AIAA--86-0392

SMALL SCALE WIND TUNNEL TESTING

OF MODEL PROPELLERS
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392

R.M. BASS

AIAA 24th Aerospace Sciences Meeting

January 6-9, 1986/Reno, Nevada
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
 SMALL SCALE WIND TUNNEI. TESTING OF MODEL PROPELLERS
'e'
Dowty Roto1 Limited
Abstract
The difficulty and cost of measuring the
performance of full scale propellers can be
avoided by the use of models operating at correct
Mach numbers. Inevitably the Reynolds numbers a r e
low and it is a matter of great difficulty to
scale model behaviou? to full size. In order to
obtain a better understanding of s c a l e effects a
series of experiments has been conducted i.n a
variable density tunnel in which the separate
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392
effects of Reynolds number and Mach number were
studied and conclusions drawn as to the limit of
validity of model tests. In addition to the
obvious effects of Reynolds and Mach number, other
effects present are being investigated. To
explore the pressure distribution over the blades,
a rig has been constructed in which blade surface
pressure on a rotating model can he measured. The
rig is described and the Salient featwes of data
reduction discussed. Some results indicating the
potential of the rig are presented.
Nomenclature
V Free stream velocity
D Blade tip diameter
R Blade tip radius
Rotational speed (revdsec)
n Rotational Speed (radiandsec)
Air density
U K Gas constant
Propulsive efficiency
Re Reynolds number referred to blade Chord
at 70% radius.
J Advance ratio ii
nD
cp power coeffiencient _fL.
pn3DS
Introduction
Accurate measurement Of propeller performance
by flight testing is a matter of cxtwme
difficulty unless means are provided of directly
measuring thrust and torque. Torque meters of
varying degrees of accuracy are commonplace hut
the direct measurement of thrust requires the
provision of special instrumentation. Even if this
is available, there are still uncertainties
concerning the local flow field which it is not
practical to resolve experimentally. Wind tunnel
testing of propellers offers an accurately
controlled flowfield, direct measurement of thrust
and torque, with OP without the disturbing
presence of aircraft structures, and the abi.1it.y
to carry out detailed measurements o f the velocity
field associated with the propeller.
Propellers are typically between ten and
fifteen feet in diameter and full Scale tunnel
testing is not excluded. However the number of
wind tunnels of adequate size is limited and the
number of those with the means of driving the
propeller at anything like full power is very
small. Almost a l l of these are low Speed tunnels
Releanod lo AlAAto publish In dl foormr.
R.M. Bass
Gloucester
with maximum speeds of the order of 100 kts
capable Of reproducing accurately only takeoff
conditions. To simulate higher forward speeds,
mtational speed can he reduced to give the
correct advance ratio but blade Mach numbers ape
no longer representative.
All these difficulties can be OvePCome by
using small models, which from the first days of
aircraft has been an accepted technique. It is
however Worth noticing that most model propellers,
u p to the immediate post-war period, were at least
four feet in diameter, and the general concensus
of opinion was that Smaller models did not show
representative behaviour, although it is very
difficult now to find concrete evidence of this
view.
Present interest in much higher speeds and
powers makes the use of smaller models, two to
three feet in diameter, very attractive, since
suitable high speed tunnels capable of testing
this size model are more readily available and the
necessary model drive power can be provided
without too much difficulty. A further powerful
reason for continued intePeSt in model testing is
the insistence by airframe manufactweres on
performance guarantees which can only be confirmed
at the correct flight Mach number by the use of
models. Verification Of guaranteed performance
demands that the results shall give absolute and
accurate values of full scale thrust and torque.
The central problem of small scale testing is to
establish the factor by which model results must
he scaled to yield full scale performance.
A scaling factor ideally needs to be
demonstrated by comparing the measwed full scale
performance of a propeller with that of a quarter
OP fifth scale model. hot for the reasons
~ ~ ~~~
I
~~~~~~~~
indicated above, the measured performance of a
full scale propeller over its complete operating
range is not likely to b e available. Windtunnel
measurements however, yield low Speed data Which
can he used to verify the calculated performance
at the most highly loaded condition. The
assumption is then made that the calculated
performance is also correct at OtheP conditions;
an assumption Supported by tests on half o r l a r g e r
scale models. The scaling factor from model to
full s c a l e behaviow is Of Of "cry great
importance and is Obviously strongly affectcd by
Reynolds number. The low Reynolds number at which
very small models typically operate raises the
question as t o the minimum Reynolds nyrnber at
which useful results can be expected, and the
exper-iments descvibed below were designed to
investigate that, and to examine the effect of
Reynolds number on two different blade aerofoils.
Experimental Procedure
The experiments were carried out in the
6' x 8' variable density transonic tunnel operated
by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at
Farmborough, England. This tunnel which is able
 t o o p e r a t e o v e r a s t a t i c p r e s s u r e range of 0.2 t o
2.0 atmospheres, normally has s l o t t e d wal1.s b u t
t h e s e WePe cl.osed f o r t h i s s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s
and G l a u e r t ' s c o r r e c t l y f o r t h e p r e s e n c e of a
p r o p e l l e r was a p p l i e d . The t u r b u l e n c e l e v e l of
t h i s t u n n e l over t h e Speed range o f i n t e r e s t is
less than 1.0%
The models were d r i v e n by a c o n s t a n t t o r q u e
e l e c t r i c motor 5.5 i n c h e s i n d i a m e t e r , c a p a b l e of
d e l i v e r i n g 120 HP a t 1 0 , 0 0 0 RPM. The motor was
mounted on a two-component s t r a i n g a u g e b a l a n c e
Supported on a pylon r i g i d l y a t t a c h e d t o t h e
t u n n e l f l o o r ( F i g . 1 1 . C o r r e c t i o n t o measured
t h r u s t was therefore n e c e s s a r y to allow for t h e
drag o f t h e motor case. T h i s was t y p i c a l l y o f t h e
o r d e r of 1.0 l b . and t h e maximum p r o p e l l e r t h r u s t
t h e models were r u n a s two-bladed prOpel.lerS
throughout t h e s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s .
Reynolds number i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t is LJ
always r e r e r r e d t o t h e b l a d e chord
a t 70% of t h e t i p r a d i u s .
The e s s e n c e o f t h e experiment as t o h o l d Mach
number, advance r a t i o , J , and power c o e f f i c i e n t ,
Cp, c o n s t a n t w h i l e v a r y i n 8 Reynolds number. I n
p r a c t i c e , t h i s meant s e l e c t i n g a b l a d e a n g l e
commensurate w i t h t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e p r o p e l l e r
d r i v e , and r u n n i n g a t c o n s t a n t r o t a t i . o n a 1 speed
and t u n n e l Mach number over a range of t u n n e l
p r e s s u r e s . F i g . 2 is p a r t of a t y p i c a l test
schedule i l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s .
Regnolds number covered was 0.25 x 1 0 t o 1.0 x
&
The use u l range of

o f t h e o r d e r of 150 l b . 1 0 over a t u n n e l Mach number range from 0.15 to

Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392

0.50 P i g . 3 . It is w0rt.h n o t i c i n g t h a t t h e t y p i c a l
v a l u e o f Reynolds number f o r p r o p e l l e r s o f
a i r c r a f t o f around 30,000 l b . AUW c r u i g i n g a t
25,000 f t . is of t h e o r d e r o f 2.0 x 10 .

. .
._i

F i g . 2. P a r t of a t y p i c a l t e s t p r o t o c o l .

P i g . 1. 25.2 i n c h . d i a m e t e r model on 100 HP

e l e c t r i c Isator. 0.6

Two model p r o p e l l e r s were t e s t e d , one

0.4.
d e s i g n a t e d R.212, 28.8 i n c h e s i n d i a m e t e r w i t h
NACR S e r i e s 16 b l a d e a e r o f o i l s , and t h e o t h e r ,
t y p e R320, 2 5 . 2 i n c h e s d i a m e t e r w i t h ARA-D b l a d e 0.3'
a e r o f o i l s . Both models a p e t y p i c a l of p r o p e l l e r s MCO
desi.gned f o r commuter O p e r a t i o n and a l t h o u g h t h e i r 0.2
aerodynamic d e s i g n p o i n t s d i f f e r somewhat, t h e
g e n e r a l d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s a r e s i m i l a r , and i t was
f e l t t h a t any d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r S e n s i t i v i t y t o 0.1.
Reynolds number would r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n
behaviour of t h e aerofoi.ls.The power a b s o r p t i o n
c a p a b i l i t y of b o t h t h e s e p r o p e l l . e r s a t two 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.0
Rolx106
atmospheres exceeded t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e d r i v e ,
and r a t h e r than r e s t r i c t h i g h d e n s i t y , h i g h Fig. 3 . Range o f Mach. and Reynolds Numbers
Reynolds number, r u n n i n g t o a small number of explored. -I.'

c o n d i t i o n s a t u n P e a l i s t i c a l l y low bl.ade angles,

2
 Discussion of Results
'd Typical specimen results for the two
propellers are Shown on Figs. 4 & 5. The NACA
Series 16 bladed propeller illustrated in Fig.4,
shows the general feature, common to both
aerofoils, of a very large and relatively abrupt
fall in Efficiency at Reynolds numbers below
0.5 Y 10 . A characteristic of the NACA-16 bladed
propeller, well illustrated in this figure, is the
marked partial recovery of efficiency before the
final collapse at very low Reynolds numbers. That
this may arise from flow instabilities in the root
region is suggested by the typical behaviour of
t!le ARA-D bladed propeller shown in Fig.5. This
hlade was tested with and without fixed transition
covering a region from the root to 50% of the
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392
spar. The presence of transition fixing resulted
in lower6 efficiencies at Reynolds numbws above
0 . 4 x 10 and higher values below this point. The
variation of efficiency with Reynolds number was
in general more orderly when transition was fixed.
These observations suggest that the flow over the
inboapd sections is subject to laminar Separations
and reattachments; a view consistent With the
generally random appearance of the data at low
Reynolds number. It must be emphasised that the
definition in terms of the chord at 70% radius is
arbitrwy. Its justification is simplicity, and
that it is representative of the outboard parts of
the blade whePe the greatest energy transfer
o c c u r s . Local Reynolds number varies greatly from
root to tip, a factor of two is not u n u s u a l and it
is easy to visualise the radial limit of a flow
separation moving up and down a particular region
of a blade resulting in Significant variations in
Overall efficiency. The ARA-D bladed propeller
t, tended to maintain its efficiency to a Slightly
lower value of Reynolds number than the NACA-16
bladed model and then collapse relatively abruptly
with l e s s marked oscillations. This is consistent
with the development of a trailing edge stall
rather than the growth of a leading edge
Separation characteristic of the NACA-16 aerofoil.
EFFICIENCY
"1
f number range reaching much higher values.
J MaJ MTlP
A 0.12 0.25
0.17 0.36
60
70: 0 0.34 0.71
x
[v 0.35 0.96 (e.7=300~
- reduction in efficiency might be associated with
TRANSITION FREE
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Re.7xlO.B
w Fig. 4. NACA-16 bladed model. Typical variation
of efficiency With Reynolds Number.
CALCULATE0 VARIATION OF EFFICIENCY WITH
MACH NO IS 1.046
1
0 0.43 0.78
TRANSITION FREE
..
_.....INBOARD
_._ TRANSlTlON
60
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Re.7x10.B
Fig. 5. ARA-D bladed model. Typical variation
of efficiency with Reynolds number.
The firm conclusion that can be drawn from the
large amount of data collected and typified by the
two figures is that at Reynolds numbers below half
a million, the behaviour of model propellers of
conventional design is likely to be unpredictable,
and where the measured performance departs
significantly from the calculated values, the
cause is likely to originate in viscous effects.
As a precautionary measure, to establish whether
these effects are seriously influencing the
performance at least Some runs should be carried
out with and without transition fixing.
The results as a whole indicated a very
significant reduction in efficiency, at constant
Reynolds number, as tip Mach number increased. In
this series of experiments, very high subsonic and
even supersonic tip Mach numbers were reached, and
it was not surprising that a propeller designed
for much lower speeds should suffer Significantly
at these conditions. What was swprising was that
even at tip Mach numbers below 0.5, the variation
of efficiency with Mach number was much higher
than could possibly be accounted f o r by the
behaviow of aerofoils which had been thoroughly
explored in a two dimensional tunnel over a Mach
Variation of local Mach number at constant
Reynolds number and advance ratio was effected by
adjusting tunnel pressure and changing both tunnel
and rotational speeds, while maintaining a fixed
ratio between them. It appeared plausible that the
the presence of ~ s r yhigh centrifugal fields, up
1.0
to 450,000 ftsec .
Plotting efficiency against
Q'R for constant J showed that at values of J of
1.2, the agreement between calculated and measured
efficiency, at a Reynolds numbers over half a
million, was good over the whole range of Q'R
covered but at higher v a l u e s of J efficiency f e l l
 rapidly with increasing Q ' R , even allowinf! for the
effects of increasing tip Mach number. Thi; is
illustrated in Fig.6 for a Reynolds number of one
million Which Shows also the calculated variation
of efficiency with Mach number. The dependi:ncc of
the effect of Mach number upon J arises frim t.he
large change of blade incidence convened !5y The
range of J explored. These plats are com!h1ncri and
presented in Fig.7 which clearly illustral.<:; t h e
effect of both J and Q'R.
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392
These results were unexpected; the fall in
efficiency arose from an increase in power
coefficient at constant operating conditions while
t h c thrust coefficient was unaffected. v
Examination of the rig and test procedure offered
no cxplanation, and distortion of the blades under
ttif high centrifugal loading was discounted Since
the tendency in this case is to reduce pitch which
iioirld reduce both thrust and power absorption.
A second entry was made into the 8' x 6 '
t i r n n e l at a later date, after completely
dismantling and rebuilding the rig and
iniorporating an improved data logging system. On
t,his occasion, only one propeller, 11320, was
tested and the running conditions were Pestricted
to low tip Mach numbers and the higher range of

available Reynolds numbers. The results

Sirhstantiated the findings of the earlier Series
of experiments and the same variation of
efficiency with Q'R and J was found.
No experimentally established explanation f o r
- _ _ _ MEASURED ttiis phenomenon is yet available, but a plausible
hypothesis is thet it arises from a centrifugally
d r i v e n radial migration of the boundary layer,
together with any separated flow at the spinner
root. junction; the consequently increased angular
mnmenturn of the mass of air being associated with
thi: Observed increase in torque. The increased
10 1 anwular momentum appears as an increased pressure
on the pressure face of the blade. Since J is a
measure of blade pitch, it is reasonable to
ant.icipate that at higher values of J , the
component of the increase in pressure in the plane

O1 ..._ J=2.1
of the torque is greater than at lower values. On
this general argument, it seems likely that in the
casc of highly Swept blades, the effect would be
l e s s since the radially moving boundary layer
might be expected to leave the blades at a point
mare? the root.
0.74
0.18 FREE 0.54 0.35 From the evidence of these series of tests,
STREAM which allowed the separate effects of Reynolds
number and Mach numbe? to be studied, it must be
n 2 R IFTSEC-~) concluded that another effect is present. Further
suggestions of its presence even in f u l l scale
Fig.6. Dependence of measured efficieniy on tcst.s ape indicated by re-examining old test
Q'R and of calculated efficiency on results. When testing in low speed tunnels, it is
Mach. Number. usual to simulate cruising values of J by running
the tunnel as fast as possible and reducing
propeller rotational speed. A complete line of
efficiency or power coefficient versus J at a
fined blade angle is thus made up of a number of
EFFICIENCY sections, each associated with a different tunnel
l%I s p e e d . Where they overlap, particularly at low
90- v a l u e s of J,where mtational speed is greatest,
t h e m is almost always a discontinuity, as
illuStrated in Fig. 8 ',where two values of power
coefricient are associated with the same J. This
is usually attributed to "Reynolds number OP Mach
number effects" and accepted but if it is
examined critically it will & r r w a l l y be found
rhat the Mach number is low and its variation is
-CALCULATED much too small to offer an explanation for the
----MEASURED
1
70- di:;continuity and the Reynolds number is too high
to Show a Similar effect.
A2R = 45000&d
IF, SEC-21 REYNOLDS NUMBER:- 1.0~10'

Fig.7. Vzriation of efficiency with J and L

!l'Rat constant Reynolds Number.
 POWER CORRECTION
L COEFFICIENT. TO FULL SCALE
ICpI EFFlCll CY (%I
0.20
0.
INCREASING ROTATIONAL SPEED (nzRl

"\
0.18 4
-2.0. 2.0
0.16
3.0
NEL SPEED -4.0'
0.14 4.0
5.0
-6.0
0.12
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392

-8.0
0.10 Re FULL SCALE
Re MODEL SCALE
-10.0
0.08

0.06 30 60

0.04 LIFT COEFFICIENT A T 70% RADIUS

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.02

\15O
Fig.9. Correction for Reynolds Number.
0 0.'2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
ADVANCE RATIO (J)

'd Fig.8. Wind tunnel measurements of an 8' x 6'

diameter propeller. EFFICIENCY
CORRECTION
Model to Full S c a l e Correction Factor 01 (%)

In work reported in the past 4 ' 5 Rood -1.0

correlation between model and full Scale results
has been Obtained by applying a Reynolds number
correction which necessarily included any effects J
that might have been present due to the phenamenom 1.2
discussed above. In the light of the most recent 1.4
d a t a it appears proper to apply two factors, one -3.0 1.6
for Reynolds number,and one to take int.0 account 1.8
R * R terms. -4.0- 2.0
2.2
By considering the slope Of efficiency Versus 2.4
Reynolds number, and the lift coefficient at the -5.0- 2.6
7oX radius station, it was found possible to
establish the very Simple linear relationship of
F i g . 9 . In this the change in efficiency from full
to model scale is expressed in terms of the ratio
of full scale to model Reynolds number at
different blade loadings. This is of course o n l y
-6.0i I
100,000 200,000 300,000 400:OOO
valid fop model Reynolds numbers greater than half
A 2 R IFT SEC-4
a milli.on.
The change in efficiency apparently associated Fig.10 CoPPection f o r Cl'R.
with the centPifuga1 field expressed, as CI'R, is
shown in Fig.10 for the R320 propeller covering
the range of operating points, at Reynolds numbers Model data obtained on other propellers tested
above half a million, explored in this series of in different tunnels ha've been corrected by
tests. Further experimental evidence is required applying t:ie sum of t.he two separate corrections
before this can be extrapolated to lower v a l u e s of and thc agreement between predicted full scale
CI'R and J but if the association between effici.i.ncy and corrected 115th scale model results
t/ efficiency and Q'R is valid, An = 0 when R'R is has been found to he with 2 1.0%.
zero and also it finite values of CI'R as J falls
below 1.2.
5
 I t is p r e m a t u r e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u f C i c i e n t
e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a , and i n t h e l a c k o f a b c t t . e r
founded t h e o m t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n t o postu1at.c a
d i m e n s i o n l e s s group q u a n t i f y i n g n i R effec!. It
a p p e a r s l i k e l y t h a t t h e r a t i o o f model act1 m l 1
scale c e n t r i f u g a l f k l d s a t a g i v e n p o i n t r m t h e
b l a d e c o u l d farm t h e b a s i s o f s u c h a group. I n
t h e meanwhile, t h e f u l l C o r r e c t i o n ; f a c t b r , F , for
model t o f u l l s i z e h e h a v i o u r a t t h e same o;>i'rat.ing
c o n d i t i o n s can be e x p r e s s e d a s
F = fiRe, J , n'R1.
The Pressure Tapped Model P r o p e l l e r
Not o n l y does t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l demonstrat,ion
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392
o f p r o p e l l e r aerodynamic t h e o r y r e q u i r e a
measurement o f t h e pllessure d i s t r i b u t i o n OVPI. t h e
b l a d e s , b u t such d a t a is e s s e n t i a l for t h c
development o f a n a d e q u a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f I.hr
e f f e c t d i s c u s s e d above. A model p r o p e l l e r h a s
aCCOPdingly been c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h Which i t i s
p o s s i b l e t o measuPe t h c s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e o v ( ~ Pt h e
b l a d e s and i t is f e l t t o be o f s u f f i c i e n t irincral
intePest t o j u s t i f y a brief description. II
l i m i t e d number o f s ' m ' l P e a s u r e m e n t s hairo been
made i n t h e p a s t 6 ' L / ' B ' g ' 1 w b u t t h e a d v e n t of
modern m a t e r i a l s and t e c h n i q u e s have made l.ths
a c q u i s i t i o n of l a r g e amounts of d a t a much m r e
readily achievable.
F i g . 11 P r e s s u r e tapped model p r o p c l l r r .
The b l a d e s o f t h e model are made of c . i i r t ) O T
r e i n f o r c e d epoxy r e s i n u s i n g a well t r i e d
procedure and i n c l u d i n g i n each f a c c 12 :;IlcinWiSe
t u b e s 0.028 OD. These are p l a c e d immediatr'!y below
an O u t e r S k i n of g l a s s C l o t h which on impr'i.i;nation
w i t h r e s i n , becomes t r a n s p a r e n t and allow:: !.he
t u b e s t o be l o c a t e d for measur'ernent o f l t i c i r e x a c t
c h o r d w i s e d i s t r i b u t i o n , and f o r d r i l l i n g l.t!c!
S t a t i c p r e s s u r e t a p p i n g s . As many chord:rlr;i. rows
o f S t a t i c h o l e s as d e s i r e d can b e d r i l l e d m d a l l
b u t one row c l o s e d w i t h t h i n a d h e s i v e t a p ? . Ry
s u c c e s s i v e l y u n c o v e r i n g rows of h o l e s a t t l i r f e r e n t ,
r a d i i , t h e whole b l a d e can be e x p l o r e d . T t i i s
approach is used i n p r e f e r e n c e t o m i n i a t u w
s u r f a c e p r e s s s u r e t.ransducers which have tntir~ht o
recommend them b u t t h e y are e x p e n s i v e and
v u l n e r a b l e , and v e r y l a r g e numbers a r e r e w i r e d t o
p r o v i d e t h e same data t h a t can be o b t a i n e d I-rom
t h e 2 4 t u b e s of t h e e x i s t i n g model. The p r r s e n t
arrangement p e r m i t s o n l y s t e a d y p r e s s u r e s '.o be
measured b u t t h i s i s a l l t h a t is needed for' Lhe
purpose of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Models s o f a r b u i l t have been 27.75 i n c h e s
d i a m e t e r w i t h b l a d e c h o r d s o f t y p i c a l l y 2.0 v
inc.hes. The neceSSaPily s m a l l t h i c k n e s s d o e s n o t
r e a d i l y allow t u b e s t o b e l o c a t e d v e r y close t o
t h P t r a i l i n g edge and t h e f i n a l 15% Of t h e c h o r d
can o n l y b e reached w i t h d i f f i c u l t y . The
phOt,ogPaph of F i g . 1 1 o f t h e p r o p e l l e r , i n
a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a n a c e l l e and wing, i l l u s t r a t e s a
t y p i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e t u b e s . As Shown
s e m i - d i a g r a m a t i c a l l y i n Fig. 12, t.he t u b e s are
connected t o a Scanni v a l v e by f l e x i b l e t u b e s t o
allow p i t c h change movement. The small T t y p e
S c a n n i v a l v e is mounted on t h e a x i s o f P o t a t i o n
and c o n t a i n s a d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e s s u r e t r a n s d u c e r .
T h e e l e c t r i c a l o u t p u t from t h e t r a n s d u c e r is f e d
t o t h e d a t a l o g g i n g system through s l i p r i n g s
moimtted on t h e rear o f t h e hub. The t y p e and
arrangement o f s l i p r i n g s a d o p t e d is based on that.
uscd for S t r a i n g a u g i n g h i g h speed equipment
running a t up t o 12000 RPM. I n t h e p r e s e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n no S i g n i f i c a n t e l e c t P i c a l n o i s e h a s
b e r n d e t e c t e d a t t h e h i g h e s t speed o f 1000 RPM so
f a r run. The power t o d r i v e t h e scanni v a l v e
motor is t a k e n through s e p a r a t e r e l a t i v e l y heavy
duty s l i p r i n g s mounted on t h e f a r end of t h e
hollow d r i v e s h a f t .
Recause o f its small s i z e , t h e Scanni v a l v e
doc:; n o t have a Stepped d r i v e b u t runs
coril.inuous1y a t less t h a n 3 RPM r e l a t i v e t o t h e
hub. The d w e l l time on each t u b e is a b o u t h a l f a
second which ensures an e x c e l l e n t s i g n a l and is
long enough t o i n t e r r u p t t h e C ' i P C U i t manually and
s t o p a t any d e s i r e d t u b e . The approach u s i n g a
r o t a t i n g s c a n n i v a l v e and t r a n s d u c e r and
c o l i e c t i n g t h e d a t a through s l i p r i n g s was a d a p t e d
w i t h some r e s e r v a t i o n , b u t has so f a r proved
i t s e l f completely t r o u b l e f r e e .
I I Y
1 lNC"
Aig. 1 2 Diagram o f p r e s s u r e t a p p e d model.
b
 The reference prcssure or the differential
transducer is frce stream total pressures,sensed 0.935R
L by a total head tube mounted on the spinner centre
line. Tt?e pressure at the blade surface is
clearly very different from that applied to the
pressure transducer because of the very large
centrifugal head existing in the radial tube and
density variations along the tube cannot b e
ignored. The relation between the pressure at the 0.90R
axis and the pressure in the tube at any radius \=0.295x106
can readily he shown to be:
= o2pr

Expressing density in terms of pressure and 0.85R

ternperatwe within the tube the expression becomes %=0.29708
-
dP w2P rdp
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392

dr = 0
Assuming that the temperature within the tube is
constant along its length, the relation between
the pressure at the axis, P and the pressure,
P,, at a particular radius a:is given by Re =0.294x106

The validity of the assumption that the COEFFICIENT -3

temperature along the tube is constant, is based 0.70R
on the steady State conditions prevailing, and on
Re =0.270~108
the much greater mass and higher thermal
Conductivity of the material of the tube than that
of the air contained within it. The value of &.
local pressure coefficient is not very sensitive

-
to changes in temperature. A change of temperature
of l0C typically changes it by between 0.2% and
0.5% well within the level of accuracy sought.
Measurement of the averge temperature of the tubes Re=O.l63xlOe
a t their exits from the blades could he made by
including sensors but the need for this has so far
not been apparent. Expressing the pressure
difference along the tube in terms of temperature, -3
Re =0.097~108
rather than the more Obvious variable, density, -2
avoids the problem Of defining the local density
of the air in the immediate vicinity of the .14
pressure tapping.

Experimental Technique and Results

The use of the model requires no special

techniques Other than the occlusion of a l l but the
Selected row of static tappings. No problems of
mechanical adhesion of the adhesive tape have been
experienced even at the most outboard sections
where very high accelerations of the order of
20,000 g, Can be axperienced. Achievement of
pressure tightness requires particular c a r e , and
very small l e a k s Which cannot b e demonstrated by
static pressure tests will, on occasions, appear
when running. A thin coat of laquer effectively
prevents this.
Usually Static tappings are located at eight
radial stations, but more can readily be drilled
if needed to explore critical areas. The only
practical limitation to the number is the tunnel
running time available together with the number of
Operating conditions to be explored.
The problem of quickly interpreting the large
amount of data produced by the presswe tapped
model is at present dealt with by plotting, for
each operating condition, all the pressure
-'
distributions in spanwise order on a single sheet
as illustrated in Fig.13. By considering a number
of such sheets, trends quickly become apparent and
o{t=--------47
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
xlc
Fig. 13 Typical results from a pressure tapped
model.
rogue points readily identified. This format is
very convenient for illustrating such phenomena as
the spanwise extent of the effect of localised
disturbances, Such as rootispinner interference,
or the chordwise extent of deliberately introduced
leading edge imperfections in the presence of a
Str-OrLg centrifugal field. Where three
dimensional effects are expected to he least in
evidence f o r example at mid-span sections,
comparison with measured two dimensional aerofo3l
characteristics has shown very close agreement
The repeatability of the data after the elapse of
a considerable time and the intervention of a
number of different runs is exceptionally good and
the rig is believed to pt'ovide an accurate
representation of blade Surface pressures. The

7
 f i n e n e s s o f L h r d e f i n i r i o n o f t h e pressui<'
d i s t r i b u t i o n is l i m i t e d by Lhe r e l a t i v e l y ::mI 1
n u m b e r o f t u b c s t.hal. a t p p e s e n t are i n m r
i n t h e b l a d e bU1. i t is p e r r e c t l y adcqua1.e
i n t e n d e d p u r p o s c o f c o r r e l a t i n g measured
c a l c u l a t e d Presslire d i s t r ' i b L t i o n s and i d ?
Significant differences.
N o t h w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e c o m p a r a t i v e l y sm-
number o f ~ P E S S U Pt,appings ~ available a t
r a d i u s , 12 per blade race, v c r y Rood ae
been o b t a i n e d bPtween t h e t h r u s t s and t
measured on t h e p r o p c l i e r b a l a n c e and L i
computcd from t i l e i n t e g r a t e d p r e s s u r e d .
recorded over t h e b l a d e s , w i t h d u e a l l o t
p r o f i l e d r a g which cannot be d i r e c t l y m
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392
A f e a t u r e o f some i n t e r e s t i l l u s t r a t i i i ; : l.tle
p o t e n t i a l oC t h i s t e c h n i q u e is t h c l i f t
c o e f f i c i e n t a c h i e v e d by t h e b l a d e r o o t s
p r o p e l l c r is O p e r a t i n g s t . a t i c a l l y . ILift
theory i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t t h i s c o n d i t i o n ,
are stalled. N O e v i d e n c e o f s t a l l i n g was
by t h e pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n h u t Very h i
C o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h c o r d e r of 2.14 were me
w i t h some reduct.ion o f Outboard l o a d i n g
w i t h theoretical C a l c u l a t i o n s . T h r u s t a
however a g r e e d well. The h i g h l i f t c o s f ' f ' : I w l t
measuPFd i.s much g r e a t e r t h a n two d i m c n s i o n n l wind
t u n n e l t e s t s would suggest. t o be p o s s i h l i , . T h i s
Qs c o n s i s t e n t w i t h P e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by I l i m ~ l s k a m p
and is usually e x p l a i n e d i n terms Of t.hr r ' n d i a l
s c a v e n g i n g o f t h e boundary l a y e r produce0 I,:/ :.he
high c e n t r i f u g a l f i e l d .
The f o r e g o i n g o u t l i n e is S u f f i c i e n t t o
i n d i c a t e t h e c a p a b i l i t y and CuPPent Statu:, ,Q< t h e
r i g . A c o n s i d e r a b l e p?ogr'amme o f work i s
a n t i c i p a t e d t o measure p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u l
d i f f e r e n t b l a d e d e s i g n s over' a wide rang?
o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s to p r o v i d e expwimcn: i s !
back-up t o p u r e l y t h e o r e t i . c a 1 r e s e a r c h . l r i
p a r t i c u l a r , a programme is p l a n n e d t o takii : l a c e
i n t h e near f u t u r e t o c o n t i n u e t h e i n Y C S t
o f t h e e f f e c t o f s c a l e on model propeller
hehaviou? and attempt t o u n d e r s t a n d t h c r.,'~ tinrrism
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e unevpect.ed dependenc? :>r
p r o p e l l e r b e h a v i w r on r o t a t i o n a l speed at
constant t i p Mach number, Reynolds number, im!
advance r a t i o d i s c u s s e d i n i i a r l i e r paruirral
Concluding Remarks
T h e e x p e r i m e n t s conducted i n a variahli~
d e n s i t y t u n n e l i n which t h e e f f e c t s Of R c v I ~ ~ ( ! s
and Mach number c o u l d b e i s o l a t e d have l o x 1.0 t.he
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f what is a p p a r e n t l y a t T
e f f e c t i n f l u e n c i n g t h e r e l a t i o n between
and s c a l e model b e h a v i o u r . The mechanism r f Lhis
is n o t u n d e r s t o o d a l t h o u g h a t e n t a t i v e h:irwt iiesis
h a s becn proposed t o e x p l a i n i t . Experirni
so f a r been conducted only on a small numi:(,? or
propellers a l l made t o Similar d e s i g n C r i L e P i a a n c
it. is p o s s i b l e that. t h e magnitude Of Lhc . . f r C C t
may v a r y q u i t e consi.derably w i t h propcllrr d p s i g n ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h c case o f s t r o n g l y 5wcl.l blades.
Evidence however does s u g g e s t t h a t appurrr!!
a n a m a i i e s i n b e h a v i o u r s h o u l d be c a r e f u l l y
examined i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e p e p o r t e d re
n o t d i s m i s s e d as Reynolds o r Mach numbe?
without. adequate j u s t i f i c a t i o n .
A pressure tapped model propeller d
'or {gmcral aerodynamic r e s e a r c h purposc:
L o lic a powerful t o o l f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s
phenomenon as well a s g e n e r a l Reynolds number
cr?(!(.ts. I n t h e very n e a r f u t u r e , a series o f U
rirnents i n t h e v a r i v b l c d e n s i t y t u n n e l w i t h
d i f ' T c P e n t b l a d e s w i l l be c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g t h i s
t c r h r i i q u e , and it is hoped w i l l y i e l d q u a l i t a t i v e
ar.d r w a n t i t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n l e a d i n g t o a b e t t e r
Iur!rlr:!standing of t h e u n d e r l y i n g mechanism. T h i s
t.her w i t h t h e use o f a v e r y h i g h f r e q u e n c y
h o l e probe c a p a b l e o f d e f i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l
bl;rtic wakes s h o u l d p r o v i d e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on
wliirh a much b e t t e r m a t h e m a t i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
t i l ? .?low f i e l d of h i g h l y loaded p r o p e l l e m can h e
'The Wright b r o t h e r s began by r e g a r d i n g
l e y ? a s , " s i m p l y wings t r a v e l l i n g i n a s p i r a l
I' h u t very q u i c k l y , r e a l i s i n g t h e l i m i t s
0 The e x i s t i n g S t a t e o f t h e a r t ,
' had t o
c n r r y o u t some e x p e r i m e n t s t o s y s t e m a t i s e t h e i r
knowledge. The flow i n p r o p e l l e r s i s
superficially v e r y simpl.e, and w i t h i n q u i t e narrow
o p i ~ r n t i n gl i m i t s , a Simple t h e o r e t i c a l a p p r o a c h
wi!l a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e s i t u a t i o n . T h e
complete f l a w f i e l d is v e r y complex and f u t u r e
hii<iily loaded h i g h speed p r o p e l l e r s demand more
c l a t x m t e mathematical r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t a k e i n t o
account f e a t u r e s which o n l y become s i g n i f i c a n t i n
c l a s s o f p r o p e l l e r . For o b v i o u s economic
rms, e x p e r i m e n t s on advanced models w i l l
p r o v i d e most of t h e n e c e s s a r y d e s i g n d a t a and i t
is e r s e n t i a l f o r t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n o f p r o p e l l e r s
Lila!. r h e i r h e h a v i o u r Of t h e s e models h e f u l l y
Ilndi.rstood,
References
1. Rlock P.J.W. and M a r t i n A.M.
u
Results From Performance and Noise Tests of
Model Scale Propellers.
SAE 830730 A p r i l 1983.
2. Glauert H.
A r r o f o i l and Airscrew Theory
Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.
3. i3arbeP D . J .
FwfoPmance E v a l u a t i o n of ~ u i si c a l e
Propellers by Wind Tunnel T e s t s .
A.G.A.R.D. Conference P r o c e e d i n g s N O . 366
Paper 1 4 , O c t o b e r 1984.
4. Bass R . M .
Techniques of Model P r o p e l l e r T e s t i n g
::RE 830750 A p r i l 1983.
5. and Davis D.G.M.
I3ass R . M .
R Review of Some Recent U . K . Propeller
IDcYelopmentS
ATAA-85-1261 - J u l y 1985.
6. Fage A and Howard R.G.
R C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f Airscrew Theorey i n t h e
h g h t o f Data Derived From a n Experimental
r n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of Pressure
Oycr t h e E n t i r e S u r f a c e o f a n Airscrew Blade
and A ~ S Oover h e r o f o i l s o f A p p r o p r i a t e
Shapes.A.R.C. R. & M . 681 March 1921.
d
iirnmi se'
 I. Maynard J.D. and Murphy M.P.
pressure Distributions on the Blade Sections
of t h e NACA 1 0 ! 3 ) ! 0 6 6 ) - 0 3 3 Propeller Under

u Operating Conditions.
NACA RM L9L12, 1950

6. Gray W.H. and Hunt R.M.

Pressure Distributions on the Blade Sections
of t.he NACA 10 l?)lOb9)-03 Prmeller Under
~~ ~ ~

Operating Conditions
NACA RM L50A26, 1950.

9. Johnson P.J.
Pressure Distributions on the Blade Sections
of the NACA 10-!3)(0901-03 Propeller Under
Operating Conditions.
NACA RM L50A26, 1950.

10. Himmelskamp H.
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 6, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1986-392

Profilunterssuchengen an ein urnlaufenden

Propeller. Millteilung aus dem Max-Planck
InstUt f;r Str&nforschung. Gdttingen 1950

1 1 . Wright 0. and Wright W.

The Wright Brothers’ Aeroplane.
The Century Magazine September 1906.
Reprinted in the Journal of the Royal
Aeronautical Society July-September 1916.