.6 deg at the blade tip.

Propeller 4572 has zero rj ke, but a nonlinear radial distribution
of rake as specified for Propeller 4575 so that the locus of the Kidchords of the blade sections would lie in a circular conical surface
with the axis coincident with the propeller axis and with the surface
generator line 5.0 deg forward of the propeller plane.

(The propeller

plane is the plane normal to the propeller axis and contains the propeller reference line which, for Propellers 4572 and 4575, coincides in
the spindle axis.) Thus, the total rake for Propeller 4575 is defined by
^ -r [tan (5 deg) + 0g(r) tan <Kr)]
where 9

is in radians.

Forward rake is beneficial from strength considerations because

with forward rake the bending moment arising from centrifugal force is
of opposite sense to the bending moment arising from the hydrodynamlc
loading for ahead operation.

Thus forward rake tends to reduce the

maximum principal stress in the blade for ahead operation.

It is thought

that forward rake also tends to increase the algebraic value of both
centrifugal

and hydrodynamlc spindle torque.

This speculated varia-

tion of hydrodynamlc spindle torque with rake results, in p?rt, from a

spindle torque component arising from drag of the blade sections.

The

use of forward rake is especially attractive for propellers with skewback because it may be desirable to have zero oc small positive values
of spindle torque at design ahead conditions, as discussed previously.
Forward rake also Increases the clearance between the propeller and
rudder and thus may substantially reduce the effort required to remove
the propeller from the tallshaft.

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS

FACILITY
All spindle torque measurements were performed by using the openwater propeller boat end Carriage I of the David Taylor Model Basin. In
the experimental setup (Figure 7) tb* blades of each propeller were
mounted in the spindle torque hub and the hub was mounted on a hollow
propeller shaft which fitted through the contrarotating end of the
propeller boat

All experiments were conducted in uniform flow with the

propeller fixed to an upstream shaft; i.e., the propeller was upstream

of the boat and shafting
The blade pitches were set manually by using a construction template
which matched the blade surface along the plane normal to the spindle
axis and intersecting the spindle axis at 0.7 radius

The template was

attached to a vernier scribed angle-setting device at the falrwater end

of the dynamometer hub
DYNAMOMETRY
Propeller thrust and torque were measured by using a variable
reluctance 150-in-lb transmission dynamometer (Serial 112).

The trans-

mission dynamometer was positioned between the slipring assembly and the
drive motors and thrust and torque data were acquired concurrently with
the spindle torque data.

Power to rotate the propeller was supplied by

two d-c servomotors (Model MT-5045-039A) connected In series

The

torque rating of each motor is 3 ft-lb for continuous operation and 12

ft-lb for peak operation.

These motors were selected to match the

capabilities of the transmission dynamometer and for their ability to

control the shaft rotation rate during negative torque conditions.
Propeller rpm and propeller boat velocity were respectively determined
by a Hewlett-Packard roto-pulser and a revolution-speed-time recorder
Propeller depth of submergence during the entire experiment was approximately 13 in. at tb, shaft centerline.

This submergence was 1.42 times

the diameter of Propeller 4572 and 1.32 times that of Propeller 4575.
The strut arrangements and towing gear were such that the propeller

could be lifted clear of the water for pitch setting and for air-spin
experiments conducted to determine the centrifugal spindle torque.
Figure 8 is a schematic of the propeller, slipring assembly,
transmission dynamometer, and motors as assembled in the open-water
propeller boat.
The blade spindle mechanism and spindle torque dynamometer are
shown in Figures 9 and 10.

The spindle torque dynamometer consists of a

spindle torque flexure and a hub designed specifically to house both the
spindle torque flexture and the blade spindle.

The hub, blade spindle,

and bearings (Barden Corporation Types A539X80 and SF2) are of stainless
steel.

The bearings are intended to isolate the spindle from the

dynamometer hub and to carry the thrust, centrifugal, and torque forces
of the propeller bl&de and spindle.
blade spindle.

A single blade is attached to the

The spindle torque measuring element is a strain-gaged

tempered-steel flexure employed as a cantilever beam.

A clamp at one

end of the flexure is attached to the center section of the spindle and
can be adjusted from outside the propeller hub to allow blade pitch to
be set at any desired value.

The other end of the flexure rests in a

close-tolerance ground slot.

The flexure lies along the axis of the

propeller hub in order to avoid deflection of the flexure due to centrifugal forces on it.
The flexure was instrumented with 120-ohm strain gages.

Excitation

voltage and gage output were transmitted via slipring assemblies with
leads through a hollow propeller shaft.

CALIBRATION
?rior to the series of measurements, the spindle-torque dynamometer
was statically calibrated in air at its installed position in the
propeller boat.

Positive values of spindle torque (tending to increase

ahead pitch) and negative values of spindle torque were applied incrementally to the spindle over a range of spindle torque from -30 to 4-30

10

in-lb, the maximum limits expected during the experiment.

The response

of the strain gage was both linear and instantaneous with applied torque.
No hysteresis characteristics were observed In the output signal.

There

was no measurable Interaction with other loading components, as indicated

by the fact that the signal remained unchanged over the entire spindle
torque range as pure centrifugal, thrust, and torque forces were applied
to the spindle.

A static calibration following completion of the experi-

ments showed no changes in response characteristics i jm the original

spindle-torque flexure calibration.
The transmission dynamometer was also statically calibrated over a
range of thrust (100 to +100 lb) and torque (150 to +150 in-lb).

The

response of the transmission dynamometer for both thrust and torque

remained linear with applied load, which agreed with the previous
calibration.
At each pitch setting, air-spin experiments to determine the centrifugal component of spindle torque were conducted over a range of rotational speeds from 2.0 to 20.0 rps for both right- and left-hand rotation.
The spindle torque due to aerodynamic loading at V. 0 was determined
from the measured hydrodynamic spindle torque at the bollard pull conditions, V\ - 0.

Since the "hydrodynamic" blade spindle torque index is

Independent of the fluid, it follows that:

where Q.

is the spindle torque due to aerodynamic loading and Q- is

the spindle torque due to hydrodynamic loading.

insignificant relative to Q

However, Q_A was

ACCURACY
The speed of advance and rotational speed were controllable within
accuracies of +0.01 ft/sec and 0.01 rpm, respectively.

The recorded

values of thrust, torque, and spindle torque were accurste to within 0.1
lb, 0.1 in-lb, and 0.02 in-lb, respectively.

11

As mentioned previously the propeller blade pitch was set manually

with the aid of construction templates.

The differential angle fro

design pitch vas determined fro the following equation:

A4>0

- tan"1 [(P/D^et/(0.7 *)] - taaf^ff/D)^^/).? *)]

vith all pitch ratios defined at the 70-percent propeller radius.

Previous calculations showed that for the spindle torque values assured,
the actual bending of the flexure in the dynamometer produced less than
+0.1 deg of pitch change.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
Experiments were conducted in uniform flow over a range of positive
and negative advance coefficients for several values of ahead and astern
pitch setting.

Each experimental condition was run at a constant pitch

setting, speed of advance, and rotational speed.

Therefore, these

experimental conditions represented a quasi-steady simulation of the

various moles of propeller operation including steady ahead, crash
astern, crash ahead, and turns.
All propeller operating conditions were established in the Dsvid
Taylor Model Basin by setting the propeller rpm and propeller boat
velocity to schieve a given advance condition.

To obtain uniform flow

into the propeller, it was necessary to drive the propeller from downstream for all conditions.

All experimental conditions were run in one

direction in the basin; conditions with astern velocity on the ship

(such as steady backing and the initial stages of crash ahead) were
simulated in the experiments by rotating the blades 180 deg about the
spindle axis and reversing the direction of shaft rotation.

Figure 11

is a schematic of the propeller operating conditions simulate* in the

experiment.

The propeller pitch-diameter ratios (P/D)Q , are listed in

the operating quadrants in which they were evaluated on the model.

12

The lover absolute values of advance coefficients were obtained by

rotating the propeller at 10 rp , with speed of advance varying fron 0
to 6 knots, the higher absolute values of advance coefficients were
obtained with a velocity of 6 knots over a range of values fro 3.5 to
0.6 rps.

The resulting range of Reynolds number was fro 3.2 x 10

to 6.1 x 10 .

Previous data obtained in the David Taylor Model iasin

had shown that this range of Reynolds number had no significant effect
on spindie torque for a complete range of advance coefficients and pitch
settings.

Therefore, each experimental condition representing a given

pitch setting and advance coefficient was run at only one speed of
advance and one value of rp*. Unfortunately, some c cad it ions were unattainable due to combinations of pitch, velocity, and advance coefficient which tended to draw air "o the propeller from the free surface.
Spindle torque measurements and related data were collected in the
following step-by-step manner:
1.

The desired pitch was set by using construction template.

2.

Air-spin experiments were conducted to separate the spindle

torque components due to centrifugal forces and due to hydrodynamlc

loading. First the propeller shaft was submerged in water to saturate
the bearings in the shaft and hub.

Hext, the propeller boat was raised

so the propeller was completely out of the water and air-spin data were
recorded over a range of rotational speeds.
3.

The propeller model was submerged and no-load experiments were

conducted without blades attached to determine the effect of shaft

friction and propeller hub pressure forces on thrust and torque, so that

T
- T
measured
no load

^measured

TIO

13

load

4.

Propeller blades were replaced end bollard-pull data (zero

velocity) were recorded at n 10 rps to monitor tfc* spindle torque

flexure for possible slippage of the blade in its mounting, (These
bollard-pull conditions were repeated several tines throughout the
experiment.)
5.

Data were collected over a range of advance coefficients by

varying the speed of advance and rotational speed.

6.

Pitch was changed and the above steps repeated.

DATA ACQUISITION AMD ANALYSIS

All data were digitized and analyzed by using an analog-to-digital
converter and an interdate minicomputer (Model 4).
instrumentation is presented in Figure 8.

A block diagram of the

The records of spindle torque,

thrust, torque, rotational speed, and speed of advance were digitized

and averaged over a 5-sec time interval.

Computer programs were developed

for the interdate minicomputer to enable an on-line data analysis.

This

Included subtraction of "no loads,' the separation of centrifugal and

hydrodynamlc components of spindle torque, and nondimensionalizatlon by
the approprla, t factors.

The data were printed out as a function of

advance conditions for immediate plotting and checking with previous

results.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

OPEN-MATER PERFORMANCE
There is no single standard method of presenting open-water data over
the complete range of advance coefficients from locked shaft ahead
(J - + ) to locked shaft astern (J - - ).

Therefore, to facilitate

comparison with other results, the thrust and torques data in this report
ere presented in two forms:

14

1.

The system normally used at DTNSRDC:

K,^ and K

versus J for J < 1,0

K- and K

versus 1/J for J > 1.0

2 4
K^, - T/(pn D )

where

Kg Q/(pnV)
J - VA/(nD)

This Is the system generally used for normal ahead operation.

Its

disadvantage is that as n approaches zero, K^ KQ, and J approach plus or

minus infinity.
2.

The system used in Strom-Tejsen and Porter

and in Stephens,

namely:
C* and C* versus 3*

where

8T

C*
T

(p/2)(V*)2A0

c*
Q

upD2[V2 + (0.77mD)2]

_a

(p/2) (V*) 2AQD

TTpD3 [V2 + (0. 7TTnD)2]

B* tan"1 [VA/(0.7irnD)]
V* - [V2 + (0.77rnD)2]1/Z
A0-7FR

15

17

The advantage of this system is that the magnitude of the vector sum of
the speed of advance and rotational speed at 0.7 radius, i.e., V*

used to nondimensionalize the quantities C* and C*.

is

Therefore C*

C* and 3* remain finite over the complete range from locked shaft ahead
(VA > 0, n 0) to locked shaft astern (VA < 0, n - 0), including the
bollard condition (VA 0, n + 0).
Both methods are employed to present open-water characteristics
over a range of pitch settings for Propeller 4572 (Figures 12-15) and
Propeller 4575 (Figures 16-19).

The data presented are actual experi-

mental points with no fairing.

In the C* - C* - * system, experimental

results are compared with predictions based on the method of Strom9

Tejsen and Porter.
The correlation with experimental results obtained
with this method are discussed in the section on discussion of results.
In the K- - Kn - J system at design pitch and ahead operation, previous
experimental results obtained with a different instrumentation system
are also presented.

Such previous data for Propeller 4572 were reported

over only a limited range of advance coefficients.

SPINDLE TORQUE
There is no .standard method of presenting data for spindle torque
over a complete range of advance conditions from locked shaft ahead to
locked shaft astern. Therefore, to facilitate comparison with other
results, the hydrodynamic spindle torque data in this report -re presented in two forms:
1. The system used in unpublished results from Hydronautics, Inc.
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
K

SH

versus J

where
K.

EH

SH

PDWA

+ nV)

16

%H

pnV(l + J2)

and
VV

J' 2

(VA +n2D2)1/2
A
2.

(1+J2)1'2

The system used in Denny and Stephens

K*

where

versus *

K*

SH

80

(p/2)(V*)2A0D

7rpD3[vJ + (0.7imD)2]

Both systems use a characteristic velocity which is a combination of

speed of advance and rotational speed.

Therefore K' , K* , J', and *

remain finite over the complete range from locked s'uaZv ahead (V. > 0,
n * 0) to locked shaft adtern (V

< 0, n - 0) including the bollard

condition (VA - 0, n f 0).

Both systems are utilized to present hydrodynamic spindle torque
data over a range of pitch settings for Propeller 4572 (Figures 20 and
22) and Propeller 4575 (Figures 21 and 23).

The data presented in these

figures are actual experimental points with no fairing.

Figures 24 and 25 present faired curves of the hydrodynamic spindle
torque date in the K*

btl

spectively.

- * system for Propellers 4572 and 4575, re-

For comparison, the faired hydrodynamic spindle torque data

reported by Denny and Stephens

(K*
on

- 3* system) are presented in

Figures 26-29.
Figures 30 and 31 indicate the centrifugal spindle torque coefficients for Propellers 4572 and 4575, respectively, where the centrifugal
spindle torque coefficient is

SC

PpnV

This nondimensionallzation is equivalent to that used for K'

with

V- 0 axcept that the density of the propeller is used for Kgc whereas

17

the density of the water is used for K' .

on

Centrifugal spindle torque is

a function only of the geometry of the blades (including pitch setting),

density of the blades, and propeller rotational speed.
DTNSRDC centrifugal spindle torque data reported earlier

For comparison
'

are pre-

sented in Figures 32-36.

Figures 30-37 also present analytically calculated values of centrifugal spindle torque coefficients based on the method presented by
Boswell.

The correlation obtained between theory and experiment is

indicated in the section on discussion of results.

Table 8 presents the net hydrodynamic plus centrifugal spindle
torque at design advance coefficient J and pitch ratio (P/D)n 7 for
D
u./D
the propellers evaluated in this report and in Reference 16.

These

results were derived by scaling the model experimental data to a hypothetical full-scale situation as indicated in Table 8.

The material for

all of the full-scale propeller blade is assumed to be nickel-aluminumbronze.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Some of the experimental data showed a slight displacement or
discontinuity at the zero advance condition.

This continuity appeared

in torque coefficient data for both propellers at most pitch settings

and was greater for Propeller 4572.

In passing from negative to posi-

tive advance coefficients, the torque coefficients jumped to smaller

algebraic values for Propeller 4572 and to larger algebraic values for
Propeller 4575. The only noticeable discontinuity for thrust coefficient occurred at P/D 0 for Propeller 4572, and the only noticeable
discontinuity for hydrodynamic spindle torque occurred at P/D +1.00
for Propeller 4575.
As discussed in the section on experimental procedure, the negative
advance coefficients were simulated in the experiment by reversing the

18

direction of propeller rotation, rotating the blades 180 deg about the
spindle axis, and driving the propeller in the same directions in the
basin.

It is unlikely that the observed discontinuities resulted from

Inaccuracies in pitch setting because thrust coefficients do not jump in

the same manner as do torque coefficients.

A careful check of torque

no-loads for both right- and left-hand rotation failed to indicate any
inconsistencies.

In the experimental arrangement, the effective loca-

tion of the propeller boat and shafting relative to the propeller blades
was different for positive and negative advance coefficients; i.e., the
propeller was pushing water toward the boat for one arrangement and away
from the boat in the other arrangement.

Any interactions between the

propeller and the driving system would be opposite in the two cases and
this could contribute to the observed discontinuities.

The actual

reason for the discontinuities is not known, and it is suggested that

they be eliminated by local fairing near zero advance coefficient. Such
local fairing was done as necessary in the faired spindle torque data
presented in Figures 24 and 25.
There was very little scatter in the experimental data for simulated
steady ahead ((P/D)Q

> 0, J > 0) and steady astern ((P/D)Q - < 0, J <

0). On the other hand, there was significant scatter in the data for
simulated crash ahead ((P/D)

> 0, J < 0)

and crash astern ((P/D)- .

< 0, J > 0), but the trends were well defined.

Scatter under these

conditions is to be expected because the propeller was pushing the water

in a direction opposite to the incoming flow; accordingly, the blade
sections were generally stalled and large-scale churning (highly unsteady
flow) was set up around the propeller.

There appeared to be some air

drawing under crash-ahead and crash-astern operation at the highest

pitch settings, but it is not known whether this Influenced the experimental results.

19

THRUST AMD TORQUE

Thrust coefficient K-, and torque coefficient X

determined experimen-

tally under the present project were compared In Figures 12b, 13b, 16b
and 17b with experimental values obtained previously (data not formally
reported) only at design pitch and over a limited range of positive
advance coefficients.

These comparisons Indicated generally satis-

factory agreement between the two sets of experimental results.

How-

ever, the thrust coefficient determined under the present project for
Propeller 4575 was approximately 10 percent higher than the previously
measured value for advance coefficient In the range 0 < J < 0.6.

Both

sets of experiments were carefully reviewed, but the reason for this
disagreement Is unknown. Based on comparison with systematic series
23
data
It Is judged that the thrust coefficient determined under the
present project Is more accurate than the previously measured values.
Figures 14, 15, 18, and 19 compare the experimental values of
thrust Index C* and torque Index C* with predictions based on the method
of Strom-Tejsen and Porter
(-90 deg

3*

over the complete range of advance angle

< +90 deg) for most pitch settings experimentally evalu-

ated. The method of Strom-Tejsen and Porter Is based on an analytical

least-squares approximation to the experimental data presented by Gutsche
and Schroeder
expansion.

and employs orthogonal polynomials and a Fourier Series

It is assumed in this method that C* and C* can be ade-

quately represented as a function of only expanded area ratio A_/AQ,

pitch setting (P/D)0

*nd advance angle 8*.

Such other parameters as

number of blades, design pitch, radial distribution of pitch, skew,

rake, radial distribution of chord length, and location of spindle axis
are considered of secondary Importance and are not Included in the
predictions by that method.
The agreement between the analytical predictions and the experimental results for Propellers 4572 and 4575 was good for some combinations
of * and (P/D)Q _ and rather poor for others.

V,

Agreement was generally

"Van Ummartn. W.P.A. ft *1. *TTw Wtftninfen B-Screw Seri*," TiuMCtkMu. Society of Ntval Architects tad Mute
Enftaeen, Vol 77, pp. 269-317f (1969).
(1969).

20

-"nmvHffimHnBsnni

better for |*| < 60 deg than for |B*j > 60 deg, better for <P/D)0#7
than for (P/D)0 _ < 0, and better when 3* and

(P/D)Q 7

>

had the same sign

than when of opposite sign.

For most conditions, agreement became rather poor for |0*| > 60
deg. This is equivalent to |j| > 3.81 and more than three times the
design J for Propellers 4572 and 4575.
i-

Therefore, if these conditions

were encountered on the ship, they would be at quite low values of

rotational speed n (n/n^ < |v/(3V )|) which tends to suggest that thrust
and torque would not be high at these conditions.

Therefore the poor

agreement between predicted values and experimental results for |3*| >
deg is not considered serious.

60

For most conditions, either the analyti-

cal predictions or the experimental results indicated stall at high

values of 3*.

To a large extent, the disagreement at |3*| > 60 deg

resulted from difference in the value of 3* at which stall was predicted.

The stall angle may be different on the full-scale propeller at

sea under crash-astern or crash-ahead conditions than it is on the model

propeller under noncavitating steady-state conditions in uniform flow.
Therefore both the predictions based on the Strom-Tejsen and Porter
method (which are based on noncavitating steady model data in uniform
flow) and the experimental results presented in this report may be
subject to scale effects for |3*| > 60 deg.
The agreement was generally better for (P/D)n 7 > 0 than for
u./
^
(P/D). _ < 0. Is ?*rt, this may be because the prediction method
neglects the effects of skew, rake, and spindle axis location.

Recall

that for (P/D)n , < 0, the blades .had been rotated from design pitch
settings through large angles about the spindle axis.

As the blades are

rotated about the spindle axis to change pitch, different parts of the
blade intersect a circular cylinder concentric with the propeller axis.
As a result, the shape of a constant-radius cross section of the blade
changes with pitch setting*

At substantially off-design pitch setting, the

constant radius sections are characterized by a significant S-shaped

camber with inflection point approximately In the plane containing the
propeller axis and spindle axis. ' '

Therefore the effective ctmberllne

21

at (P/D)n _ < 0 was influenced to a first order by the location of the

spindle axis relative to the blade section; i.e., it was influenced by
skew and rake.

Over a range of conditions for (P/D)Q ,< 0 and 8*

< 0 (such as steady-astern operation) the blade has low angle of attack
and a significant amount of lift is produced by camber; therefore, the
values of C* and C* are significantly influenced by the magnitude and
distribution of camber.
9
For

(F/D)Q

,< 1*5, the prediction method

gave large oscillations

in the variation of C* and C* with 8*. even in the region -60 deg < 8
< 0 where these oscillations should not occur (since (<J>Q _ - 8*) is
small, stall is not expected in this region).

These oscillations were

extreme for Propeller 4572 at (P/D)Q - -2.15 and therefore are not
presented. The fact that the numerical expressions derived by using
Reference 9 are not valid for (P/D)Q

<, -15 agrees with the applicable

range of (P/D)Q . cited in that reference.

In the regions where 8* > 0 ant (P/D)Q - < 0 (simulated crash
astern) and * < 0 and (P/D)0

> 0 (timulated crash ahead), the agree-

ment was generally not as good as for 3* > 0 and (P/D)Q

steady ahead) and for * < 0 and (P/D)Q

> 0 (simulated

< 0 (simulated steady astern).

In general, the agreement deteriorated as l$0

- 8*(increased, es-

pecially in regions in which the data indicated that the blade sections
had stalled, I.e., for |(P/D)Q
signs or for |*| > 60 deg.

y|

> 1.0 with 8* and (P/D)Q

of opposite

As discussed previously, scaling problems

may exist in regions for which the data indicated blade section stall.
In some cases the differences between analytical and experimental values
of C* and C* at a given value of (P/D)Q

and 8* was greater than a

factor of two. However, the differences between analytical and experimental values of maximum C* and C* and minimum C* and C* for a given
value of

(P/D)Q 7

was generally less than 20 percent for |8*| < 60 deg

and (P/D)0#7 > -1.5.

22

In summary the comparison between analytical predictions and

experimental results for Propellers 4572 and 4575 indicates that the
thrust and torque predicted by the method of Strom-Tejsen and Porter

are probably sufficiently accurate for preliminary analyses of propulsion system dynamic simulation. Such analyses are Important for the
design of the control system of CP propellers so that the propeller
rotational speed and pitch ratio (P/D)Q

are varied in a manner which

does not overload the propeller during severe crash-astern and crashahead maneuvers.

For final propulsion system dynamic analyses it is

of course, desirable to conduct open-water experiments on a model of the

design propeller over a suitable range of pitch settings and advance
angles.
HYDRODYNAMIC SPINDLE TORQUE
The composite plots of Figures 24 and 25 presented faired values of
experimental hydrodynamic spindle torque index K*

as a function of

pitch ratio (P/D)Q - and advance angle $* for the two propellers.

These

results were, in general, consistent with the experimental results presented by Denny and Stephens;

see Figures 26-29.

However, hydro-

dynamic spindle torque is thought to be sensitive to a number of geometric parameters Including (in approximate descending order of Importance)
maximum skew, spindle axis location, blade width, radial distribution of
skew, maximum rake, radial distribution of rake, radial distribution of
chord length, design meanline, design pitch, and radial distribution of
pitch loading.

The values for each of these parameters were different

for Propellers 4572 and 4575 and also different than the values of
propellers in the other study

(the only exceptions were the design

meanline for all propellers and rake for all but Propeller 4575); see
Tables 1-6 and Figures 1-6.

For many of these parameters, however, the

values for Propellers 4572 and 4575 were within the range covered by the
systematic series of propellers evaluated by Denny and Stephens.

23

Therefore, comparison of the results of the present study with those of

Reference 16 can be made only in a general sense, and careful consideration must be given to the difference in the pertinent geometric
characteristics of the different propellers.
The hydrodynamic spindle torque can be represented as the product
of the net force component normal to the spindle axis and the distance
from the force component to the spindle axis.
condition (given values of (t/D)fl

For a given operating

and *), this distance is controlled

largely by skew and spindle axis location.

These two parameters reduce

to one parameter if skew is defined from the spindle axis to a specified

chordwise position, such as the midchord.

Tables 1-6 showed the radial

distribution of skew to diameter ratio S/D, defined from the spindle

16 and
__, in
._ _
axis to the midchord, for the propellers evaluated earlier
the
present study.

The skew at the tip for both Propellers 4572 and 4575

was within the range covered by the previous series; however, both had
significant forward skew at the inner radii whereas the other propellers
did not.
Chord length is another parameter which significantly affects the
distance from the net force on the blade to the spindle axis.

Since all

the propellers have five blades, expanded area ratio A_/A0 is a direct
measure of average chord length.

The values of A_/An for Propellers

4572 and 4575 fell within the range covered by the propellers evaluated
by Denny and Stephens.
Rake influences the distance from the net force to the spindle jxis
in two v/ays:
1.

It provides a distance component normal to the hydrodynamic

drag so that with rake, the drag significantly contributes to the spindle
torque.

This could be important at off-design conditions where the drag

may be substantial,
2.

It changes the distance component normal to the hydrodynamic

lift; see Boswell.

All propellers evaluated in Reference 16 and

Propeller 4572 have zero rake; in contrast, Propeller 4575 has substantial forward rake.

24

I
j

In addition to the parameters previously indicated as important at

all operating conditions, the design radial distribution of pitch and
design chordvlse distribution of camber are important at design pitchratio P/D and advance angle *.

These parameters largely control the

spanwise and chordvise center of hydrodynamic force on the blade near

design P/D and * since most of the lift is usually developed by camber
for these conditions.

At substantially off-design P/D and *, the

dominant amount of lift is developed by angle of attack; therefore, the

relative Importance of design pitch distribution and camber!ine is
greatly diminished.

All propellers in the previous

and present study

were designed to have a chordwise distribution of lift at design P/D and

* which is the same as that produced by an NACA a 0.8 neanline at
ideal angle of attack in two-dimensional flow*

At design P/D and *,

the intended chordwise distribution of loading will be achieved only if

the propeller is designed with the proper tools; i.e., by using lifting
surface procedures which accurately consider all pertinent variables.
The propellers of Reference 16 and Propeller 4572 of this study were
18
designed by using the lifting surface procedure of Pien and Cheng
with
19
thickness corrections by the method of Kerwln and Leopold.
Propeller
4575 was designed by using both the lifting surface and thickness corrections
19
based on the method of Kerwln and Leopold.
Propeller 4575 has substantial forward rake; however, the Kerwln-Leopol^ design procedure does
not consider the effect of rake on propeller pitch and camber required
to produce a specified distribution of lift. Since the effect of rake
24 25
may be substantial, '
the chordwise distribution of loading on this
propeller at design P/D and * may be substantially different than that
produced by an NACA a - 0.8 meanline in two-dimensional flow at ideal
angle of attack.

24

Kerwm, !., "Computer Technique* for Propeller Blade Section Design," Proceeding!, Second LIPS Propeller Symposium,
Drunen, Holland, pp. 7-31 (May 1973).
^NeDtt, IX, "Experiment! Evaluation of Series of Skewed Propellers with Forward Hike: Open-Water Performance,
Captation Performance, Field-Point Pressures, and Unsteady Propelk: Loading,-* NSRDC Report 4113 (Jul 1974).

25

For a propeller with a given number of blades, the magnitude of the

net force on a blade suitably nondimensionalized at a given operating
condition (given values of ((P/D)Q - and 0*) depends primarily on the
value of

A_/AQ.

All propellers evaluated in the present investigation

and in Reference 16 have five blades.

The expanded area ratios for

Propellers 4572 and 4575 fell within the range covered by the other propellers.16
Based on the differences in geometry between the various propellers
as discussed, only a general comparison can be made between the values
of hydrodynamic spindle torque index measured on the propellers of the
present investigation and on the systematic series of propellers studied
by Denny and Stephens.

Although Propellers 4575 and 4536 had approxi-

mately the same blade width A_/Afl 0.65 and 0.62, respectively, Propeller 4575 has a balanced skew and forward rake whereas Propeller 4536
has a small amount of skewback and no rake (see Figures 2 and 4 and
Tables 2 and 4).

The radial distribution of chord length is also some-

what different for these two propellers; Propeller 4575 has wider blades
from the 40- to the 80-percent radius and narrower blades near the root
and near the tip.

Therefore, for a given (P/D)Q - and 0*, the dif-

ference in hydrodynamic spindle torque indices K*

for these two propellers

stems primarily from the effects of skew, rake, and radial distribution
of chord length.
Figures 25 and 27 indicate that the variation of K*
(P/D)Q _ was somewhat similar for these two propellers.
magnitudes of the extreme values of K*
3* and (P/D>0

were substantially greater for Propeller 4575.

with
For most

for Propeller 4575

was of the order of twice its value for Propeller 4536.

and 0*.

However, the

and the variation of K*

combinations of 0* and (P/D)Q the magnitude of K*

propellers, K*

with 6* and

For both

was very small at design conditions, i.e., at (P/D)0

In general, for 0* > 0*, K*g (Propeller -575) <

K*H (Propeller

4536) and for 0* < 0*, K*H (Propeller 4575) > K*H (Propeller 4536).

For

a high value of advance angle 0* relative to pitch angle $_ -, the blade

26

sections operate at less than the ideal angle of attack and there is
a negative component of lift coefficient C

due to the angle of attack

concentrated near the 0.25 chord position.

Conversely for low value

of 3* relative to 4>Q ., the blade sections operate at greater than the

ideal angle of attack and there is a positive component of C. due to
the angle of attack concentrated near the 0.25 chord position.
Therefore, the relative variation of K*

with 3* for Propellers 4575 and

4536, as shown in Figures 25 and 27, indicate that the effective center of
lift due to angle of attack on Propeller 4575 is further forward relative
to the spindle axis than for Propeller 4536.

For example, for (WD)Q - 1*5

at 3* * 60 deg, the experimental data from the present investigation

and References 16 and 17 show the following
Parameter

Hn

Propeller
4575

Propeller
4536

-0.52

-0.54

'0.110

-0.116

-0.0088

-0.0027

Therefore, Propeller 4575 is not nearly as effective as Propeller

4536 for minimizing |K* | over a range of 3* and (P/D)Q ,

Since the

magnitude and radial distribution of skew, rake, and chord length are
all different for these two propellers, available data are insufficient to
isolate the effects of these three parameters on the measured differences
in K*

for these two propellers.

These data do not conclusively determine whether a CP propeller

can be designed with substantial skew (to reduce propeller-induced

vibratory forces

91 79 2A

'

'

) so that the maximum |K* | over the pertinent

range of 3* and (P/D)Q - is no greater than it is for a comparable

propeller without significant skew.
msrimum

However, it appears that the

|K|H| for Propeller 4575 could be reduced by increasing the

27

skewback at the outer radii and/or increasing the chord length at tha
outer radii.

Such a revised distribution of skew may also be advantageous

for reducing propeller-induced vibratory forces depending on the circumferential distribution of wake in the propeller plane; however
it would reduce the algebraic value of K*

at desij. conditions.

Depend-

ing on the design application increasing the chord length near the tip
may have disadvantages regarding propulsive efficiency, cavltation and
propeller-induced vibratory forces.

Therefore it appears that a

highly skewed propeller could be designed so that spindle torque over the
entire operating profile would be comparable to that of a propeller with
little or no skew.
Propeller 4572 has no rake and a radial distribution of skew which
is similar to that of Propeller 4575 but approximately twice as large.
The expanded area ratio

A_/AQ

than that of Propeller 4536

of Propeller 4572 (A-/AQ 0.73) is larger

(^/AQ

- 0.62) and Propeller 4575

(AJ/AQ

- 0.65)

and smaller than that of Propellers 4496, 4517, and 4536 (AE/AQ - 0.83).
The variation of K*H with 0* and (P/D)Q

for Propeller 4572 is

generally consistent with the other propellers evaluated in the present

investigation and in Reference 16.

This variation of K*

for Propeller

4572 is more nearly like that of Propeller 4496 than any of the other
propellers.

This similarity apparently results from cancellation of the

effects of skew and chord length.

The narrower blades of Propeller 4572

should tend to reduce the variation of K*

(this is demonstrated by the

experimental results for Propellers 4496 and 4536) whereas the skew may
tend to Increase the variation of K*

(this is qualitatively demonstrated

by the experimental results for "'opellers 4536 and 4575).

The variation of K*

for the two propellers of the present study

exhibited the same trend but in most regions,

Propeller 4572.

|K*

J was larger for

This is consistent since these two propellers have

similar radial distributions of skew and chord length but Propeller

4572 has approximately 13 percent greater chord length and approximately
twice as much skew.

Based on other results as previously discussed

both the wider blades and larger skew of Propeller 4572 may tend to
Increase K* .

28

All spindle torque results presented In this report are for noncavltatlng conditions.

However, neglecting the effects of cavitation

generally tends to yield a conservative prediction of the maximum value

of spindle torque.

The effects of cavitation tend to be most severe at

off-design conditions, i.e., at off-design values of (P/D)~ _ and

$*, where a substantial amount of lift is produced by angle of attack.
For these conditions cavicati>n tends to reduce the high lift developed
near the leading edge and thereby to move the center of pressure of a
typical blade section further aft of the leading edge.

Since the center

of pressure is usually forward of the spindle axis for these conditions,

the moment arm from the spindle axis to the center of lift is reduced.
Therefore, the absolute value of the net spindle torque on the blade
is reduced.
Cavitation usually reduces the maximum spindle torque, but it
can actually Increase it for some unusual combinations of propeller
geometry and operating conditions.

For example, in propellers with

substantial unbalanced skewback relative to the spindle axis (such as

Propeller 4535), the center of pressure under noncavitating conditions
may be aft of the spindle axis at conditions where substantial lift is
produced by angle of attack*

When the high lift neat cne leading edge

is reduced by cavitation, the center of pressure moves further aft of

the spindle axis.

The net change in spindle torque resulting from

cavitation depends on a change in moment arm (which for this case is

increased by cavitation) and a change in lift force (which is decreased
by cavitation).

Therefore, for this case spindle torque may either

increase or decrease with cavitation depending on the relative change

in lift and moment arm.

However, the sensitivity of spindle torque

to cavitation is much greater for the more usual situation in which

both lift and moment arm (and thus spindle torque) decrease with
increasing cavitation.

29

CENTRIFUGAL SPINDLE TORQUE

For centrifugal spindle torque, the agreement between analytical
predictions

and experimental results was excellent for all pitch settings

of Propeller 4572 (Figure 30); It was also excellent for zero and negative
pitch settings of Propeller 4575 but not nearly as good for positive pitch
settings (Figure 31).

There is no known reason why agreement in this

region was not better; however, the variation of the experimental results
with pitch setting was not as smooth as for Propeller 4572, which suggests
that these experimental data may be questionable.
The absolute values of the centrifugal spindle torque coefficients
K

for Propeller 4572 was almost twice as large as those for Propeller

4575.

This apparently resulted from the combination of wider blades and

higher skew for Propeller 4572 and the use of forward rake for Propeller
4575.
Figures 32-36 compare the experimental result? of Kcr versus
(P/D). . presented in References 15 and 16 with analytical predictions.

11

The agreement between theory and experiment was excellent for some
propellers and poor for others.

The reason for this inconsistency is

not known but possibly some of the experimental data may have been in
error, as indicated by the experimental results.

For example, Propellers

4496 and 4402 which are quite similar (see Tables 1 and 7) had virtually
identical values for K

as calculated analytically yet the experimental

values for Propeller 4496 were substantially different both from the
analytical predictions and from the experimental results for Propeller
4402.

Therefore, it appears that the experimental results for Propeller

4496 are in error.

The experimental |KSC| was approximately 30 percent lower than the
analytically calculated value (Figure 34) for Propeller 4535 which has
higher skew than any of the other propellers evaluated.

However,

since no systematic deviation between theory and experiment was apparent

with increasing skew, the reason for the poor agreement between theory
and experiment for this propeller is not known.

30

In general, the correlation between analytical and experimental

values of K

substantiate the validity of the analytical technique for

a range of blade width, skew, and rake.

Figure 37 which compares the

analytical values of Kgc for the propellers evaluated in the present

Investigation and earlier

'

gives an indication of the effect of

various geometric parameters on K

f.

However, a more direct measure of

the influence of individual design parameters on Kgc can be obtained by

exercising the analytical technique described in Reference 11 over a
range for one parameter while holding the others constant.

SPINDLE TORQUE AT DESIGN CONDITIONS

The total (hydrodynamic plus centrifugal) spindle torque on the
full-scale propeller depends on the values of K*

and K*

and on the

dimensional operating and geometric conditions of the propeller, i.e.,

on V

n, D, (P/D)Q _, and pp.

Therefore, in order to compare the total

spindle torque at design conditions on the various propellers evaluated

in this report and in Reference 16, the spindle torque coefficients were
converted to dimensional spindle torques; see Table 8.

In order to

illustrate the magnitude of the spindle torques for realistic propellers,

these dimensional spindle torques are presented for hypothetical fullscale propellers geometrically similar to the model propellers.

All

these hypothetical full-scale propellers have the same diameter, speed

of advance, and density, and all operate at their design advance coefficient.

However, all do not operate at the same rpm since they were

designed for different advance coefficients.

The results show that the two propellers witn balanced skew (Propellers 4572 and 4575) and the two propellers with small skew (Propellers
4496 and 4536) had small values of spindle torque (|Q | < 17,700 ft-lb),
whereas the two propellers with substantial skewback without balancing
forward skew had large negative (depitching) spindle torques (Q

<
s

-105,000 ft-lb). This demonstrates that by using balanced skew, small

values of spindle torque at design conditions can be obtained with
substantial variation in skew angle with propeller radius*

31

The large

negative values of spindle torque for the highly skewed propellers

without forward balancing skew arises because this type of skew distribution places the center of pressure of the blade significantly aft of
the spindle axis.
The results indicate that except for Propellei 4575, all the propellers evaluated developed negative, or depitching, spindle torque at
design pitch and design advance coefficient.

However, when a propeller

operates in a realistic wake, the spindle torque fluctuates due to the

circumferential nonuniform inflow velocity; therefore, it is anticipated
that all the propellers evaluated would experience negative spindle torque
at some blade angular positions.

Positive spindle torque at design

conditions is desirable so that the blade will tend to rotate toward

high ahead pitch in the event of loss of hydraulic pressure in the pitchchanging mechanism.

However, if the absolute value of the net hydro-

dynamic plus centrifugal spindle torque is less than the spindle torque
arising from static friction in the hub mechanism, the blade will not
rotate following loss of hydraulic pressures in the pitch-changing
mechanism.

Therefore, small negative values of n&t hydr dynamic plus

centrifugal spindle torque present no serious problems regarding blade

pitch upon loss of hydraulic pressure.
The results shown in Table 8 are based en model experimental runs
conducted to determine hydrodynamic spindle torque in uniform flow.
Inasmuch as these propellers were designed for a small radial variation
of the circumferential mean longitudinal velocity (see Tables 1-6);
the results shown in Table 8 do
condition.

HOL

represent precisely the design

However, it is anticipated that the effect of this small

velocity gradient on spindle torque would be small.

In addition,

although the deviation between theoretical and experimental centrifugal

spindle torque is greater for some propellers than for others, it is
not sufficiently large to significantly affect the trends shown in
Table 8 for the net spindle torque.

32

SUMMARY
Experimental spindle torque and open-water performance were Investigated for two skewed controllable-pitch propellers.

Both propellers

have radial distributions of skew specified so that the section midchord

is forward of the spindle axis at the inner rad i and aft of the spindle
axis at the outer radii.

One propeller has no rake and the other has

substantial forward rake.

The experiments were conducted at steady

conditions in uniform flow in a towing basin over a range of positive

and negative pitch ratios and a range of positive and negative Avance
coefficients so that the complete maneuvering envelope of the ship was
simulated in a quasi-steady manner.
The experimental open-water performance was correlated with calculated values based on a least-squares fit to previous systematic experimental data.

The correlation indicates that the calculation procedure

may be adequate for preliminary dynamic simulation studies in cases for

which open-water data are not available on a simular model propeller.
The experimental spindle torque results are generally consistent
with previously reported experimental results.

These results suggest

that realistic highly skewed propellers can be designed with spindle

torque characteristics comparable to those of equivalent propellers
without significant skew.

No definite conclusions could be drawin

regarding the effect of forward rake on spindle torque.

The experi-

mental values of centrifugal spindle torque generally agree with analytically calculated values over a range of pitch ratio.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this investigation, the following recommendations are made:
1.

The effect of forward rake on spindle torque should be further

evaluated.

This should include model experimental evaluation of a raked

33

propeller designed by lifting surface procedures which properly account

for rake.

This propeller should be Identical to one of the unraked

propellers evaluated in this report or in Reference 16 except for rake

and for pitch and camber corrections arising from rake.
2.

The analytical technique described by Tsao

for calculating

hydrodynamic spindle torque over a range of pitch settings and advance

coefficients should be evaluated by correlation with the experimental
results presented in the present report and in Denny and Stephens.
If necessary, depending on this correlation, a semieimpirical technique
should be developed for predicting spindle torque over the entire operating profile.

This may supplement the analytical technique and may involve

techniques similar to those used by Strom-Tejsen and Porter for predicting thrust and torque.
3.

Spindle torque and other components of blade loading should be

measured behind a model hull for various simulated operating conditions

including dynamic crash astern and crash ahead.

This would determine

the influence of the propeller-hull interactions and time variation of

conditions on the spindle torque and other components of blade loading.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Mr. Stephen B. Denny for general guidance
on the experimental procedure, to Messrs Dennis Crown and Michael Chambers
for their help in conducting the experiments, to Mr. John Leahy for
setting up the instrumentation, and to Mr. Richard M. Norton for
developing the computer program for plotting the data.
The first author was primarily responsible for the interpretations of the data and text presented here.

His coauthors refined the

experimental technique, conducted the experiments described, and

reduced the data.

3A

CM

m
sr
u
c
tt
0-

o
u

CO

I
I

00
H
Pt4

/\T
rH
m
2

Hi

-I

-J

8o

a7

IM

IS
o

3
i

13SIH3

ii2sR
1n 8n 2ti M SW 5S M ''

35

^H^^^^MBM

45 TIP SWEEP -^i !,.62-JL

SPINDLE AXIS

SPINDLE
AXIS

TIP

LEAOING
EDGE

TRAILING
EDGE

TRAILING
EDGE

EXPANDED OUTLINE

Figure 2 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4575

SPINDLE AXIS.
RADII %
ft INCH
1004.612
M.M1r
0-4.16180-3.669-

-i

70.3,228 JZ
60-2.767- V
60-2306-

y.

40-1845-

PROJECTED" OUTLINE

60-1.364

Figure 3 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4496

36

wmmm

- SPINDLE AXIS
RADII
ft INCHES
1004.112M.JI10-4.151-

EXPANDEO
OUTLINE

0-3.M0.
70-3.221-M PROJECTED -

0-Z767

OUTLINE

60-2 306
40-1.M5-J30-1.3S4

#^

Figure 4 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4536

Figure 5 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4535

37

^^Miffl^

Figure 6 - DTNSRDC Model Propeller 4517

TOWING BRIDGE

< DIRECTION OF MOTION

A.
S.
C.

FROFE LLER, SPINOLE TORQUE DYNAMOMETER

HOLLOW 1H AFT
.RINGS

0.
E.
F.

THRUST AND TORQUE TRANSMISSION DYNAMOMETER

PERMANENT MAGNET FIELO DRIVE MOTORS
SHAFT REVOLUTION COUNTER

Figure 7 - Arrangement of Experimental Equipment

38

1
I

CO

39

Figure 9 - Blade Spindle Mechanism

jitfr

STRAIN GAGES

FLEXURE

Figure 10 - Spindle Torque Dynamometer

40

Figure 11 - Pitch Settings and Experimental Operating Conditions

(All conditions are shown as simulated during the model
experiments. The propeller was always driven
from downstream.)

THRUST (POSITIVE)

-2.16
STEADY BACKING CONDITION

1.72

.1.43

143

0.95

-0.71
n(NEGATIVE)

0.0

LEFT HAND ROTATION

0.47

STEADY AHEAD CONDITION

PITCH
RATIOS
TESTED

0.7

(POSITIVE)

0.0

RIGHT HAND ROTATION

-0.71

0.96
1.43

-1.43
1.72

-2.16

CRASH AHEAD

CRASH BACK

(TRANSIENT)

(TRANSIENT)

THRUST (NEGATIVE)

Figure 11a - For Propeller 4572

41

THRUST KKITIVE)

-1.5
STEADY BACKING CONDITION

1.5

_1>0

1.1*3
1.0

-0.5
(NEGATIVE)

0.0

LEFT HAND ROTATION

og

STEADY AHEAD CONDITION

0.5

PITCH
RATIOS
TESTED

(POSITIVE)
RIGHT HAND ROTATION

1.0

-1.5
CRASH AHEAD

CRASH BACK

{TRANSIENT)

(TRANSIENT)

THRUST (NEGATIVE)

Figure lib - For Propellers 4575

42

Figure 12 - Variation of Thrust Coefficient KT with Advance Coefficient

J for Propeller 4572

PROP 4572

P/D = 1.72

2.0
V

I
1

1.6

I
1

1.2
\
1

.8

1
I
1

I *

i
f

i
i *

'

i
1

I
1

.4

I
i

II

-.4

-.8

-1 2
V

-1.6

2.0
0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

J = VA/nD
Figure 12a - At P/D =1.72

43

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4572

P/D-1.43

2.0

1.6

i i

1 1 1

X CURRENT EXPERIMENT
PREVIOUS FAIRED DATA

1.2

I
1

.8

1
t

1*

4-U
I

* I * X

.4

^-

CM
C

i*

H
K

-.4

-.8

-1.2
1

-1.6

-2.0

I
0.0
1/J

-1.0

0.0

J = VA/nD

0.0

1.0
1/J

Figure 12b - At P/D 1.43

44

wsmtmm&m

mi

mmmmmm

mmmm

mmmmmmmmmt

PROP 4572

P/D 0.95

2.0
I

1.6
p
II

1.2

1 I

1
I

V
tf

pi'

1 c

*i

f .

'

CM

^.
h-

II

-.4

* I
i

-.8
l

-1.2
i

-1.6

-2.0
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0

0.0

1.0

J*VA/nD

1/J

Figure 12c - At P/D = 0.95

45

mamm

2.0

PROP 4572

P/D 0.47

1.6
. I
1

1.2

.8

l,

ff

f I

1 "

I-

*,
t
t

-.4

H
V

-.8

-1.2
l

-1.6
-2.0
0.0

-10
1/J

0.0
J = VA/nD
Figure 12d - At P/D - 0.47

46

1.0

0.0
1/J

2.0

PROP 4572

P/D -0

1.6
-

1.2

, t

.8
i
t

.4

CM

1}

i %.

';

11

fl

"t

-.4

1
1
.1

-.8
i

-1.2

-16

-2 0
0. 0

-1. 0
1/J

0. 0
J = VA/nD
Figure 12e - At P/D 0

47

1.13

0.0
1/J

PROP 4572
2.0

P/D = -0.71

1.6
!

12

.8

!
i

.4

Q
c

i
!

1 T

i *

I {

-.4

I
> I

-.8

-1 2

t
1

-1.6

-2.0
0.0

1/J

-1.0

0.0

J = VA/nD

Figure 12f - At P/D = -0.71

48

0.0

1.0
1/J

^^^^^^^^^^^WW^SIM^^fl

PROP 4572

WD-'-1.43

2.0

1.6

1.2
K

.8
f
.4

0
I

Jr

c
1

-.4

"

1 1 I

<i

i1

I*

-.8
n

4
1.2

i1
i
i

1.6

11
i

?n
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
J = VA/nD

Figure 12g - At P/D * - 1.43

49

0.0

1.0
1/J

PROP 4572

P/D -2.15

2.0

1.6

.
12

.8

.4
i
CM

I
*

-.4
'

*.

-.8

.i1

h\

I
i

-1.2

\
I

-1.6
V

-2.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
J = VA/nD

1/J

Figure 12h - At P/D * -2.15

50

mmmsssmemammsmmmm

0.0

1.0

909

Figure 13 - Variation of Torque Coefficient K. with Advance Coefficient J

for Propeller 4572

PROP 4572
.501

P/D 1.72

i
i
i
i

.40

it
i

.30
I
. t
It
I

%
1

p 1.

.20

li"

I '
1

'-J
m

.10

t 1
1
I

t
I

.o

li

-.10
\

-.20

-.30

-.40

-.50
0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

J-VA/nD
Figure 13a - At P/D 1.72

51

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4572
.50
.40

P/D-1.43

)(

CURRENT EXPERIMENT
-P REVIOUSFfidREDDATA ,

4
(,

.30

.20

"I"

.10

...:tt:

,\\
I I

ll
f

',
'".

*
e

-i

-N

sJ
1

.0

-.10
i

-.20
i

-.30

-.40
-.50
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
JVA/nD
Figure 13b - At P/D - 1.43

52

0.0

1.0
1/J

P/C>-0.95

PROP 4572

.50
i

.40

11
l

.30

i
i
R

.20

III
X

un

.10

ft

%!

iSi

1 .o
*

If1

1 1

t I

1 1

**
{

I
I

It

-JL.
I

-.10

-.20

-.30
,

.40

-.50 ..

J -J

0.0
j

1/J

-1.0

0.0

JVA/nD
Figure 13c - At P/D - 0.95

53

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4672

P/D -0.47

.50
l

.40

30

.20
i

to

.10

i
i

f f*

I .o

i : i t 11
11 i i

11

\
i

-10

-.20

-.30

-.40
i

-.50
0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

JVA/nO
Figure 13d - At ?/D - 0.47

54

0.0

1.0
1/J

PROP 4572j

P/D- 0

.50

.40

.30

\
i
'<

.20

i*

1
If)

.10

-0

F i

'

1 t 1 I I I I

1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 i,
i

t
i
i

-.10
1

-.20

f
-.30

-.40

i ]
i ]

-.sol
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
J-VA/nO
Figure 13e - At P/D - 0

55

0.0

1.0
1/J

PROP 4572

P/D = -0.71

.50
iI

40

i
I

.30

*
i

.20

to

.10

tf '

O
c

i"

:
11

i i
ft i I

. 1 1-'1
"IT I'-"

II

#
-.10

-.20

-.30

-.40

-SO
0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

J VA/nD
Figure 13f - At P/D = -0.71

56

_.,..
CO

1.0
1/J

P/D - 1.43

PROP 4572
50

40

t
l

.30
I

.20
I

! * * I

li

,'
1

to

10

.o

f
I
f

Q
?

a
X

II

-10

-20
l

-30

-40

~Rfl

1 |

0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

J*VA/nD
Figure 13g - At P/D = -1.43

57

1.0

I.J

0.0
1/J

PROP 4572

P/D-2.15

.50

.40

\*

1 I

I I

1
I

.30

I ' I

.20
I
I

.10

%
c

.0

II

-.10

-.20

-.30
.

-.40

-.50
0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

J=VA/nD

Figure 13h - At P/D = -2.15

58

1.0

0.0
1/J

0)
^H

Q.

0)

a
o
M

3> J

8
ff

1
1
II
EXPERIMENTAL
- PREDICTION (REF

CM

|
H

/
/
/
M

N
M

K'
J

yA

00

CM

<1)

u
c

1 f~
M
M
M

tu

Z
<

JC
MC
S>

** 1
!*

l/

<
II

I*

**
"

|
C
O
H

u
>

CM

H*

u
00
H
tu

CO

1 W

CO

Si

8
i

59

3
H

-f UJ
GC

-2z
LU

2
O

- za
E
UJ Q

V.

/-

a.
X

GC
in a.

" X

u. -

MM

St

6
II

a
Z
<
O
cc
<

II

/ <:

m
m

1 ii

8
,

8
M
IS.

*
w
CC

a.

*
*

Kj(au^o) + ^Ajja^i/ie- fo

60

a)

8
\

0>

1
1
II
EXPERIMENTAL

u. *
UJ
OC

'
i

r
)

z 1
o
a
5

->

^m

yO

UJ _
OC
Q.

fm
^r*

J[

o
II

j/

**rl

<
>

Pu

<

<

OC

II

<

*
>*

CO
J

r
>

/j

X
fr

GC

a.

h8

H8(au*,o + |A)za^)/i8 - io

61

o
00

00
H
En

u.

r
I

UJ

AC

Uz
z
LU O
.

tu
a.
UJ
X oc
UJ a.

(/

*-

O
5

a
E

fa*

o
I

<

OC

<

00

X >t
a

/
Jr m
M
V

/ *
/ m

I
O
a.

<\

-v

<

Hz(au*ro) ?A)za^j/i8 - }o

62

00

5 1

n8

-V

UJ

Q.

EXPERIMEN1
- PREDICTION

< oc

*
1

-y
"/

/'

r
8
o
6
r^

/
r

II

8
1

**
**

CM

I
cc

\ iI

CL

8.

Pk

GC
<

^
**
'

"<
>

f M
/

I**
IM
/t*

5.

8
r\

[(3(cp*r< + |A)za<**]/i8 - o

63

tt

o
Z
<

1*

<
\

V
M

00
T-t

Fn

1
a

S>

I
n
Q

-1
<

LL
LU
GC

zLU zo
1 LE oQ

/
f

CL

LU

CC

0.

'/

" X

m /

'

ml
Ml

M1

ii

<
>

Z
<

u
<

5CC

<

II

*
o

CO

8
CM

m
CL

O
<r
o

o
CM

O
CO

H2(au*ro + |A)3a^]/i8-fD

64

vm

9^nm

o
00

01

n
00
H

0?

1 \*

Q
.v

1
X

OL

1 \

11

\
1
1
EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION (REF

_--

y\
N
>

>(
\

M
, K

>

d
*^
<
>

"*>

p*

H
U

<

oc
<
li

ca

||
o

<

H|

J
1

oo
tf

H
0)
M
3

to

Pu

z'
J

0-

V
X

it?'

M
i

>>

Hjtawro) + ?A)ia"*]/i8 io

65

s
IT)

II

ft

s
4*
M

to

8
Q

6
r*
it

>
*

CN
I

<
>

<

5IT

<

ii

<Q.

rH

M
M
M

>^
OH

4J

<
1

JS

-*
rH

0)
M
3
00

fe
M
M
1 1
M

CM

SI

Ut(av*LQ) + |A){Q^]/X8 = io

66

PffiSH

IBS

AHMA93BBMS

Figure 15 - Variations of Torque Index C* with Advance Angle B*

for Propeller 4572

PROP 4572

.250

P/D = 1.72

1
X
t >

.200

.150

*'

t %

'
\1

V
'V y
/

1
^
1

\
\

.050

t"o

V,

t*-N.

.100

EXPERIMENTAL
- PREDICTION (REF 9 1

.0

i f\
t

-.050

i\

o
-.100

-.150
l
i

-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

0#ARCTAN (VA/0.7irnD)

Figure 15a - At P/D 1.72

67

A9

60

90

PROP 4672

P/D-1.43

.250

II

K EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION (REF 9)

. *LL

.200

tr^**

.150

&
.100

i\
'i'

11

.050

\ t

1*1

it/

N *\j

-.050
tf

\
^

-.100

\j <-J\ s\1
11

-.150
1

1 1
-.200

-90

60

-30

30

IT ARCTAN(VA/0.7trnOy

Figure 15b - At P/'D - 1.43

68

60

90

PROP 4672

P/1-0.95

.250i

11111

. X

EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION (REF 9)

.200

.150

,"i
l

.100
*

.060

k
%i

M*

u^il
\\ ;

.0

a
i

^
>

-.060

a
a

is
f '

-.100

I
i

. 150

t 1

-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

#-ARCTAN(VA/0.7imO)
Figure 15c - At P/D - 0.95

69

mKA

HWWH

mn

60

90

P/D = 0,47

PROP 4672
.250

X EXPERIMENTAL
"" PREDICTION (REF 9)
200

.150

.100
1

i
1

ii

"*,

Id

i*

.050

*l\

**tr IK

.0

-.050

*o

^ift
-.100

-.150

-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

60

0*ARCTAN(VA/O.7imD)

Figure 15d - At P/D - 0.47

70

^^^^^^^^^

90

P/D 0

PROP 4572
.250

EXPERIMENTAL
-PRIEDIC now (REIF9)

.200

.150

>

.too
CM

.050

*,

, i

N<

>

a
o
00

i" i i i

nit 1111

.0

*T

nr

,.T^

-.050

-.100

-.150

-.200

- it'"'

-90

-60

-30

30

0* * ARCTAN (VA/0.7imD)

Figure 15e - At P/D 0

71

60

90

P/D -0.71

PROP 4572
.250

1
1
I
1
X EXPERIMENTAL
-PR!EDIC noN (REI:9)

.200

.150

.100
Q
c

1%

>

r
o

.o

1 1

,050

c 1

1 I
^

iil IX

^
lit *

i * "!
1

Mi [

o
i
-050
o
a

.100

.150

.200

-90

-60

-30

30

** ARCTAN (VA/0 7>rnD)

Figure 15f - At P/D = -0.71

72

60

90

.250

P/D -1.43

PROP 4572
L

EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION (REF 9)

.200

.150

I*

100

060

I
I

t #

k
i
[i *

I'
! i
i

! '

|#i

0
t

-050

If
-.100

^~>

- ISO

200

-fl0

410

.; 10

()

3d

r-ARCTAN(VA/0.7nO)
Figure 15g - At P/D * -1,43

73

ilb

to

P/D * -2.15

PROP 4572
.250
i i

.200
i

If

1
1

rr~

1
I.!.
s

.150

1
f

1
i

Iff

/
1 1

.100
I

oc
.050
i
i
M<

.0
O
i

i
i

050

If
i

.100

.150
i

.200
-90

-60

-30

30

* = ARCTAN{V/0.7irnD)

Figure 15h - At P/D = -2.15

74

60

90

*4<>-UFSpHMfew* *,,.

Figure 16 - Variation of Thrust Coefficient IC with Aavance

Coefficient J for Propeller 4575

PROP 4575

P/D = 1.50

2.0

1.6

1.2

.8

> i

,
'i

.4

i
i

II

-4

-8

12

16

i
i

2.0
0.0

-1.0

1/J

0.0
J = VA/nD

Figure 16a - Ac P/D 1.50

75

1.0

0.0
1/J

P/D -1.19

PROP 4675

T~TT

2.0

X CURRENT EXPERIMENT PREVIOUS FAIRED DATA

1.6

1.2

MT

.8

-#

.4

ik'

**f

I*.

-.4

-.8

-1.2

-1.6
-2
-2.oL-

Jl

0.0

-1.0

0.0
1/J

J-VA/nD
Figure 16b - At P/D - 1.19

76

0.0

1.0
1/J

'^^^**^flWP'W,*l^Wr-' ?*' '

P/D100

PROP 4575

Figure 16c - At P/D - 1.00

77

P/D-.60

PROP 4576
i

16

12

i'
i

i
1

.4

!
'"..

I u
11 I
*II

* I

",

5? o

',

I
1

-4

1
1

-8
1

-12
1

-16
1A

-2 0
0.0

0.0

-1.0
1/J

J-VA/nD
Figure 16d - At P/D - 0.50

78

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4575

P/D-.O

2.0
i
i

1.6
i

1.2
i

.8
\
t

.4

"i
i

ii

i
1

-.4

r
1

-.8
i

-1.2

-1.6

-2.0
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
J-VA/nD

Figure 16e - At P/D - 0

79

0.0

1.0
1/J

P/D -.50

PROP 4575
ZQ
1
I

1.6
1

1.2
I

.8

I
1

1
%
1

t
N

'I I

i i I

-.4

\
\

-.8

1
\

-1.2

-1.6

t
1

-2.0
0.0

.. JL
-1.0
1/J

0.0
JVA/nO

Figure l*>f - At P'O = -0. SO

80

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4575

P/D --1.00

.U

1.6

1.2

.8

.4
\
C

1
t

0
i

.
-.4

11

Lti

-.8

i
i
i

1.2

1.6

20
0.0

0.0

1.0

J-VA/nD

-1.0
1/J

Fijjurt Lt>>; - At P/D -l.OU

81

0.0

1/J

P/D- 1.5CI

PROP 4575

2.0
i
i

1.6

1.2

.8

\
I

-.4
1

P i
i i

i
1 v I
i

-.8

\t
i

1.2
1

16

>- -.
i

2.0
0.0

-1.0

1/J

0.0
JVA/nD
Figure !*h - At V 'J

82

1.0

0.0
1/J

Figure 17 - Variation of Torque Coefficient K

with Advance

Coefficient; J for Propeller 4575

PROP 4575

P/D- 1.50

.501

.40

.30

.20
1 1

.10

ift
'

1 ..

*;

|"1

'

-.10
t

-.20
1

-.30

-40 i

-.50
0.0

L .

-1.0
1/J

0.0
JVA/nO

t ifcurr

Tt - At F V ;. v>

83

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4575

P/D- 1.19

.50
\

X CURRENT EXPERIMENT
1>REi/IOIJSFAIR ED[)ATA "

.40
i

.30
i

.20

"T

*i

.10

s*

,'"

1 ..

- 10

-.20
-- \

-.30

-.40

-SO
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
JVA/nD

Figure 17b - At P/D = 1.19

84

0.0

1.0
1/J

PROP 4575

P/D 1.00

.50

.40

.30

i
i

i
i

20

t
1

1
I

.10

% *
"

*,*

*} It

1 1

*T I
l

r
i
i

-.10
i

-.201

-.30

-.40

-.50
0.0

-1.0
1/J

. J

0.0
JVA/nD

Figure 17c - At P/D 1.00

85

1.0

0.0
1/J

P/D-'.50

PROP 4576
.60

.40

.30

i
i

1
.20

i
i

i
.10

"I

\_
*i ui

.0

I i

n t ii i 11

t i 11 i

i
i

if

i
i

10

.20

.30

i
u*0)

-.50
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
J-VA/nD
Figure 17d - At P/D - 0.50

86

0.0

1.0
1/J

P/D-.O

PROP 4575
.50
i

[ i

.40

.30

.20

.10

X
1

CM
C

.0

" Un in 1 1

p 1 II 1 t ! 1

fj

i it

-.10

-.20

-.30

1
-.40
-.50'
0.0

-1.0
1/J

II

0.0
J-VA/nD
Figure 17e - At P/D - 0

87

0.0

1.0
1/J

P/D- -so

PROP 4575
.50

i
i

.40

I
i
i

.30

.20

.10

10

.o

11
i i i i i

11

i * *

O
i

-.10

r
i

-.20

-.30
i

-.40
-.50
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
JVA/nD
Figure 17f - At P/D - -0.50

88

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4575

P/D-- 1.00

.50

.40
: I

.30

t
*
.20
i

.10

I'

1 o

i *

11

* I 1,
"

f
i

1
i

-.10

-.20
i

-.30

-.40

t
i

-.50
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
J-VA/nD

Figure 17g - At P/D - -1.00

89

1.0

0.0
1/J

PROP 4576

P/D-- 1.50

.50

1
/

.40

<i
f

.30

1
I'

M
.

.;o
f

1"

"f

" 1 i'

-o

i
i

-.10

-.20

-.30
i

-.40
I

-SO
0.0

-1.0
1/J

0.0
JVA/nD

Figure 17h - At P/D - -1.50

90

1.0

0.0
1/J

s
-1 UJ

CQ

00

c
<

ERIMENT

L <

I
1

f\

r '

/T

u
5

X DC

UJ 0-

r* i

O
r*

<

er

oo

m
t

4J

0)

n
v*

I\

0)

a
u

4>

p w

3
00

c
o
u
>
I

00

3.
CL

\\

a.

[(8(ai-0) + ?A) jQrf'l/18 - Jo

91

fr

I:

"""T
M

01
UL

ttl

AC

i 5

ttl
2
*c
""

UJ
0 UJ

/
> ^>

"

Ul ft.

3H

8
a

I
i

jfU

JP
#

m
m

\
*

m \

%\
|

8f

92

8i

ft.

<

00

ft

3>

u.

a.

s
Ill
CC

H
2
tu

z
o
- S
Eu
Ul 5
- a.

m
j/m

X
UJ

8
a

m/

<
>
Z
<

M W\

l/j
r*

O
OC

ft

, 1

jS

P '
\

&

i\
8

<

\!
1

i
a
ft.

0)

o
o

3.

98

93

EXPERIMENTAL

8
.

Ik
UJ

AC
I

Z
O

m
m
m
1

5UI
0.

1
!

O
Ou

<
O

<
I

<
00

/l
m

/
M

r
*" X

ie

VJ
\ ft

94

_|

[ EXPERIMENTAL

11 V

mJ

1J

AC

]
1

J/

ui J
a.

o
i

<
>

* I
<

k*

Y*

\/* 1
r

1 m

SE

*
4P

\mm

o
a.

stowt lAjjaO'l/is - Jo

95

' 1

s
1
1

8
3>
UJ

< AC
H z
Z O
Ui
_

* J
* /

UI o
a.

i /
M

X AC
ui a.

" X

'

"J

o
m
O
II

a
<
H

AC

<

s*

10

a.
O
AC
a.

K2(a^z o) {Ai^a^i/ii * Jo

00

3
60

1
II

o
&:

1
J
1
1
1
1
1
: EXPERIMENTAL

VI

o> !
u. "1
UJ

cc

n 1

z j

a
D

r
m

CC
Q.

*/ '

*/

^" i

8
Q

r*

s<

M
M
1 if

i
z<

CC

<
1)

<a

/I t

8
1

/'
m

/ <

IS

O
cc

0.

liziQUWQ) + ?A)2a^]/18 - to

97

o
o*
|(
Q

tu
<
00
00
f-i

a>
u

3.

1
H

O
0.

0?

1
1
1
I
EXPERIMENTAL

UJ

V*

cr

z
g

i>

CL

*^x^
/gi

o
E

d
Z
<

M
N

O
m

<

W*^

00

<
/-

il

m
m

in

rs.

V,

CL
VJ

*t

MM

CL

>

8rI

98

3
00
H

Figure 19 - Variation of Torque Index C* with Advance Angle 6*

for Propeller 4575

P/D -1.50

PROP 4575
.250

1
EX PERIMENTAL
-PRIEOIC TION (REIF9)

")t\t\

iRn

s /

\
\
\

.100
Q
c
k

NJ
v, \s V
\f

>

osn
>

d
(M<

>

n
O

vV
I

\
\i

ACA

-. IUU

J.

-.150

\
-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

0*ARCTAN{VA/O.7irnD)

Figure 19a - At P/D - 1.50

99

60

90

PROP 4675

P/D-1.19

.250

X EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION <REF 9)

.200

.150
.

tl IPu,

.100

Is

.060

V .*'

.0
&
i

iN
IV

-.050

tf

-.100

\
\

-.150

5
'i

-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

0#ARCTAN(VA/O.7imD}

Figure 19b - At P/D - 1.19

100

60

90

PR0P4&

P/D-1.00

.250

1 ! 1
X EXPERIMENTAL
PRE DICl riON (REt= 9)

.200

.150

.100

K
S
+

%y
V
1

060

'

UJ
I*I
<ki

.0

-.050
i

I \
t

-.100

-.150

-.200
-90

-60

-30

30

0*-ARCTAN(VA/O.7imD)

Figure 19c - At P/D - 1,00

101

60

90

P/D-0.50

PROP 4676
.250

.200

EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION (REF 9)

.150

.100
Q

.050

d
+

T**
*.,
h

**t

.0

5xW

-.050

*o

i
*l

-.100

-.150

-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

0#ARCTAN(VA/O.7imD)

Figure 19d - At P/D - 0.50

102

60

90

PROP 4575

P/D- 0

.250

X EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION (REF 9)

.200

.150

.100
Q

Ic

050

2.

IfL.

" i

>

t g*

.050
o
o
.100

.150

.200
-90

-60

-30

30

0#-ARCTAN(VA/O.7imD)

Figure 19e - At P/D - 0

103

60

90

P/D- -0.50

PROP 4675
.250

X EXPERIMENTAL
:
PRE:DICInoN (REF 9>

.200

.150

.100

oc
P

.050

"** r^

**

it i

'

in

fM<

.0
'
-.050 \

u
-.100

-.150

-.200

-90

60

-30

30

0#ARCTAN(VA/O.7>rnD)

Figure 19f - At P/D - -0.50

104

60

90

PROP 4575

P/D--1.00

.250

r
1 III!
X EXPERIMENTAL
PRE DIC1 ION <REF 9)

.200

.150

.100

A . .*
.050

TTT1

%tn

N.

1 "

I >

.0
yT

&

-f
N<

*^

.
'

-.050

T j

m*

-.100

-.150

-.200

-90

-60

-30

0# ARCTAN(VA/0.7irnD)

Figure 19g - At P/D -1.00

105

90

f
P/D--150

PROP 4675
250

1/
L ....

.200

k" K

.150

\i

.100

.050
i

EXPERIMENTAL
- PREDICTION (REF 9) J

IM

^
Ti

p<?

'

L*

**
hnrn

I
i

7
0

\*

r i

\A
r

.0

X
i

-050 h\

h
t

-.100

-.150

-.200

-90

-60

-30

30

0*ARCTAN(VA/O.7irnD)
Figure 19h - At P/D -1.50

106

60

90

Figure 20 - Variation of Modified Hydrodynamic Blade Spindle Torque

Coefficient K' with Modified Advance Coefficient J'
5H
for Propeller 4572

PROP 4672

.020

P/D-1.72

.016

.012

.008
i

.004

1."

:
*

t r-

1 1..

>

.0

-1

.*>

r
"

-.004

\?
-.006

-.012
.

-.016

-.020
-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2
2 2 >i

/-VA/(Vi + n D )

Figure 20a - At P/D - 1.72

107

.4

.6

.8

1.0

f
PROP 4672

.020

P/D-1.43

.016

.012

.000
N

.004
r i.i 'ft

i
1

\f* *

1
i H

Iff1 :!

's

-.004

-.008

-.012

-.016

-.020
-1.0

-.8

-.4

-.2

J'VA/{Vj^n202)H
Figure 20b - At P/D - 1.43

108

.4

.6

.8

10

P/D- 0.96

PROP 4672

.020

016

.012

.006
M
C

4-

004
1

\
1

f\

o f

1 1 '

t <

t J

-.004

-.ocs
-012
.V I

-.016

-.020
-1.0

-.8

-.4

-.2

.2

/ VA/(VJ n !) )*
2

Ftgure 20c - At P/D - C.95

109

.4

.8

1.0

P/D -0.47

PROP 4672
.020

.016

.012

.008

.004

t7

rfifli

.0

i i

I -004

i
t

I
1

.i

I I

f! y

"\

-.006
-.012
-.016
-.020

-1.0

-.8

-6

-.4

-.2

.2
2

2 H

/-VA/(Vj'Hi D

Figure 20d - At P/D - 0.47

110

.4

.6

.8

1.0

P/D-0

PROP 4672

.020

.016

.012

.008
O
+

.004

i-

i
i

* i

i
i

-.004
z

I 1.1 '

I I

Si

I I'

cu

-.008

-.012
t

-.016

-.020
-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2
2

J'-VA/(Vi+n D >*
Figure 20e - At P/D - 0

111

.4

.6

.8

1.0

P/D = -0.71

PROP 4572

.020

016

.012

.008
CM
C

004 fa.111

>

ii

\ ' *
i

-.004
z

t it tifcW

i
i

-.008

-.012

-016

-.020
-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2

Figure 20f - At P/D * -0.71

112

.4

.6

.8

1.0

P/D---1.43

PROP 4572

.020

016

012

.008
CM
IM

.004

"

I
I
X.

I
I t

MJi

1
1

z
1

ft
*i.

-.004

t
1

'I '
t

-.008

'

i
t

-.012

l
I
f

I
i

-016

-.020

-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2
2

J'VA/(v|+n D )*
Figure 20g - At P/D -1.43

113

.4

.6

.8

1.0

P/D -2.15

PROP 4572

.020

.016

.012

.008
CM

o
c
+

.004

'll
\

l
I

.0
x
H

-.004

V
I

-.008
r

ii

-.012

' i"
i

'

-.018

-.020
-1.0

'

1
i
X

I,
-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2
2

2 %

J = VA/<v+n D )

Figure 20h - At P/D * -2.15

114

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Figure 21 - Variation of Modified Hydrodynamic Blade Spindle Torque

Coefficient K' with Modified Advance Coefficient J1
for Propeller 4575

PROP 4575

P/D-1.50

.020

*f '

*l ' " i

"

"i'

*i * "^

.016

.012

4-M
iJLJ
I
|t
I
I
I
.008

"c
+

V
1

'

iI!

iIInIi~iII
J
u
III
[i

.004

"T

.0

II * il1

fT

41

ll

L_|_1_J

11
I
II|I

x
N

III

II

\\

hi

|
I

I I
"LI

I I I I I ITTN

-.004

z
-.008

-.012

.016
-.020

-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2

j'VA/(V*+n2D2)*
Figure 21a - At P/D - 1.50

115

.6
#

.8

1.0

PROP 4575

P/D- 1.19

.020

.016

.012
i

.008

I
e
+

4*

' 1

.004

f
11

.0

1
i

7"

cf
i

-.004

k,
\

-.008

-.012

-.016

-.020

-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2
2

J'VA/(V* +n D )*
Figure 21b - At P/D - 1.19

116

.4

.6

.8

1.0

P/D 1.0Ci

PROP 4575
.020

.016

.012

.008

c
+

.004

T
fc

,5.

1*

**

[.*"

1 1

|i

i*

.0

i
ii

-.00
z

-.008

-.012

-.016

.090

-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2
j'VA/{V*+n2D2>*

Figure 21c - At P/D - 1.00

117

.6

.8

1.0

PROP 4675

P/D-.5C

.I

.016

.012

.006

CM

.004

V
"a

.0

Pi" 'V

an

li I

t 1 II

X
N

"

I 1

-.004

-.008

-.012

-.016
-.020
-1.0

_JI

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2

J'-VA/(v2+n2D2)%
Figure 21d - At P/D - 0.50

118

.6

.8

1.0

P/D-0

PROP 4675
.020

.016

.012

.008
M
C

.004
.0 1

L.
"*.

Hi
1

-.004
x

i I i t

-.008

-.012

-.016

-.020
w1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2

j'VA/(V*+n2D2)tt
Figure 21e - At P/D - 0

119

.4

.6

.8

1.0

P/D--.50

PROP 4575
.020

,
-

.016
'

.012

.008
N
C

.004
%*1

.0

'

i
1

-.004

"

1 1

i I

ii tiV

-.008

-.012

-.016

-.020

-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2

J'-VA/(VJjUn2D2)*
Figure 21f - At P/D * -0.50

120

.6

.8

10

P/D-- 1.0C1

PROP 4575
.020

.016

.012

.008

"f
T

.004

\ t.
,.

i
1

-.004

i
i "

i
i

ft

\.
I r

-.008

j
-.012

-.016

.090 I
-1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2

j'-VA/(V**n2D2>tt
Figure 21g - At P/D - -1.00

121

.6

1.0

PROP 4675

P/D--1.50

.020
.016

.012

.008
%

"e
+

fc

i
i

.004

rs
.0

i
!
1

1
1

-.004

J-

li

.006

\r

1
i

-.012

-.016

-.020
.1.0

-.8

-.6

-.4

-.2

.2
2

2 H

/VA/(V*+n I> )

Figure 21h - At P/D - -1.50

122

.4

.6

1.0

8
!.

"M

*""

m
m

J m
|

S
<D

3
or
u

**

O CM

m
a ^
m

e u

w 1

f>

H
CO

01

a
o

r*

m
m
m
m
m

U <M

>> I
* H

<

* M

0 (8

>

S3

4J X
CB U
H *

8
i

5 03*
1

CM
<N

I
H "*
M

m
CN

J
*
H
U

gc

1
Ki<0**l

1
Q

< *
(X

^i

O 00

l>

5?

CQ

<N

11

IAJCQ^I/ ^ -

123

8
"fa

CM

4J

<
1

(0
p"*
CN

4>

&

M
I

m
m
ii

fi

f "

5o f'

M
MM

5 fi

Sfc

r
^

PN.

m
m
\
"%

PI
9

ft

JF

CM

Hj(au*/"0) ?A)eO^)/MS08M*>i

124

CM

u*

wmamm

iti

a*

1'

i 1

0-

'
H

**
*
1

o
<
>

!
>
1

1
M

<

m
s
r
\

o
<N

tl
p

<

O
a.

> *
CN

CM

rO

IMQUH'Q) + ?A)cQ^l/HSD8 Hb*

125

QJ
M
3
GO

8
$

%.

d:

S:

S
M
M
f

M
M
M
a

M
M

5
U

MM

m i

DC
<

M
N

M
M

m
m

%
M

1
M

.it
1

CM
CM

<D
M

00

K
9

o
H

Q.

CN

CM

[(z(QwrO) + ?A)Q^]/HS08- H*>l

126

T 1

*"

m 1
m
M

*
M

1I

M
M
M
M

<

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

<

*
a

m
M

m
niiiii
1

1 w

8
M

*L

Q.

11

OL

M
O

l!

[(2{a"*zvo) + |A)ca^)/HS08 H*>i

127

a
0)
CM
CM

00

7H
O

Q.

*
a

M
M
M
M
M

O
1 1
M
M

Z
<
O
CC

<

M
1 1

*
M
IV

M
M
*

m
M

fc

o
CM

CM

Hj(a^o) + !A)t.a<fc]/nsb8*

128

II

cm

Mk

MM

CM

H s
#x

<
\

<N

<U
U
3
60
H
b

s
'i1

H
M

ll

I
. *
*
I

-*1

T.

V
M

M
M

m
M

If

ca

**
O

8
o

HgtQwtroi + ?A)a^]/HSD8- HJx

129

<

<

00

a.
M

2
*

PL.

en

o
<
>
Z
U
AC

M
H

a
E
r*

1
CM
OJ
4)

oc

in

*
m

ii
Q

a.
M

*
M

M
M

*T
*
w

-o

fe
f>.
o
<
>

a M

***

a*

>m

tC

iH

CN

1
II

o
fu

2u

H
1

<

CN

V
i

CM

m
m

0.

O
cc

0.

1
00

CM

Hjlawro) + ?A)a^)/HSD8 = H*>i

130

CM
O

3
00

n
|c
Q.

Mk

m
1m
M
M

M
M

" J8

1 1

E
r*.

M
M
it

ft

z a*

M
M
M
M

2U

oc
<
II

<
1

cs
0)

Li

if)

9a.

O
0.

Q.

CM

*o
l(z(au*ro) + ?A)ca<**]/HS08 - H^i

131

CM
rO

3
00

r
0)

1I I

1*

m
1

*
M

1 1

1 I
M
M

ON

d
Q

M
M

1 1

z
M

o
oc

3*
Mi

<

<

CO
CM

K
M
M

IM

CM

[Ma^roi + ?A)ca^]/HSD8- H^i

132

8
r
v.

M
Ik
M

r
fl r
M

M
M
M
M
M
M

o
6
d

ii

I 1
I
1

o
o

PL.

<

t m
tm

"I 1
1

<
m

1 >M

H
1

SI
fa

M
H

II

IS
9

r "

*>

CM

CM

liziQU*L0) + |A)a^|/HS08- H*>l

133

Mft

^^smmmeamssammm

8
8

O
>

w
M
1

M
M

m
M

M
M
M
M

II

M
M

<
>

M
M

2
<
H
U

ec
<

ft :
I
If

PU
4J

<
1

T3

it

CM

*
<a

a>
u

ft

tu

M
M

If
M

S
ft

CL

If

a.
M
O

rO

f(,{a^/:o) + ?A)Ea^]/HS08 - "*>

134

MS

mmsessmmttm

mmm

wmsam

o
II

*>
>Ss

m
V

M
M
M
M

W
i

H
M

M
M

o
E
d

m
m
m

M
M

o
cc

01

*
ca.

3
00

<

iF
0

r
*
4

u>

m
i i

4
M

CM

KZ(Q*LQ) + lAleQ^]/11^- M?)l

135

imm* wmm

o
d

o
Pu

<
U
<
^

M
O

I" i

HtKwo) + ?A)ca^]/H,b8- "**

136

<
I
CM

<U
I*
3
OC

8
i

|
M
1

to

8
m
1

8
M

o
o

<
>

^
M
Ml

o
a.

M
1
M

<

m
M
M

OC

r-i
<N
1)

3
00

m
i

m
M

SS

Ou

IS

Ki<au*r< ?A)a^)/H$D8MJH

137

HB

mis

n.

"**
"m

i
1
1>

*
#"

HP

o
g

nm

"1

>

II

<
K

PL-

QC

<

.T:

11

8
M

: *

J1
*

ft
0.

SI"?

138

nm

s
o

3
00
H

"N

V\

UJ

CO

>

i*

CM

in

ID

*T3

a)

OL

o
rr

Q.

T3

-J
UJ

CD

rH

<3

C X
0 U

H *J
4-i H
PL,
H

CO

CO
>

Q
c

C
0

CM
I*

C*
C CO.
H

3 <y

c^ 1

-NTCO

IUJNC

1*

ycvi

//

co-

/>

1! ~f

r "

'A

CJ

OS T3

<

rH

a
C
CO

>

rr

<y
TJ
C

C'*'

N
K

V-i

CD

0
H

u
3

CM"

in *

r-

o
CD

00

o
o

((2(a"^o) + 2A)Ea^]/HSD8 = Hf>i

139

L-^ZTA.

iftf^. .i a

CM

rO

cu
a;

a.
o
u
c

<

o
o

rH
3
tfl

CM

<

f(t
\K>

O
CO

Lft

c*i

<

U 4-1
C H

<
>

O rH
-C 00
c/i C

O
Q

in

^- *^

ID

in

LI

0>

V
u tn
0 f^

-in

H n

in

a)

,\

r-l kl

Hi

/j

C rH
^ rH

a v

co a

ft
ft"

(0
H
SO

Q.

^
O

>w i

e o

0 Z-N

H Q

*J *>*

(0 Pu

Q
c

in
^W

/s J!

^"

' IM X W T~

Lin

o
<
o ^

jq
X

<
I-

II

AC

<

II

ctj 0
> H

23
8
to
rH
3
X
<D

a;

ca.

T3

c
CO

*
ca
<u

O
CO
I

c
a ca

x
w

,
^

s. ^5
1

Si
9

in

T3

S
8

\
q

X
m
ON

P0-<

fN

s
I

X
0)

u c
00
fcu

[(z(a^ro) + ?A)a^]/HSo8 =H*>i

140

^^~*^mmBsmsaamm

DESIGN

S!
3

s
<D

\\
\\
\ \
\ \
\ \

cc
u.
_i

u.

at
71

a*
u
o

01
-I

Q.

1/3

at

-a

r-l
PQ

r |

II

O
c

/in

to
1
i

UJ 1

aI

l~
fr '

im
y
*"i
>/

<

Q.

o
eg

01

a
o

PL.
U

f*-

0
H
4J

fc H
rv
V-i
o
>
<
> C00
Z

01

1+-I

NOIS

ID /

cc
a.

N^

in

to

O
CC

<

to
4J

II

3
(0
0>

/-v

/-\

vO
-H
CO

eu

V_X

0)

a
01

U
tn

T3

H
4-1

XL

4J
H

tfl

^
C
c
Q

T5
C
f8

*
0

rH
<TJ
4J

CO
iH
00

c c
0J <
e
H

10
tM

/ /

W4
0)

8
1

1
SIGN
1.5 ,

-0.5'

o
op

v>
CM

01

00
H
tu

o
r-

(<2(au^o) + 2A)ea^]/HSD8 = HJ>i

141

^HHHffl^HWHHHi

0)

UJ

c
f3
>

T3
0>
I
H

o
I

oi

as

a
c
M

3
00

H
PM

o
h
En

>

in

in

1 V

in

o
co

s?^*
i

i
-1
-J
111
Q.

3
IM VO

o cn

Spindle T
peller 45

cc
0.

OJ

ca
rH

M
0

/-\

U-l

0 r- ^
i-4
a o CO
c
C *~s
OJ
o p

S
2

w/2/ 0

ii

r.
d
Q
**
flu

-tisr
\o \

G
c

tHH

3 )m
1 /

p>

d
"***

<
>

<

8
i

o
CC

<
n

a.

t4
4J
CO
H
M
cfl
>

^
(Xi
v-/
0
-H
W

co

60 P

H .C

> o

0 4J
J= -H
05 fe

0) TJ
4J C

to *
QJ ca

rt

0)

iH H
cd oo

S5

1
S

QJ

B V
H

u
0)
&
x
u
T)
CJ

CJ

c
(0
>
-o
<
x:
iJ

1 u

S^

/ in
in Z ^

o
m
oj

255

o
o

142

na

HM

S5SMH

QJ

QJ

M M
6Q

[(z(QU^0) + zA)a^l/HSD8- Hf>l

CM

tu

UJ

o
d

Jl

a
V

OJ
W
*T3

C
c

>.

C
e

OJ

p
c

r-*
0J

u
3

60
H

fc

1
E*

\.s

PROPELLER 4536

0.020

-1.0 -1.5

0.010

V
-0.010

i
-0.020

-0.030
-*>

-40

-20

20

40

60

0-ARCTAN(VA/O.7imD)
Figure 28 - Faired Experimental Results Shoving Variation of Blade Spindle
Torque Index K*R with Advance Angle $* and Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q 7
for Propeller 4535
(From Figure 7 in Denny and Stephens

143

mzmmmmmmmmsemm

afinffi

2
X
0)

c
0)

a
er
u
o

t3
C
H

a <r
u

CO

0)

iH

5 "
i< H
z

ex.
O
M
U

CO

cu

a
ai

4J
CO

-o

CO

CO

a >
00
< C

so

Q
-s.

C
tfl

c
c
0>

ii

tfl
C/2
3

r^
01

U
4-

3
OC

a:
a

to

c *
0)
a

>-

a>
a

x c
w <
0>
0>
M
H

tfl

eg
0)

K*tcp*rtt +

HS

?A) ea^)/

144

D8 * HJ>i

a
c

to

>
<

e
o
u

ff
in
fr
er

IT)

UJ
-i

-i
in

tt

ij

8oc

//
_/_/

0-

0)

y#
4

/J
//

0)

o
u

/f

in

p
er
J-i
o

CM

0)

a
o
u

-i

&

CO

<

o>

p-

>
_i
<

<

H
Z

5?

2 a

*y

in I

<

t 9

O
Q

4J

UJ

OJ

ej

rI

VW

Pu

H
4J

cd

in
i

H
M
cd

J3
M

>

o
o

CM

M
O

p \

7*

*y

er
UJ

PH

o
e0L

Hi

co

0S

>1

145

?!'"!I',,,,,IP

PROPELLER 4575

0.3

0.2

**-*

0.1

>1

ANALY riCAL

L^,
X
^w

X
V

X
X

E <PERI VfENTi XL'

<N

-0.1

-0.2

_ni
-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

PITCH RATIO (P/D)07

Figure 31 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient K
SC
with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ? for Propeller 4575

1A6

PROPELLER 4496

0.3

0.2

>
1^
V

<

0.1

'^-AN'

\
CO

EX PERlfV ENTA

\LYTICAL

>
\

L-^*^

\
tK

\
-0.1

*-

-0.2

1
T

-0.3

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.5

1.0

PITCH RATIO (P/D)0 ,

Figure 32 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindlt: Torque Coefficient K,

SC

with Pitch Ratio (P/D)

147

for Propeller 4496

PROPELLER 4536

o
X

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-1.0

-0.5

PITCH RATIO (P/D)0 7

Figure 33 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient
K
SC with Pitch Ratio <P/D)o 7 for PrPeller 4^36

148

PROPELLER 4535

0.6

1 is

s N.

j
\

0.4

.ANALYTICAL

v^ 1
s

L
w**.

EX PERIN ENTA L-^

0.2

\
\N

o
x
u
\\
V
>
-0.2

\x
\

\
N

-0,4

\
X
\

-0.6

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5
0
PITCH RATIO (P/D)0 7

0.5

1.0

Figure 34 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

Ksc with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ? for Propeller 4535

149

1.5

0.3

PROPELLER 4517

s^

*-,
w

\ . ^AHAiy

0.2

>w

TICAI

EXI >ERIM ENTAI ^^^

0.1

V\
x
u

0
l
A

-0.1

-0.2
V
-0.3

-1 .5

-1 .C

-0 5

0.5

1.0

PITCH RATIO <P/D)07

Figure 35 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient
Ksc with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q ? for Propeller 4517

150

1.5

PROPELLER 4402

0.3

^.ANALYTICAL

0.2

>.

^vflL

0.1

EXPE RIMEfITAL-

0.1

as. r

WNL.

o-^L

0.2

-0.3

"XP

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5
0
PITCH RATIO <P/D)a7

0.5

1.0

Figure 36 - Variation of Centrifugal Blade Spindle Torque Coefficient

Kgc with Pitch Ratio (P/D)Q 7 for Propeller 4402

151

1.5

1
Ifl,

c
a)
u

-r4
IM
4-1

0)
0

Torque C
opellers

o
*

in

T3 (0
C 3
H 0
CO M
4 >

O
a.
O
in

h-

<
I
O

(0 M
<H 0
W
H

to

r*

60 O
3 /-s

*u a

H %.

Centr
tio (P

o t2
o
r

r
cc

tu
J
J
m

Xct
c

PROPELLER 4517,
ELLER 4572 v

l/

cc

I >V
IO

I'" I

ID

UJ
-J

UJ
-J

in

.UJ

It z

ft
cc

^cc- -cc -cc

111
J

ft
cc

UJ
-J

ft
cc
to

e*0l

5S
a
5"u
a

>

r-* 0

CM

GO X.
V U
3 4J

tical Val
nge of Pi

/i

x ^ 1N3IDI JJ30D 300Oi 31QNIdS 3QV18 1VOHilblN33

152

CO

TABLE 1 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER 4572

Rotation

Right Hand

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio A /A

0.739

Section Meanline

NACA a = 0.8

Section Thickness Distribution

NACA 66 (DTNSRDC Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

1.077

Design Advance Angle 3*

26.09 deg

Design Thrust Loading Coefficient C

0.414

0.3
|
i

0.4
0.5

0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.95
L

\ '

c/D

P/D

S/r>*

0.1868
0.2494
0.3113
0.3664
0.4031
0.4090
0.3651
0.3106
0.0700

1.0798
1.2710
1.3956
1.4433
1.4253
1.3531
1.2336
1.1533
1.0575

-0.0347
-0.0523
-0.0485
-0.0214
0.0309
0.1089
0.1598
0.2169

es

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
-

t/D

Vc

iV /V **

j|

0.0467
0.0353
0.0266
0.0207
0.0152
.0115
0.0093
0.0080
0.0002

0.00574
0.01370
0.01851
0.02069
0.02100
0.01951
0.01811
0.01844
0.01900

.1.007

ZR/D

7.56
9.73
7.94
3.14
4.12
13.37
18.89
24.71

V A

1.013
1.011
0.99b
0.991
1.000
0,996
0.987
0.977

|!

*Measured from the propeller reference? line, which coincides with

the spindle axis, to the secti on midchord position.
**Radia3 distribution of circuinf erenticil mean longitudinal wake 'or

which propeller was designed,

(l-wx)

\
f1

x(l-w )dx
X

\x

153

SSftHMHH9!H

^S*

SffiBlHS

TABLE 2 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER 4575

Rotation

Right Hand

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio A /An

0.65

Section Meanline

NACA a = 0.8

Section Thickness Distribution

NACA 16 (Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

0.888

Design Advance Angle 3*

21.99 deg

Design Thrust Loading Coefficient C ,

0.556

c/D

P/D

S/D*

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.95

0.1686
0.2368
0.2926
0.3338
0.3564
0.3525
0.3022
o.::84

i.O

0.0

1.0128
1.1399
1.2106
1.2237
1.1925
1.1253
1.0325
0.9813
0.9282

-0.0430
-0.0637
-0.0604
-0.0319
0.0225
0.1038
0.1546
0.2125

0
-

ZR/D

4.649
5.911
4.920
2.321
1.477
6.194
8.831
11.623

-0.0044
-0.00875
-0.0131
-0.0175
-0.0219
-0.0262
-0.0284
-0.0306

t/D

Vc

v /v **

0.0450
0.0355
0.0275
0.0210
0.0159
0.0119
0.0091
0.0072

0.00
0.0177
0.0204
0.0205
0.0187
0.0161
0.0137
0.0129

0.0

0.0

1.020
1.010
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.000
0.995
0.990
0.990

V A

*Measured from the propeller reference line, which coinc ides with the
spindle axis, to the section m idchord p osition.
**Radial distribution of circu [Tiferent ia 1 mean longitudina 1 wake t
(l-w )
X
which propeller was designed,
1

J h.
X

154

x(I-w )dx

3T

TABLE 3 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER 4496

Rotation

Right Hand

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio ^./A

0.826

Section Meanline

NACA a = 0.8

Section Thickness Distribution

NACA 66 (DTNSRDC Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

0.767

Design Advance Angle 3*

19.23 deg

Design Thrust Loading Coefficient C

0.706

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

I
|

1
|

c/D

0.1853
0.2482
0.3111
0.3740
0.7 0.4369
0.8 0.4760
0.9 0.4600
0.95 0.4228
1.0 0.1500

P/D

S/D*

0.9975
1.0696
1.1036
1.1016
1.0775
1.0354
0.9789
0.9444
0.9060

0.0185
0.0248
0.0311
0.0374
0.0437
0.0476
0.0460
0.0423
0.0150

ZR/D

t/D

4.853
5.410
5.832
6.167
6.424
6.304
5.535
4.864
1.651

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0437
0.0328
0.0250
0.0187
0.0131
0.0089
0.0061
0.0051
0.0040

yc

I,

V /v **

V A

0.0189
0.0197
0.0190
0.016S
0.0128
0.0105
0.0098
0.0099
0.0100

1.008

1.007
1.006
1.004
1.002
1.000
0.997
0.996
0.994

*Measured from the propeller reference line, which coincides with

the spindle axis, to the section midchoid position.

1
li

j
1

**Radial distribution of circumferential L mean longitudinal wake

(i-wx)
V
L
for which propeller was designed, =

155

2 f

x-w )dx

TABLE 4 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER 4536

Rotation

Right Hand

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio \/An

0.622

Section Meanline

NACA a = 0.8

Section Thickness Distributi on

NACA 66 (DTNSRDC Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

0.767

Design Advance Angle 8*

19.23 deg

Design Thrust Loading Coefficient C ,

0.706

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

c/D

0.1853
0.2168
0.2482
0.2797
0.3111
0.3307
0.3227
0.95 0.3041
1.0 0.1000

P/D
0.9850
1.0324
1.0591
1.0573
1.0319
0,9990
0.9542
0.9254
0.9050

S/D*
0.0185
0.0217
0.0248
0.0280
0.0311
0.0331
0.0323
0.0304
0.0100

4.8854.804
4.712
4.664
4.609
4.406
3.896
3.502
1.101

ZR/D

t/D

V /V **

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0440
0.0351
0.28C
0,0216
0.0155
0.0107
0.0073
0.0060
0.0050

0.0227
0.0235
0.0234
0.0215
0.0174
0.0139
0.0115
0.0105
0.0280

1.008
1.007
1.006
1.004
1.002
1.000
0.997
0.996
0.994

V A

*Measured from the propelle r reference line, which coincides with

the spindle axis, to the sec. tion midchord position.
**Radial distribution of cir cumferential mean longitudinal wake for
(1-w )
*
which propeller was designed

<J

156

x (1-w )dx
X

TABLE 5 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER4535

Rotation

Right Hand

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio A /An

0.83

Section Meanline

NACA a - 0.8

Section Thickness Distribution

NACA 66 (DTNSRDC Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

0.767

Design Advance Angle 8*

19.23 deg

Design Thrust Loading Coeffic lent CTh

0.706

1
1

c/D

x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
95
0

0.1853
0.2482
0.3111
0.3740
0.4369
0.4760
0.4600
0.4228
0.1500

P/D
1.0740
1.0909
1.0939
1.0731
1.0321
0.9861
0.9205
0.8895
0.8540

S/D*
0.0185
0.0450
0.0798
0.1213
0.1713
0.2285
0.2955
0.3305
0.3674

es

ZR/D

4.669
9.730
15.003
20.137
25.387
30.479
35.763
38.121
40.630

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

t/D

1 Vc

0.0437 1 0.0254
0.0328 0.0230
0.0250 0.0209
0.0187 0.0190
0.0131 0.0151
0.0089 0.0126
0.0061 0.0113
0.0051 0.0104
0.0040 0.0213

V /V **

LA

1.008
1.007
1.006
1.004
1.002
1.000
0.997
0.996
0.994

*Measured from the propeller reference lin e, which coincides with

the spindle axis, to the sect ion raidchord position.
**Radial distribution of circ umferential me an longitudinal wake for
(l-w)
which propeller was designed, , as
V.
1
x(l-w )dx

157

TABLE 6 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER 4517

Rotation

Right 1and

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio A /An

0.83

Section Meanline

NACA a - 0.8

Section Thickness Distribution

NACA 66 (DTNSRDC Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

0.767

Design Advance Angle *

19.23

Design Thrust Loading Coefficient C_,

0.706

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.95

1.0

c/D
0.1853
0.2482
0.3111
0.3740
0.4369
0.4760
0.4600
0.4228
0.1500

P/D

S/D*

0.9975 0.0185
1.0885 -0.0020
1.1354 -0.0010
1.1306 +0.0134
1.0912 0.0437
1.0339 0.0919
0.9517 0.1615
0.9025 0.2128
0.8560 0.0341

ZR/D

t/D

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0437
0.0328
0.0250
0.0187
0.0131
0.0089
0.0061
0.0051
0.0040

4.853
- 0.443
- 0.186
2.195
6.408
12.174
19.489
24.570
37.700

ieg

Vc VY*
0.0232
0.0189
0.0167
0.0150
0.0124
0.0116
0.0124
0.0154
0.0487

1.008
1.007
1.006
1.004
1.002
1.000
0.997
0.996
0.994

*Measured from the propeller reference lin e, which coincides with

the spindle axis, to the section midchord position.
**Radial distribution of circumferential me an longitudinal wake for
VT
(1-w )
A
,
which propeller was designed, rr- -

.1

x(l-w

2
J

*1

158

)dx

TABLE 7 - CHARACTERISTICS OF DTNSRDC MODEL PROPELLER 4402

Rotation

Right Hand

Number of Blades Z

Expanded Area Ratio A_/Aft

0.83

Section Meanline

NACA 65

Section Thickness Distribution

NACA 16 (Modified)

Design Advance Coefficient J

0.767

Design Advance Angle 8*

19.23 deg

Design Thrust Loading Coefficient C_,

0.706

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.95

1.0

c/D

P/D

S/D*

0.1853
0.2482
0.3111
0.3740
0.4369
0.4760
0.4600
0.4587
0.3400

1.008
1.044
1.067
1.072
1.061
1.025
0.964
0.922
0.878

0.0185
0.0248
0.0311
0.0374
0.0437
0.0476
0.0460
0.0459
0.0340

es

VD

t/D

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0437
0.0328
0.0250
0.0187
0.0131
0.0089
0.0061
0.0051
0.0040

4.826
5.465
5.896
6.209
6.443
6.313
5.544
4.750
2,:72

Vc VY*
0.0243
0.0302
0.0280
0.0240
0.0191
0.0140
0.0082
0.0042
0.0000

1.008
1.007
1.006
1.004
1.002
1.000
0.997
0.996
0.994

Measured from the propeller rererence line, which coincides with

the spindle axis, to the section midchord position.
**Radial distribution of circumferential mean longitudinal wake for
(l-w )
v,
X
which propeller was designed, cr- *

.1

JJx

159

x(l-w )dx
A

TABLE 8 - EXPERIMENTAL SPINDLE TORQUE AT DESIGN ADVANCE

COEFFICIENT FOR VARIOUS PROPELLERS
(Propellers scaled to full-scale conditions indicated
in the table. All values of spindle torque are given
in pounds-feet x 10"^)

Diameter D

16.0 feet

Speed of Advance V

20.0 knots

Propeller Material

Nickle-Aluminum-Bronze

Mass Density of Propeller Blades

484 lb/ft3

Advance Ciefficient

Design value

Propeller
4572
4575
4496
4536
4535
4517

1.077
0.888
0.767
0.767
0.767
0.767

n(rpm)
117.5
142.6
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0

SH

- 1.9
15.6
10.1

3.4
-89.2
-77.4

160

SC

-15.8
-13.4
-18.6
-11.7
-44.7
-28.0

- 17.7
+ 2.2
- 8.5
- 8.3
-133.9
-105.4

REFERENCES
1.

Rusetskiy, A.A., "Hydrodynamics of Controllable-Pitch Propellers,"

Shipbuilding Publishing House, Leningrad (1968) (in Russian).

2.

Gunsteren, L.A., van, "Hydrodynamics of Controllable-Pitch-

Propellers," in "Design and Economical Consideration on Shipbuilding and

Shipping," Report of Postgraduate Course, May 1969, University of Delft,
the Netherlands, H Veenman En Zonen N.V., Wageningen, the Netherlands
(1970) pp. 212-252; also, presented as "Design and Performance of
Controllable-Pitch Propellers," New York Metropoliten Section of the
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (Mar 1970).
3.

Schanz, F., "The Controllable-Pitch Propeller as an Integral

Part of the Ship's Propulsion System," Transactions of Society of Naval

Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 75, pp. 194-223 (1967).
4.

Boatwright, G.M. and J. Strandell, "Controllable Pitch Propellers,"

Fourth Annual Technical Symposium, Association of Senior Engineers, Naval

Ship Systems Command, Washington, D.C. (31 Mar 1967).
5.

Tsuchida, K., "Design Diagrams of Three-Bladed Controllable

Pitch Propellers," Proceedings, Fourth ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C. (Aug 1962).
6.

Yazaki. A., "Model Tests on Four-Bladed Controllable-Pitch

Propellers," Ship Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan, Paper 1 (Mar 1964).

7.

Yazaki, A. and S. Nobuo, "Further Model Tests on Four-Bladed

Controllable-Pitch Propellers," Ship Research Institute, Tokyo,

Japan, Paper 16 (Aug 1966).
8.

Gutsehe, F. and G. Schroeder, "Freifahrversuche an Propellern mit

festen und verstellbaren Flugein voraus and zurck (Open Water Tests
on Fixed-Bladed and Controllable-Pitch Propellers in Forward and Backing
Operations), Schiffbauf Tschung, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1963).
9.

Strom-Tejsen, J. and R.R. Porter, "Prediction of Controllable-

Pitch Propeller Performance in Off-Design Conditions," Third Ship

Control Systems Symposium, Bath, England (Aug 1972).

161

10.

Tsao, S.S., "Documentation of Programs for the Analysis of

Performance and Spindle Torque of Controllable-Pitch Propellers,"

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean Engineering
Report 75-8 (May 1975).
11.

Boswell, R.J., "A Method of Calculating the Spindle Torque

of a Controllable-Pitch Propeller at Design Conditions," NSRDC Report

1529 (Aug 1961).
12.

iKlaasen and Arnoldus, "Actuating Forces in Controllable Pitch

Propellers," Transactions Institute of Marine Engineers, Vol. 76,

No. 6 (Jun 1964).
13.

Miller, M.L., "Spindle Torque Tests of Four CRP Propeller

Blade Designs for MSO-421," NSRDC Report 1837 (Jul 1964).

14.

Hansen, E.O., "Thrust and Blade Spindle Torque Measurements of

Five Controllable-Pitch Propeller Designs for MSO-421," NSRDC Report

2325 (Apr 1967).
15.

Denny, S.B. and J.J. Nelka, "Blade Spindle Moment on a Five-

Bladed Controllable-Pitch Propeller," NSRDC Report 3729 (Jan 1972).

16.

Denny, S.B. and H.G. Stephens, "Blade Spindle Moment on

Controllable-Pitch Propellers,"
17.

NSRDC Report SPD-011-14 (Jul 1974).

Stephens, H.G., "Opei Water Performance of a Controllable-

Pitch (C-P) Propeller Series," NSRDC Report SPD-011-13 (Jul 1974).

18.

Cheng, H.M., "Hydrodynamic Aspect of Propeller Design Based

on Lifting-Surface Theory," Part 1 David Taylor Model Basin.

Report 1802 (Sep 1964) and Part 2 DTMB Report 1803 (Jun 19o5).
19.

Kerwin, J.E. and R. Leopold, "A Design Theory for Subcavitating

Propellers," Transactions Society of Naval Architects and Marine

Engineers, Vol. 72, pp. 294-335 (1964).
20.

Denny, S.B. et al., "Hydrodynamic Design Considerations for

the Controllable-Pitch Propeller for the Guided Missile Frigate,"

Naval Engineers Journal, pp. 72-81 (Apr 1975).
21.

Cumming, R.A. et al., "Highly Skewed Propellers," Transactions

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 80 (1972).

162

22.

Boswell, R.J. and G.G. Cox, "Design and Model Evaluation of a

Highly Skewed Propeller for a Cargo Ship," Marine Technology, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp. 73-89 (Jan 1974).
23.

Van Lammerman, W.P.A. et al., "The Wageningen B-Screw Series,"

Transactions Society of Naval Architects and Marina Engineers, Vol. 77,

pp. 269-317 (1969).
24.

Kervin, J.E., "Compute! Techniques for Propeller Blade Section

Design," Proceedings Second LIPS Propeller Symposium, Drunen, Holland,

pp. 7-31 (May 1973).
25.

Nelka, J.J., "Experimental Evaluation of a Series of Skewed

Propellers with Forward Rake: Open Water Performance, Cavltatlon

Performance, Field-Point Pressures, and Unsteady Propeller Loading,"
NSRDC Report 4113 (Jul 1974).

163