|
Post by capflyer on Dec 14, 2008 15:17:54 GMT -5
There were single bladed props on full-sized airplanes, but mostly were confined to low HP aircraft (less than 60HP typically) and most went to 2-blade props as while the 1-blade was slightly lighter and more efficient, the number of "you're missing a blade" complaints was too much for most, so they went to a traditional prop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2008 14:02:05 GMT -5
There were single bladed props on full-sized airplanes, but mostly were confined to low HP aircraft (less than 60HP typically) and most went to 2-blade props as while the 1-blade was slightly lighter and more efficient, the number of "you're missing a blade" complaints was too much for most, so they went to a traditional prop. Even though in theory a single bladed propeller is more efficient. The unbalanced thrust load from the blade loading the crankshaft on one side would put tremendous stress loading into the nose bearing pack and housing. Multiple blades evenly spaced will balance that factor out, reducing internal stress.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Dec 16, 2008 17:02:45 GMT -5
Normally, single bladed props had a counterweight on the other side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2008 19:00:21 GMT -5
Normally, single bladed props had a counterweight on the other side. Yes, the counterweight side, would have a load vector going perpendicular to the prop shaft centerline, as it would not be providing thrust. The blade side would have the same load vector in addition to one at a forward angle due to thrust loading on the face of the propeller.
|
|