See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308572277

Comparative Study of Two and Three Blade Mini Propellers Aerodynamic

Performance

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.1115/GT2016-56174

CITATIONS READS
0 2,736

5 authors, including:

Prathapanayaka Rajeevalochanam Vinod Kumar

National Aerospace Laboratories National Aerospace Laboratories
31 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Santhosh kumar Sahadevan Narendra Sharma

National Aerospace Laboratories National Aerospace Laboratories
4 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Prathapanayaka Rajeevalochanam on 31 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO AND THREE BLADE MINI PROPELLERS AERODYNAMIC
PERFORMANCE
Prathapanayaka Rajeevalochanam, Vinod Kumar Nanjundaiah, Santhosh Kumar Sahadevan, Narendra Sharma,
Krishnamurthy Settisara Janney
Propulsion Division
CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratories
Bangalore-17, India
ABSTRACT
Fixed wing Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are widely
powered by miniature brushless DC motors and mini
propellers. These motors have low efficiencies in the MAVs’
operating range; hence consume more power and penalizing
the endurance of MAVs flight. Mini propellers also suffer with
lower efficiencies due to low Reynolds number effect compared
to bigger propellers. Based on the power requirement of
MAV’s; generally two bladed different size propellers are used
to power these MAVs. Effect of Propeller slipstream wash on
the lift generating wings is significant and it is well reported for
bigger propellers. The strength of slipstream wash depends on
the number of blades, diameter of the propeller, rotational
speed, flight speed and trajectory. The effect of slipstream wash
could be lowered by increasing the number of blades and with
smaller diameter propellers. CSIR-NAL has designed,
developed, and fabricated, efficient, 6inch diameter, two and
three blade, light-weight, mini propellers using latest state of
the art technological advancements for CSIR-NAL fixed wing
MAV code named as Black Kite. Apart from this, these
propellers are assessed for its realistic propulsive efficiencies
using CSIR-NAL configured sophisticated precision test bench
manufactured and supplied by M/s MAGTROL, Switzerland.
The specialty of this test bench is that it can measure thrust,
propellers shaft torque, input power and rotational speeds
simultaneously. In the present study CSIR-NAL developed 6
inch diameter two and three bladed propellers of identical plan
form are compared for their performance. The three bladed
propellers generate 30% higher thrust by marginal weight and
efficiency penalty, whereas the noise levels are reduced.
GT2016
June 13 – 17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea
GT2016-56174
1. Introduction
Most efficient and effective way of operating the
unmanned micro air vehicle depends on the mission
requirement, operational environment, vehicle configuration,
type of unmanned air vehicle (fixed wings, flapping wings, and
rotary wings), structural integrity, aerodynamic
maneuverability, flight trajectory, power, pay load, electronic
and system controls, communication capability, endurance,
focused operational utility. Apart from this fixed wing micro air
vehicles find wider acceptance in certain utilities. Fixed wing
micro air vehicles (MAVs) are widely powered by miniature
brushless DC motor and mini propellers. These motors have
low efficiencies in the MAVs operating range hence consume
more power and penalizing their endurance [1]. Mini propellers
also suffer with lower efficiencies due to low Reynolds number
effect compared to bigger propellers [2, 3]. Effect of propeller
slipstream wash on the lift generating wings is significant and it
is well reported for bigger propellers. Based on the power
requirement of MAV‟s; generally two bladed different size
propellers are used to power them. Increasing the solidity by
adding blades had a lesser adverse effect than increasing it by
increasing the blade width/chord. The loss in efficiencies
commonly conceived to be the result of increasing the number
of blades was not fully realized, only about 2 percentage
differences in peak efficiency between 2 and 4 blades is
reported [4]. An increase in solidity tends to delay the stall and
to increase the efficiencies in the take–off range [4]. Higher
blade loadings tend to have an adverse effect on propeller
efficiencies, particularly at low advance ratios and also
experimental data indicate that improvements in efficiencies
may be obtained by increasing the solidity ratio of a propeller
[5, 6]. This can be achieved by increasing the number of blades.
Increasing the number of blades will decrease the blade loading
and also [5, 6] indicates that increasing the number of blades
1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
does not result in significant efficiency penalty at larger simultaneously [2]. This is to minimize the uncertainty in
advance ratios. Effect on flight dynamics on the aircraft are measurement of propulsive efficiencies of mini propellers.
negligible whether two or three blade other than the slight The baseline design of both propellers was carried out
increased inertia [7]. It is known, use of smaller diameter using the thrust requirement at design condition and the blade
propellers with higher number of blades to overcome propeller geometry is arrived using minimum induced loss method [11].
slipstream wash on the wings [8]. The demand for power This resulted in maximum chord closer to 40% blade height for
mainly comes from the propeller requirement in turn the optimum performance and maximum twist closer to hub, which
propulsive efficiencies become critical. Figure of merit (FOM) is also necessary for structural integrity and fabrication process.
would have the comparable performance of two different Fig.2.1 shows the propeller blade geometry and Reynolds
propellers having same disk loading [9] in particular thrust number at various sections. NACA 66-021 profile was chosen
generating capacity. Experimental data on mini propellers are up to 30% of the blade height and Eppler-193 was chosen for
scarce and are crucial in view of its lower propulsive rest of the span and these profiles are shown in Fig.2.2.
efficiencies, power consumption, and geometry to optimize the
MAVs configuration. The operating range of Reynolds number
is close to 33350 and blade angle is 19.47 degrees at 0.75R.
CSIR-NAL have designed, developed, and fabricated, efficient,
two and three blade, lightweight, mini propellers using latest
state of arts technological advancements [1, 10]. Apart from
this, these propellers are assessed for its realistic propulsive
efficiencies using CSIR-NAL configured sophisticated
precision test bench manufactured and supplied by M/s
MAGTROL, Switzerland [2]. The specialty of this test bench is
that it can measure thrust, propellers shaft torque and rotational
speeds simultaneously. Major concern of uncertainty in the
drive motor efficiencies is got evaluated automatically. Noise is Figure 2.1: Propeller blade geometry details [1]
generated by the propellers rotating at high speeds due to cut
the air stream passing over it. Noise level generated by the
mini propellers will have impact on the performance of the
propeller on MAVs and its structural integrity, aircraft
maneuverability, stability, control on waypoints, and the
environment. Complete avoidance of noise generation by the
propellers are practically impossible, however it can be reduced
to a certain extent by suitably modifying the shape, size,
surface finish, material, and location of rotating as well as
static structural elements on the aircraft. Noise level generated
by mini propellers, its frequencies, and magnitude due to
propellers rotations depends on the number of blades, Figure 2.2: Airfoil profiles used in propeller blade [1]
frequency of loading and unloading of air loads on the
propellers blades. Uneven loading along the span of the Two and three blade propellers are using Eppler-193
propellers blade and its variation in frequencies LCF or HCF airfoil, having same geometry and identical plan form. In view
can cause catastrophic fatigue failure of blade elements. Hence of structural integrity, hub section is using NACA 66 – 021
it is very important to characterize and validate the noise level airfoil. Difference only with respect to number of blades,
generated by the propellers at various operating conditions. weights and thrust generating capacity. Figs. 2.3 and 2.4 show
This paper gives the experimentally evaluated results and its the chord and the twist distribution along the span of the
comparative study of thrust, torque, power consumption, propeller blade respectively for both the propellers. Maximum
efficiency, noise level carried out on two and three blade mini chord is taken at 40% and maximum twist is at 25 % of the
propellers of having same diameters and plan form. blade height respectively.

2. Propeller Design Methodology

CSIR-NAL designed, developed, fabricated and

experimentally evaluated mini propellers of 6inch diameter,
two and three bladed propellers of identical plan form, and its
performance is compared [1,10]. The design and development
of 6 inch diameter two and three bladed propellers is reported
by Prathapanayaka et. al [1,10]. Published design details are
discussed in this paper for sake of completeness. The
propulsive efficiencies are evaluated using direct measurement
of propeller shaft torque and thrust from combined torque-force
sensor and, rotational speed through an optical pick up Figure 2.3: Chord distribution along the blade [1]

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 paper, in the same format as given in NACA Technical report
642 [13]. The aerodynamic performance evaluation of 6 inch
diameter 2 and 3 bladed propellers is carried out in low speed
wind tunnel using miniature propeller test setup. Non-
dimensional parameters such as coefficient of thrust, torque and
power are calculated from the measured values [14], using
equations 1, 2, 3 and 4.

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
Thrust Coefficient, 𝐶𝑡 = (1)
𝜌 𝑛 2 𝐷4

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
Power coefficient, 𝐶𝑝 = (2)
𝜌 𝑛 3 𝐷5
Figure 2.4: Twist distribution along the blade [1]
𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒
Torque Coefficient, 𝐶𝑄 = (3)
𝜌 𝑛 2 𝐷5

𝐶
Efficiency, η= ( 𝑡 )J (4)
𝐶𝑝

𝑉∞
Advance ratio, 𝐽=
𝑛𝐷

The solidity ratio of a propeller, σ is defined as the

ratio of the total blade area to that of the disk area. For a
propeller having a constant chord C,
𝐵𝐶𝑅 𝐵𝐶
Blade Solidity σ= =
πR 2 πR
Figure 2.5: Photograph of 2 bladed6”X 5”propeller[1]
𝐵 𝐶𝑜𝑠β
` = 𝐶𝑑𝑟
π µR

Propeller Blade loading or Power loading per blade

4𝑃
= W/m2
𝐵π𝐷 2

3/2
𝐶𝑡
FOM= (5)
𝐶𝑝 √2
Where,

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
𝐶𝑡 = 2 and 𝐶𝑝 = 3 (6)
𝜌𝐴 𝑉𝑡𝑖𝑝 𝜌𝐴 𝑉𝑡𝑖𝑝

3. Performance evaluation of propellers

To evaluate the overall performance of the mini

Figure 2.6: Photograph of 3 bladed 6”X 5” propeller [15]
Given the thin section of the propeller blade profile
and geometry, machining of the blade using metal or any other
material is impractical. Rapid Prototype (RPT) fabrication
using polycarbonate, polyurethane or ABS material has failed
to meet the desired structural integrity, surface finish and
accuracy. In view of this, propellers are fabricated using the
metal mould with CFRP material through injection molding
process under controlled environment to contain the blowholes.
CFRP propellers fabricated using this method gave satisfactory
geometric accuracy, surface finish, structural integrity and
aerodynamic performance [12]. Figs. 2.5 and 2.6 are showing
fabricated 2 and 3 bladed propellers photograph. The
comparative study of these two propellers is presented in this
propellers, a customized propeller test setup is configured by
NAL and which is procured from M/s MAGTROL SA,
Switzerland [2].
Miniature Propeller Test Setup
The propeller test setup is capable of measuring thrust,
torque, rotational speed simultaneously and acquires data close
to real time frame of reference. The propeller test stand can be
placed inside the MAV Aerodynamics Research Tunnel
(MART) and the tunnel can be operated as open jet tunnel with
inbuilt Betz chamber. This would result in an accurate
estimation of propulsive efficiencies of the mini propellers at
uninstalled flight conditions. Figure 3.1 shows the propeller test
setup.
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 varying tunnel velocity. The performance of 2 and 3 blades
propeller is compared for same operating range in section 4.
The noise levels of both the propellers during the experiments
is also measured and compared. A detail of noise level
measurement is explained in below section.

Noise level Study of Two and Three Bladed mini

Propellers
It is very important to characterize and validate the
noise level generated by the propellers at various operating
conditions. The atmospheric pressure is not the same as the
sound pressure. Sound pressure or acoustic pressure is the local
pressure deviation from the ambient (average, or equilibrium)
atmospheric pressure caused by a sound wave. The sound
pressure is the pressure fluctuation in air that the static air
pressure is superimposed. If the tip noise is not a main design
consideration and compressibility, then thin airfoil section and
slightly higher solidity ratios have found to be favorable design
solution [14]. Noise level study is carried out on two and three
Figure 3.1: Propeller test setup bladed mini propellers having identical diameter and plan form
Table 3.1 shows the brief specification of the propeller test using dedicated MAGTROL system as drive unit, handheld
setup. SOUND LEVEL METER [15], and corresponding rotational
TABLE 3.1: Propeller Test setup Specifications speed from handheld PHOTO/CONTACT TACHOMETER.
S.No Components Description The MAGTROL system can accomplish the measurements of
Combined torque- 0.5 N-m and 50 N thrust, torque and rotational speed simultaneously as explained
1 in previous section. The two blade mini propeller rotating in the
force sensor Accuracy class 1, 0.2 % v.E
range of 4500 RPM to 10,000 RPM having blade passing
1.5 kHz switching
Optical speed frequencies in the range of 150 to 333.32 Hz, and whereas three
2 frequency with 0-200 mm
sensor blade mini propellers having blade passing frequencies ranging
sensing range
from 225 Hz to 999.96 Hz is evaluated respectively. These tests
Programmable DC
3 20 V and 38A (with shunt) are carried out at uninstalled condition and outside the wind
Power Source
tunnel. Brief specifications of the equipment and propellers
3 analog outputs range of
4 Power analyzer used in evaluation are given in [10, 16].
± 10 V maximum output
NI cDAQ-9174 chassis with a. Sound level meter:
5 DAQ
module Model: SL-4023SD, Lutron-Handheld sound level meter
RobbeRoxxy BL-Control Power Supply: Alkaline or heavy duty DC 1.5 V Batteries X 6
6 ESC
940-6, 40A Power Current: Approx. DC 51mA
Industrial PC with GPIB DCQ: SD Card Data Logger (SD card real time data Recorder,
7 Computer
interface USB/RS232)
RC timer HP 2812 1300kV Display: Seven segmental LCD
8 Motor
Brushless Microphone: Electric condenser microphone of 12 mm
diameter
Figure 3.2 show photograph of the propeller testing in the low Measurement Range: 30 to 130dB
speed wind tunnel MART [2]. Resolution: 0.1dB
Operating Temperature Range: 0 to 50oC
Measuring distance: Microphone is held approximately 100mm
from the propellers plane of rotation

b. Photo / Contact Tachometer:

Model: DT-2230, Lutron-Handheld Photo/Contact Tachometer
Measurement & Range: Photo Tachometer 5 to 99,999 RPM
Detecting distance 5 to 150 cm
Laser light source, less than 1mW, Class 2 laser diode
Red Wave Length is 645 nm
Powered by Batteries 1.5V AAA x 4
Current: DC 20 mA
Figure 3.2: Propeller test setup in MART [2] Contact Tachometer : 0.5 to 19,999 RPM
Resolution: 1 RPM
Performance evaluation of the both 2 and 3 bladed propellers is Display: LCD, 5 digit display
carried out in MART for different operating conditions by

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 The propellers are mounted on the MAGTROL
customized test stand and are driven by the brushless motor of
the system. The test is conducted at uninstalled condition and
not in the wind tunnel. Hence, it is assumed that the noise
generated is only from the air passing over the propellers
blades. Microphone of the sound level meters is hand held
approximately at a distance of 100 mm in front of the propellers
from the plane of rotation. The propeller is made to rotate at
various speeds and the sound level is recorded in decibels.
Figure 4.8shows the time versus sound level (dB) of the two
bladed propellers rotating at a blade passing frequency of 150
Hz.
0.5 and beyond. Pitch to Diameter ratios of mini propellers are
0.83 and the aircraft propeller is 0.857. Fig.4.8 shows the real
time sound data acquired for two and three blade propellers in
time domain for different rotational speeds. It can be observed
from the figure that the two blade propeller get accelerate
slightly faster than the three blade propellers. Sound level
generated by the three blade propellers is slightly lower than
the two blade propellers as expected. Fig.4.9 shows the
averaged sound levels (averaged) data for a particular speed for
both the propellers and presented in standard format.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The aerodynamic performance evaluation results for 6

inch diameter 2 and 3 bladed propellers are compared. The
motor performance which is used to test the propeller is
important parameter overall propulsive efficiency. AXI-2208
motor is used to test both 2 and 3 bladed propeller in present
work. Figure 4.1 show the rotational speed versus motor
efficiencies and motor input current. From the manufacturer
catalogue, maximum efficiencies of the motor at input current
ratings in the range of 8amp to 12 amp is greater than 75% and
peak of 82 %. In the present case the maximum input current is
3amp and propeller rotating close to 9000 rpm at cruise speed
of 12m/s. It can be observed from the figure that the motor Figure 4.1: Motor Speed versus efficiency, input current
operates at a maximum speed of propeller of 9000 rpm the
maximum motor efficiency is close to 65% and deteriorates
steeply at lower speeds.
Fig.4.2 shows the FOM at varying speeds of two and
three blade propellers. It can be observed from the figure that
the figure of merit for 3 blade propeller is higher than the 2
blade propeller as expected. Fig.4.3 shows the coefficients
thrust generated by two and three blades mini propellers. As
expected the coefficient thrust of three blades have generated
1/3 more thrust than the two blades. The differences in thrust
generated at lower advance ratios are appreciably higher, but at
higher advance ratios the difference become reduced. Though
the thrust generated by the three blade propeller at the cruise
speed is sufficiently higher than the two blades, not much
advantage at higher advance ratios indicating thrust generating
capacity got reduced. Fig.4.4 shows the advance ratios versus
coefficient of torque for both the propellers. Since the torque is Figure 4.2: Figure of merit with varying speed for 2 & 3 bladed
directly proportional to the thrust except for the loss propeller.
mechanism, this curve follows the same trend as thrust curves.
Fig.4.5 shows the advance ratios versus propulsive efficiencies.
Two blade propellers have marginally higher efficiencies over
three blades. Advance ratios beyond 0.8, the measured values
of speed and torque are more oscillatory in nature, hence more
scattering. In the present case, not much importance given for
the advance ratio values beyond 0.8 since it falls outside the
flight conditions of MAVs. Figs.4.6 and 4.7 show the
comparison of Cp at different blade angle of aircraft propellers
having two and three blade [4], as well as mini two and three
blade propellers respectively. This comparison is made for the
blade angle of 20 degrees of the aircraft Clark-Y propeller and
its derived characteristic values from Ref [4], whereas the mini
Eppler propeller is for blade angle of 19.47 degrees. The trends
of characteristic parameter were compared. The coefficient of
power is in good agreement at the operating advance ratios of Figure 4.3: Advance ratio versus coefficient of thrust
5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 Figure 4.7: Power coefficient curves for three bladed propeller
5868-9 with Clark Y profile and NAL propeller with Eppler
Figure 4.4: Advance ratio versus coefficient of torque 193 profile

Figure 4.8: Time versus sound level, rotational speed of 2 and 3

blade propellers
Figure 4.5: Advance ratio versus propulsive efficiency

Figure 4.6: Power coefficient curves for two bladed propeller Figure 4.9: Averaged Sound level versus Rotational speed
5868-9 with Clark Y profile and NAL propeller with Eppler
193 profile.

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

5 CONCLUSIONS 6 REFERENCES

CSIR-NAL designed and developed 6 inch diameter [1] Prathapanayaka, R., Vinod Kumar, N., Krishna Murthy,
two and three bladed mini propellers of identical plan form and S.J., 2011, "Design, Analysis, Fabrication and Testing of
its performance is compared. Characteristic parametric curves Mini Propeller for MAVs", 5th Symposium on Applied
presented in standard format for comparative study shows that Aerodynamics and Design of Aerospace Vehicle,
the trend of coefficients of thrust, torque, and efficiencies Bangalore, SAROD Paper P-061, G-08.
follow the bigger propellers. However mini propellers operate [2] Prathapanayaka, R., Vinod Kumar, N., Santhosh Kumar, S.,
at slightly lower efficiencies in comparison to the bigger Krishna Murthy, S.J., Narendra Sharma., 2015,“Realistic
propellers. Three bladed propellers generate 30% higher thrust Assessment of Efficiencies of Micro Air Vehicle
by marginal weight and efficiency penalty, and operating at Propellers” Inter National Journal of Innovative Research
lower noise level. Take-off performance of three blade propeller in Science, Engineering and Technology, 4(2)pp. 442–449.
is better than two blade propeller. Not much appreciable gain [3] Nelson, W.C., 1944, “Airplane Propeller Principles”, John
by operating beyond the advance ratios of 0.8. Efforts will Wiley, London.
greatly help micro vehicle configuration designers with [4] Edwin, P. H., and David, B., 1938, “The Aerodynamic
different choice. Characteristics of Full Scale Propeller having 2, 3 and 4
Blades of Clark-Y and R.A.F.6 Airfoil Sections”,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Technical Report No. 640, NACA.
The authors wish to acknowledge NPMICAV- ADE [5] Jan Roskam., Chuan-Tau, E. L., 2003, “Airplane
for sponsoring this project. Authors also wish to acknowledge Aerodynamics and Performance”, DAR Corporation,
the support given by Director, CSIR-NAL, Head, Propulsion, Lawrence, USA,pp.296 – 330, Chap.7.
MAV Division, Propulsion workshop and CSMST Division for [6] Reid, E .G., 1945, “Studies of Blade Shank Form and Pitch
completing this work. Distribution for Constant Speed Propellers”, Technical
Report No. 947, NACA.
NOMENCLATURE [7] Amith Kathri., Private communication, CCADD, NAL-
CSIR.
ABS Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene [8] Fred. E. Wicks, B.S., 1930, “Aircraft Propeller design”
B Number of blades First Edition, Eleventh Impression, McGrew-Hills Book
Cp Power Coefficient (Power/ρn3D5) Company Inc., Newyork and London.
CQ Torque Coefficient (Torque/ ρn2D5) [9] http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
CT Thrust Coefficient (Thrust/ ρn2D4) [10] Prathapanayaka, R., VinodKumar, N., Santhosh Kumar, S.,
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Veera Sesha Kumar., Krishna Murthy, S. J., 2014, “Design
CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Development of Three Bladed Propeller for Micro Air
D Propeller Diameter, m Vehicle”, International Journal of Robotics and
FOM Figure of Merit Mechatronics (IJRM), 2, pp.53-61.
J Advance ratio [11] Larrabee, E. E., 1979, "Practical Design of Minimum
MART MAV Aerodynamic Research Tunnel Induced Loss Propellers", SAE paper 790585.
MAV Micro Air Vehicle [12] Mohana Sundaram, M.E., Prathapanayaka, R., Vinod
NAL National Aerospace Laboratories Kumar, N., Krishna Murthy, S. J., Radha Krishna., 2014,
P Power, W “Machining of Free Form Surface with Enclosed Wall of
Q Torque, N-m Three Bladed Mini Propeller Mould” International
R Radius of propeller, m Conference on Advances in Manufacturing and Materials
Re Reynolds number Engineering (AMME), NITK, Surathkal, Karnataka, India.
RPM Rotations Per Minute [13] David, B., and Edwin, P. H., 1938, “ Tests of Five Full
T Thrust, N Scale Propellers in the Presence of a Radial and Liquid –
V Specified flight speed, m/s Cooled Engine Nacelle, including Tests of the Spinners”,
c Blade chord, m Technical Report No. 642, NACA.
n Propeller rotational speed, rps [14] Talapurkara, E.G., "Lecture Notes on Flight Dynamics",
r Radius at section, m Chap.4, 2011, IIT Madras.
β Blade angle (Twist), degree [15] Stack, J., Eugene, C., Draley., James, B., Delano., and
µ Radius ratio (r/R) Lewis, F., 1950, “Investigation of the NACA 4 - (3)(08) -
ρ Density of air, kg/m3 03 and NACA 4-(3)(08)-045 Two Blade Propellers at
η Propulsive Efficiency Forward Mach Numbers to 0.725 to determine the effects
of Compressibility and Solidity on Performance”,
Subscripts Technical Report No. 999, NACA.
[16] „Lutron-Handheld sound level meter‟ Operational manual,
∞ Free stream condition Model: SL-4023SD.
tip Propeller blade tip

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

View publication stats