2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello PlatinumZealot

You write:
  • "Looking at the tetrahedron mechanism how does it resist bending loads at the root of the propeller blades and keep the blades from exessive coning?

At 4,000rpm of the PatPitch propeller, the centrifugal force acting on a blade is 885Kgf (8850N), see previous post, while the aerodynamic lift on the blade is less than 30Kgf (300N).

Suppose the “tetrahedron” leaves free the blades to make as much “coning” as they like.

Atan(30/885) = 2 degrees

This is so small that it is OK.

In some initial versions of the Portable Flyer, an excessive “coning” (i.e. a wide angle of some 170 degrees between the propeller blades) was proposed in order to have intermeshing propellers whose rotation axes were at substantially shorter distance than the length of the blades.

Image

In this case (above animation) to maintain the “coning” you need such a “stiffness to weight” ratio that the current material cannot cope.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Rodak

You write:
  • "Hey nzjrs, it would be interesting if you could submit manolis' 'portable flyer' to those engineers and ask their opinions on controllability, etc."

Smart and useful suggestion.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Tommy Cookers
620
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

if the tetrahedron-linkage PP is compliant in coning it is also compliant to flapping
coning being the blade angle displacement in common and flapping being the difference in blade angle displacement

in a non-PF application ie without contra-rotation etc ....
the displacement will be distributed between coning and flapping according to body AoA (between 0 deg and 90 deg etc)
a coning (or rigid prop) action produces (primary) 'yaw' moment, a flapping action produces (primary) 'side force'

but the basic issue (of pitch increase needing rpm increase) seems perverse for non-PF applications ie winged aircraft
a non-tetrahedron type PP 'linkage' (no coning or flapping) might be attractive ... but .....

as pitch increase with little or no rpm increase or pitch increase with rpm decrease are needed ....
and such characteristics appear to need another 'mechanical signal' contributing to pitch change ....
such a signal might require coning

even with this signal would there still be fundamental limitations/problems in (automatic) pitch regulation ?
and they would need part-time operator intervention - as current VP aka 'CS' designs do today


regarding octocopters eg EHang - don't they maintain a large vertical thrust vector by having only a small horizontal one ?
so there's less need for VP (given that electric drive is better than ICE eg in trading rpm for torque etc)
my guess is that they already have a VP repertoire available via the structural properties of the props
these might even include changes in blade twist

manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Tommy Cookers.

You write:
  • “ if the tetrahedron-linkage PP is compliant in coning it is also compliant to flapping
    coning being the blade angle displacement in common and flapping being the difference in blade angle displacement

What I wrote is:
“Suppose the “tetrahedron” leaves free the blades to make as much “coning” as they like.”

The “tetrahedron” holds the blade restricting the “coning”.

But even if the tetrahedron allows coning, it doesn’t mean it allows the flapping, too. It depends on the way the blade is supported.



You write:
  • “regarding octocopters eg EHang - don't they maintain a large vertical thrust vector by having only a small horizontal one ?
    so there's less need for VP (given that electric drive is better than ICE eg in trading rpm for torque etc)
    my guess is that they already have a VP repertoire available via the structural properties of the props
    these might even include changes in blade twist”

From their designs, it doesn’t seem they have “variable pitch via structural properties of the propeller”.


Quote from https://www.ehang.com/news/225.html

“As for a multi-rotor aircraft, the propeller is the most important power driver, which affects the aircraft dynamic performance, flight stability, noise and many other core indicators.

We have designed and upgraded three versions of the EHang 184 propeller. The first-generation propeller mainly meets the requirement of flight test in early flight. In the second generation, its performance is further improved that the limit drag of the single propeller reached 87kg, meeting the need of EHang 184 flight in a variety of environments. The third-generation propeller design not only improved the aerodynamic efficiency for 10%-15%, but also reduced the noise generated by rotation.

Image

In order to conduct testing more technically and accurately, we designed and developed two kinds of testbed, separately used for the propellers testing and the power system components testing. The propellers testbed mounted with high-power motors up to 27 kilowatts, enable to test as huge as 100-kilograms limit drag of the propellers. Meanwhile, we also designed and developed the host computer system for the testbed, which is able to collect specific data of EHang 184 propellers and then conduct spectrum analysis and algorithm processing to these original data, so as to detect where the vibrational coupling concentrates."

End of Quote


With PatPitch propellers and two modes of operation:

a take-off / hovering mode wherein the electric motors rev at lower rpm and the propellers run at a lower pitch,

and

a cruise mode wherein the electric motors revs at higher revs forcing a larger propeller pitch,

the range, the flight duration and the maximum cruise speed of the e-Hang would increase.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Propellor thing, sorry for hijack.
Last edited by coaster on 01 Jun 2020, 11:00, edited 1 time in total.

Tommy Cookers
620
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

'variable pitch via the structural properties of the propeller' ??

as I posted a few days ago the DUC Swirl could be said to give this
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/ ... ellers.php

claiming 'constant speed' behaviour - very little variation of rpm from static running to dynamic
via design giving 'greatest stress in torsion and bending'

it seems that the blades are designed to twist along their length
DUC discounts any root/hub effect - separating the feature of CS effect from the feature of ground-adjustability of pitch

pitch change along the blade aka twisting the blade would seem to be effective (at these flight speeds anyway)
and something that traditional and established VP methods can't/don't offer

I guess EHang knows this - and its possible value to octocopters
is the DUC design patented ?

this seems to explain how in suitable composite blades centrifugal loads produce pitch/twist changes
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4627791A/en
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 02 Jun 2020, 10:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Manolis, do you plan to use an expansion chamber exhaust? The nazis developed it for the ramjet missile and a former pnemunde nazi scientist who fled the invading russians took the technology to suzuki, which won them lots of races.
Maybe the chamber could be incorporated into the airframe of your twin propellor hat yes?

Could we rename the thread to recognise Mr Patakos time and energy devoted to these unusual and interesting ideas?

tok-tokkie
36
Joined: 08 Jun 2009, 16:21
Location: Cape Town

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

coaster wrote:
01 Jun 2020, 13:57
Manolis, do you plan to use an expansion chamber exhaust? The nazis developed it for the ramjet missile and a former pnemunde nazi scientist who fled the invading russians took the technology to suzuki, which won them lots of races.
Maybe the chamber could be incorporated into the airframe of your twin propellor hat yes?

Could we rename the thread to recognise Mr Patakos time and energy devoted to these unusual and interesting ideas?
Goodness! You have got that story wrong.

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

tok-tokkie wrote:
01 Jun 2020, 18:15
coaster wrote:
01 Jun 2020, 13:57
Manolis, do you plan to use an expansion chamber exhaust? The nazis developed it for the ramjet missile and a former pnemunde nazi scientist who fled the invading russians took the technology to suzuki, which won them lots of races.
Maybe the chamber could be incorporated into the airframe of your twin propellor hat yes?

Could we rename the thread to recognise Mr Patakos time and energy devoted to these unusual and interesting ideas?
Goodness! You have got that story wrong.
You not hear of the Degna's in Moscow? :D
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

My source was a book called "stealing speed", i was led to beleive it was a true story?
Ernest Degner? Eastern bloc germany? Maybe i forgot, its been over 10 years since reading.
Im off topic now, back to the twin propellor thingamajig.

Rodak
35
Joined: 04 Oct 2017, 03:02

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Off topic, but I didn't know the reason this turn was so named.
From Wikipedia:
On 3 November 1962 at Suzuka's inaugural race meeting, Degner crashed his Suzuki 50cc racer when a gust of wind lifted his front wheel as he rounded Turn 8. At that time Turn 8 was a single constant radius single curve that was changed into two 'curves' in 1983. To mark Suzuka's first ever crash site, Turn 8, where Degner had crashed, was named Degner Curve.

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Rodak wrote:
01 Jun 2020, 21:16
Off topic, but I didn't know the reason this turn was so named.
From Wikipedia:
On 3 November 1962 at Suzuka's inaugural race meeting, Degner crashed his Suzuki 50cc racer when a gust of wind lifted his front wheel as he rounded Turn 8. At that time Turn 8 was a single constant radius single curve that was changed into two 'curves' in 1983. To mark Suzuka's first ever crash site, Turn 8, where Degner had crashed, was named Degner Curve.
It is summed up here.
https://www.motorcycleclassics.com/clas ... 0z1202zsch
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

manolis
107
Joined: 18 Mar 2014, 10:00

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Tommy Cookers.

You write:
  • “as I posted a few days ago the DUC Swirl could be said to give this
    https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/ ... ellers.php

    claiming 'constant speed' behaviour - very little variation of rpm from static running to dynamic via design giving 'greatest stress in torsion and bending'

    it seems that the blades are designed to twist along their length
    DUC discounts any root/hub effect - separating the feature of CS effect from the feature of ground-adjustability of pitch
    pitch change along the blade aka twisting the blade would seem to be effective (at these flight speeds anyway)
    and something that traditional and established VP methods can't/don't offer”

Quote from the above DUC propellers link

“The aerodynamic properties of this propeller have been designed to have a "constant speed" effect. The blades that are made from unidirectional layers of carbon fiber prepeg epoxy and their structure has been defined in order to obtain the maximum stresses in torsion and bending. Therefore the effect of "constant speed" is not related to the deformation of the blade but its geometry and its particular profile.

Do I miss something?


You write:
The link seems wrong: it returns a patent of 1891 for a “SHOE BUCKLE”.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Tommy Cookers
620
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

my apologies M P
it was US4627791A
also US6155784A seems interesting

regardless of DUC's poor explanations their product seems to be available and possibly useful re the PF
so this seems a positive outcome of your request of some days ago

Rodak
35
Joined: 04 Oct 2017, 03:02

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

I suspect, manolis, you are applying the 'rocket pendulum fallacy ' incorrectly. In the disputation of the rocket pendulum the structure is rigid and the c.g. does not change. You require the structure to be flexible and the c.g. to change in order to control your machine.

The reason the Flyboard is so easily controllable is that it emulates the directional control system of rockets; the engine (water jet) pivots on its thrust axis (ankles) to change the thrust vector. You're not doing that.

Post Reply