This Propeller will Change Aviation Forever!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ก.ค. 2024
- Are you curious about how propellers work? Do you want to know what makes them so special? Then you need to watch this video!
In this video, we'll take a look at the revolutionary Toroidal propeller - a propeller that will change aviation forever! With this new propeller, planes will be able to travel much faster and quiter than ever before.
#Toroidalpropeller #aviation
Subscribe for More
The Beyond - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I’ll say it’ll change aviation forever - a Cessna 172 with a half ton of bronze hanging off the front would definitely be changed ! 👍🏻
Haha…yes :)
noooo, will be 3 kg of carbon fiber ...
😆
@@gulfstream-tvstudios9546 Since a standard fixed pitch carbon prop (Sensenich) for a 172 is about 6 KG I doubt this new prop shape could come in anywhere under 20kg.
It doesn't have to be bronze, it could be carbon fiber
That clip from Mark Rober did not use toroidal propellors, fyi. There are definitely costs to this design. Two off the top of my head are that it is much heavier and it will have significant problems with implementing a variable pitch design. Both of which are very significant to aviation. Hopefully those problems will be solved eventually.
Imagine a scimitar blade being pitched
Slice the toroidal where the trailing half begins to experience stress decline
Make a flexible bridge between the segments
Yeah, easy as pie, not. But within the realm of realistic expectation.
I have to agree.
To be able to go all the way from feather and to disk and sometimes even continue to reverse are all important feature of a modern aviation propeller for a turboprop today.
For small drones, it would be a bit different since they got different requirement for their propeller.
If and when electric motors replace engines, variable pitch will be potentially obsolete, speed controllers will take care of it.
@@lodgecav490 Variable pitch is not there only to control thrust, but also to optimize the propeller efficiency at different air speeds and rpms (related to blades angle of attack). You can't replace this with more flexible speed control.
“And for that reason, I’m out”
- Mark Cuban
In the Mark Rober clip, that drone did NOT use a toroidal propeller…the design is completely different.
Exactly
Don’t let facts in the way
I love the "this will change something for ever" as if hundreds of aeronautical engineers from huge companies wouldn't have done it or at least thought about it before
This idea has possibilities but has a limited application in aviation. I can't see how the pitch of the blades could ever be made variable and the 'dead-engine' drag in the glide would be unacceptable. Drones certainly have a need for quieter operation but the big opportunity must be in under-water turbines for tidal power generation. New ideas are always exciting but I have seen claims of 101 % efficiency - clearly ill informed !
Need collective pitch control on our quads. That will revolutionize drones. Like the wheel or fire. Lol. Turbo prop our drones yo
@@Nanoblaster77 what do you think the three phase electronic speed controllers are for? Mechanical collectives will never be as fast as ESCs
@Cayenne no bro. I dont want to spend batt power on breaking amd spolling back up. Collective pitch control on all 4 props will change the game. Also speed Battery efficiency all that goes up with collective pitch. I'm a helicopter pilot trust me when I say. I like my motor to stay at a constant rpm when i'm doing tic tocks. If ya know what a real 3d ticktock is. On top of that The mechanical part of the Turbo prop is all the way down to a 10000 of a second with the digital high speed servo again helicopter pilot. Here. I know what I'm talking about I've also seen the math. Please give me more reasons to go on. It will increase everything about your drone even the sound
@@Nanoblaster77 There already are collective variable pitch quad copters. They are mechanically complicated so more expensive and less popular.
@@cayenne7792 CCPM is far far faster then motors can change speed. Look at RC helicopters.
Animals, especially the marine variety I would imagine, will probably appreciate this innovation the most. Our propellers have been unnecessarily obnoxious for so long! I hope this is a relief for them!
I think one thing they need to consider are fluid variables. You can design a single propeller for water because it's relative pressure/temperature remains within certain parameters. While in flight, you're soaring through differing pressure/temperatures all the time plus the variables of the motor that turn it. (both electrical or combustion style motors)
It's also not the end all be all for marine either. In the best conditions it's able to achieve up to 20% more fuel efficiency as claimed on some testing. But thats everything goes right testing, make one variable poor for the test and you radically drop efficiency. It's going to be a rather benign change that will affect the bleeding edge of the boating market, as well as the extremes. But starting at $5,000 for a 200HP marine motor really isn't very enticing considering a standard prop only costs $200-300. It's not like buying an engine for the boat either, props don't last forever. It's like buying a set of tires for the boat, at least if you want any performance. Sure smaller boats run their props for the better part of 30 years in slow lake boating as long as they don't prop strike anything. But take any bay boat and you are looking at a lifespan of less than 10 years.
soaring so high above the world, never thought i could feel so free
im one with the birds, and magic is all i see
@@evanfinch4987 lsd is good
The one application I’ve seen that seemed to have a lot of potential was continuous wings on planes that curve back to the fuselage.
I'm curious if classified naval submarines are already using a design like this. They go to great effort to conceal the props when subs are in dry dock. It could make sense considering how important it is for submarines to operate as quietly as possible.
Not quite but seawolf and ohio's propellers are ducted
Just look at USA propellers advantage over USSR until they purchased CNC technology from Toshiba.
Dive to find out
No, but they are odd numbers of blades, and subtle differences to spread the sound across a range of frequencies rather than all at the same, reducing the power at any given frequency.
@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha USSR made quietest submarine, "black hole", why USA didn't buy same technologies?
I love that they decided to photoshop a boat propeller to the front of a Cessna. Well done
An April foolish ship propeller...
You can plainly see at 3:43 the top outboard engines prop produces no cavitation just exhaust gases. Absolutely ingenious design!
Best used to keep submarines quiet 🤫
I'm skeptical that this would be usable on airplanes. Drones and boats yes, but not manned airplanes. Two main issues with that, plus another speculation:
- Variable pitch: All but the smallest airplanes use variable pitch propellers, and I can't see any way of incorporating that into this. Not a problem for drones and most water vessels, which typically use fixed-pitch propellers.
- Centrifugal force on the hoop section. Normal propellers have straight blades for a reason, the immense force pulling outward is along their length, keeping them straight - a curved blade would be pulled straight. A toroidal propeller the size of an airplane propeller spinning at airplane propeller speeds would pull itself out of shape unless it's immensely heavy. Weight is also a concern, this would be much heavier than a normal propeller. This isn't as big a concern for boat or drone propellers that are much smaller, or on large ships spin much slower, centrifugal force is a much smaller component of the load on them. Drones can use lightweight (3d printed in experimental designs shown here) plastic, and boats have small propellers and are less weight sensitive.
- Actually a third thing comes to mind, even more technical: these look like somewhat wider-chord blades. Smaller propellers and moving slower through their respective fluids results in a lower Reynolds number, with viscosity a more major factor (water is much more viscous than air but also denser, the ratio of viscosity to density is fairly similar, so the same object at the same speed through air or water would have similar Reynolds numbers). I believe that this is why boat propellers, as well as desk fans, typically have rounded scoop-like blades, while airplane propellers are longer, thinner wing-like blades. TL;DR I'm skeptical how well this will scale to the size and speed of an airplane propeller from an aerodynamic perspective.
The graph at 3:34 actually shows a drastic decrease in thrust if you would be able to read you would notice the blue one being an HQ prop and the orange one being the toroidal prop
Lol, environmentalists always trying to pull a fast one on us. Idiots.
Hmmm … how would you manage to incorporate variable pitch into these things.
If it could do it without compromising the operation then the aviation community would have your ear.
Love that you use a propeller that looks nothing like the toroidal shape to show how quiet it can be.
As an aero engineer I can tell you this is complete tosh.
The graph at 3:41 shows the prop produces more thrust then the new design. Opposite to that stated
Interesting. A very long time ago when I was still in university, we all knew that the centre of the prop doesn’t do much work and it was all done by the edge, so we experimented with sickle shaped props. But they were too fragile. It never even occurred to me the toroidal design to reconnect the end of the sickle back to the base. That’s brilliant if you can get it to work! 🤓
😢😊😊😊
doesen't the graph at 3:40 contraddict the thesis that toroidal is more efficient? we can see that for the same motor utilization the HQ prop generates much more thrust...
Yes, well spotted!
3:35 The orange curve is from a Toroidal Propeller, the blue one from a conventional Propeller. It shows that the Toroidal design is significantly less efficient. Exactly the opposite of what you're trying to tell us.
If a type could be designed that has a pitcheable thrust , by changing the shape somehow (for example being able to slide in and out on the axle in terms of length and simultaneously changing pitch angle) , then its function analog to a GA constant speed propellor would be even better .
I think these would be great for electric foil boards, hydrofoil bikes, and pedal kayaks. That is if they are substantially more efficient.
I learned about toroidal propellors a while ago as a new design for use in ships and immediately wondered if they could be used the same way in planes and also wind turbines since the principles are largely the same.
Nope it's not the same. The advantage of toroidal props is that they reduce cavitation but that only applies to water. In air they would be a little more efficient and quieter but its not the same efficiency gain as a water prop. And only applicable to multi rotors
@@ChrisG1392 then u guys know that Mark Rober's "I cannot believe that's airborne" hook was for a NON-toroidal prop ;) th-cam.com/video/DOWDNBu9DkU/w-d-xo.html
I haven't seen any toroidal propellers on ships.
When I saw these toroidal propellers I wondered how long it would take for shipping companies to change over.
In applications where these propellers are lined up in series, would the downstream prop have a more aggressive pitch or even counter rotate?
The noise is called Cavitation. A submarine's nightmare.
Very interesting but only to replace fixed pitch propellers...
Exactly!
But there are MUCH fixed propellers to swap.
@@DirkHav agree!
This looks very interesting. While not controllable pitch, and more massive than a conventional 2-blade propeller on a airplane, I would expect it to be made of lighter weight material that could flex, giving the effect of controllable pitch. An advantage I see for aircraft would be substantially reduced risk of engine damage in a prop strike accident.
Variable pitch seems to be an essential part of performance, particularly in aircraft that fly to high altitudes. It's particularly relevant for multi engine aircraft in the event of power failure, so how would this work?
physic is the rule and everything else is opinion. you can't have a propeller more efficient than single blade. However, Single blade doesn't have weight balance, So 2 blades is as efficient as it's physically possible
Another flash in the pan. Sure it looks like an wonderfully complex gift from heaven. Sure it’s got a sexy form. But we long long ago learned that surface area costs drag and small disk diameter reduces thrust. Yet both are inherent in this prop. And, in an airplane, weight is everthing and this design will never be light for the needed disk diameter. What may be gained in reduced tip vortex will be lost several times over in lower thrust, greater drag and very high weight. Perhaps Hartzell and Sensenich and all them wind turbin folks know what they are doig.
thoughtful answer... science is calling
Oh! I forget about ice! Those closed loops sure ain’t gonna shed ice as easily as a straight blade. Bet this prop would look like a twerling snowman and would lose all thrust when you need it most.
As a mechanical engineer who has had to deal with the dynamics of mechanical systems for over 40 years, this propeller looks like it will be a dynamics nightmare on an airplane. It won't be so bad in water due to the damping effects of that fluid, but air does not have near the damping properties. Weight will also be a problem. Modern materials will help that, but not eliminate it.
Thank you, finally a realistic potential tech breakthrough.
This would be fascinating in use on submarines where cavitation and rpm issues are paramount in staying quiet. If you could reduce the rpm of the screw on a sub by 20% and also reduce the noise by the same amount it would be a real game changer in giving subs the advantage over surface ships.
If you don't think the engineers haven't tried it yet, you must not know our army well.
@@lifeintornadoalley submarine screws cost millions of dollars and installing them takes weeks (if memory serves). Testing this would be a huge endeavour
@@rfjohnson69 we've tested worse for years
I wanna see a toroidal turbo-prop. The problem with aviation use, especially with longer range aircraft that fly at various speeds and altitude is blade pitch. There currently isn't any way to adjust blade pitch on toroidal props during flight, so we won't be seeing them on aircraft for quite some time. The only solution I can think of is maybe blade warping. A carbon fiber and spring steel blade that can be warped to different pitches, since they are a continuous hoop shape.
I was thinking the same, no blade pitch adjustment. I was also thinking maybe the higher the rpm the higher the centrifugal forces which could “wrap” the toroidal shape to the corresponding resonating form. But is limited by material properties
Hi. Existing aircraft propellers are about 80% efficient so there's little room for improvement. Certainly not a doubling of aerodynamic power delivered, 100% is the theoretical maximum.
Efficiency depends upon the pitch of the blades and the altitude of the aircraft, so a "one size fits all" approach isn't possible either. The reason propellers haven't changed since the Wright Brothers, is that they established the science behind them and the only improvement possible that significantly improved efficiency was variable pitch. Extrapolating from slightly improved performance on low altitude model drones to full scale aircraft at various speeds, heights, and power levels isn't warranted. Cheers, P.R.
I don't think a variable pitch Toroidal propeller is likely to ever happen.
@@mojoneko8303 Hi. Probably not, however for constant speed constant power constant pressure uses such as ships and hydroelectric turbines, a toroidal turbine could increase efficiency by 10%. For Norway and NZ that's a lot of extra carbon free electricity in their national grids. Cheers, P.R.
So if this propeller is so much better, we should be seeing them every where very soon,
They can't be molded due to their shape. Printing is necessary. This limits the materials used and drives up the practical cost.
@@FlatOutFEthey are machining from billet for boats. $10,000 each.
@@FlatOutFE To use an over used term, it's it's a "game changer" then the cost should be worth it and eventually more efficient ways of production will be found.
@@riogrande5761 , I don't think it's a "game changer".
@@FlatOutFE Bingo!
So aside from the real world benefits in watercraft, so far all the you-tube channels that have tested this design have shown they are quieter but less efficient by a factor of four.
I'll believe it when they hit the markets. These will sell like crazy in the rc hobby and won't cost much more than what's out there already. But I have my doubts it's really that good.
The tests I’ve seen on drones with 3d printed versions of these have been louder than normal props and much more prone to spontaneous catastrophic failure. There’s a lot engineering problems this design introduces. Maybe with the correct materials these could work but the additional forces mean they’d need something vastly superior to steel to manifest any advantage over standard propellers. Just the centrifugal forces on these in a vacuum is enough to demonstrate why they’re prone to failure.
@@randomclick2826 that's because they are 3D printed. They aren't as accurate and the layer lines make them weaker.
Researched and found to be a dead end over a half century ago. The prop itself would create so much additional drag and cause greater fuel consumption at higher speeds that you get a quieter, more efficient flight by reducing the speed you fly with a standard prop. Might have a benefit in tiny rc drones but upscaling would cancel out any advantages.
Awesome news! So will this be open sourced by MIT? This new finding could be used in dozens of fans in homes to reduce energy use and so many others.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see at the graph shown at 3:35 it is exactly the opposite, the orange curve is the toroidal propeller and given the same engine power, it has less thrust.
Well spotted. You are correct! There are many holes in this presentation - even toriodal ones!
Yeah, it'll change it for fixed pitch applications to an extent (stress limitations for larger props), but not variable pitch applications
First thing I thought of when I watched this. How on earth do you optimize the pitch of this thing for different flight modes?
@@BangkokBubonaglia the same way you optimise any propeller, based on your performance requirements
@@dogjennings1171 Except requirements change during different phases of the flight. I highly doubt anyone is going to volunteer to climb out on the wing and replace the propeller with a different design so you can transition to cruise from climb mode. The angle of attack of the blades needs to be continuously adjustable over range. That is easy with the conventional design. I don't see how that can be done here without T-2 like liquid metal.
@@BangkokBubonaglia how do you think other fixed pitch propellers account for different phases of flight?
"not only does it seem quieter" is a promising statement
You got to love the *PERPETUAL MOTION PEOPLE* and the *SQUARING THE CIRCLE PEOPLE* ... Not very bright, but what soul!
Thats very interesting
I wonder if it could be used for compressors and turbines in jet engines although I don’t think it will do much for noise considering the combustion
Im guessing it would be heavier too
The main issue I see with widespread adoption in aviation communities is the Tori le with changing pitch with a toroidal prop. I'm not sure how you'd do that (or if it's even necessary for that matter). The design is just so new.
Motorsport has been using this on wing design for many years. MotoGP has designs similar to this on the front of their bikes.
NOW, with your aeroplane, mes amis, you can easily mix a pasel of cake batter...Sweet !
The only way this would work on GA planes, is if they had electric propulsion, which is capable of near-instantaneous torque changes. It also would create far too much drag in a dead engine scenario.
Add to that, toroidal shapes are subjected to far higher centrifugal stress than a standard prop, which translates to material fatigue, especially under load. Therefore, time before replacement could theoretically be much lower than standard props.
Overall, good for drones and other electric applications with very little load, never make it in GA.
It will be interesting to see how industries use this. Twin prop freighters now tend to allow prop featering so if an engine goes out on the ocean, the boat can stop the drag. Same with planes. So this design would really help in boats or planes with multiple engines. It only works in basic needs like a fixed angle single prop for planes or any boat where drag on a broken engine matters a low (ie not on your speed boat but on a freight liner)
if you have to hear about something on youtube first instead of the news.. then I call buillshit :) lol
The graph visible at 3:40 contradicts what you say. The orange line shows the thrust generated by the toroidal propeller, and at maximum engine power it generates only 40% lift of conventional propeller.
This needs to be applied to pc fans. Edit: nvm way ahead of me lol
I'd definitely love to have them fans inside of my computer. I can still hear my GPU and case fans spin when I play games and it heats up in there. Could go with water coolers but those still have fans.
Have they tested if the efficiency gains carry through to windmill blade design?
There are not any actual efficiency gains. You need only read the actual mit paper to see that.
Got a long way to go in aviation...How would you feather a prop for single engine operations on a twin?
Does that invention also apply to wind power plants? What about cooling systems or any other kind of propeller?
Didn't Zipline developed their own silent blade propellers? The devs explained that it was inspired by nature when they observed how quiet an owl can flap it's wings.
Link?
@@saltydecimator th-cam.com/video/DOWDNBu9DkU/w-d-xo.html
@@saltydecimator mark robers vid
You often see planes with the tip of the wing that is bent upwards. That thing is called "winglet". An example is at 5:56. It doesn't produce lifting force, and it's purpose is to minimize the difference of pressure between the upper part and the lower part of the wing. This difference of pressure generates a vortex at the wingtip. A vortex is loss of energy, and a winglet minimize this loss, thus increasing the efficiency.
Now look at the toroidal propeller: the furthest part from the center is vertical, and generates no lift. It's like the winglet. So the toroidal propeller is a "regular" propeller with a built-in winglet. That's why it's more efficient.
Good thought. I looked at it more as a ducted design that contains the duct as part of the prop.
Any fan would likely benefit from this as well.
What I find interesting is this propeller was patented in the 1970s.
You show a graph of grams of thrust plotted against motor utilization percentage, which clearly shows that the toroidal prop generates 30% of thrust of the conventional prop when at max load, am I reading it wrong? It would mean that the toroidal prop is efectively a gimmick, not applicable to anything in the real life, except when the noise is crucial
Just tell us how much static force / per 1kW of power. Thank You.
Yes..... that's what I was hoping for. Quite an easy test to carry out.
?
@@nixy49 this is just investment hype to generate viewership data
Personally I love the sound of a propeller on an aircraft. Nothing sweeter than four of them being spun by 4360's.
Your content keeps me sane.
Yep, I immediately thought of the manufacturing cost being high for these. I imagine this could be easily done with injection molding, or even 3d printed, for small applications such as drones. Metal machining is a whole different story
3D printer titanium can be done on smaller scales for affordable pricing. I ride bikes, and a company called Atherton Bikes manufacture a frame with all the joining high stress points of the frame are made of said titanium. It’s a clean and affordable process now.
This could be a real game changer for part 103 ultra light fuel carry limits. Substantially increased fly times.
For aviation, weight has been repeatedly mentioned as a serious concern, with the assumption that the propellers will be made of aluminum or brass. Let's get some aerospace engineers on the case here and find out if that can be addressed using composites or some other new material. They may also be able to come up with some ideas regarding constant speed props, variable pitch props, and feathering for out of power situations. Of course, solutions to each of those problems will add to the cost of the final product, but we're going to have to explore the limits sooner or later anyway.
What about carbon fiber?
@@writerconsidered Yes, carbon fiber is considered a composite material, and may be a potential solution. I'm reasonably certain in the 30 years since I worked in the aerospace industry, additional materials have been introduced that may merit consideration. Older materials may also be a part of the solution such as fiberglass, just to pick one.
Of course you could build a toroidal propeller from CFRP. The problem is: Why should anyone? Todays turbojet engines have nacelles, they already remove the vortices from the blades. The trend for the future is open rotor though because nacelles induce drag solely from being in the wind, which also limits its size - and so would toroidal propellers. The trend is large open fan engines for the future where the blades are shaped in way that the vortices dont happen - without the huge useless and draggy surface area of toroidals.
they found the owl wings
I wonder if it's possible to ask an AI to design the perfect propeller form - it could try billions of different designs inside a simulated environment and work out which design is the quietest or most effective. It would suprise me if somebody isn't working on this already.
I also thinking same
looks like it's three times the weight of a normal prop
Yes but what if the power required per unit static(?) thrust was half, say.
no, 3 kg of carbon fiber
@@gulfstream-tvstudios9546 So a regular prop, made of the same carbon fiber, would weigh 1 kg.
Considering the size of that thing, doubt it will have a practical application in aviation, at least within the next 20 years.
Current propellers are aimed at ease of maintenance, production cost and practicality.
While noise is of concern, reliability and costs are more important in aviation.
Perhaps in a future new type certificated aircraft it will be practical, but not today, unless manufacturers address the size/weight of that thing, and how much it is gonna cost to put on aircraft vs current propellers.
Exciting for boats and small drones but probably not for airplanes. Ducted propellers have been known to be more efficient for a very long time. Turbines are a form of that. The problem I see with toroidal propellers is the inability to vary pitch or to feather. They might be applicable for ultralight airplanes and some light aircraft. It'd be hard to "prop" the engine to start it though.
I would be most interested to see this on a contra rotating setup on an aircraft and if it will be even more efficient.
I want a house fan with one of these in it.
Also impressive results on boat motors as well.
This propeller design originates in Tasmania in 1971. It was developed by David B. Sugden, an engineer consulting to The Robbins Company
It was actually developed by Ughi-Bija (Yellow Monkey) in Wakanda 2300 BC
and if all this would be good how come you dont see it all over ?
never one seen one in my life
because we just discovered it dummy
The design was discovered and developed very recently, in the past year, so aviation industries have not had time to adopt the propeller. The design also must undergo rigorous testing, and it is way more expensive right now than a conventional propeller. To summarize, it is not common yet because it is expensive and not fully developed.
I'm going to put a 200 lb bronze prop on my 80hp cessna
WTF the propeller on the submarine is wrong, it has more pitch at the tip?
Because it’s a proprietary marine design primarily aimed at the outboard engine marketplace and they’re ludicrously expensive for a small performance gain due to the difficulty in generating the complex form necessary.
This may work for a boat, but this will never work for a plane.
what a great way to turn my 172 into a submarine. Really folks.
So that's what that crazy Egyptian propeller thing is!
So much incorrect information here 🤦
So much lack of examples here.
It looks great for marine use,but I can't see it in aviation.
Amazing! Can this Toroidal Propeller be used as 'Turbine' 🤔
What if we used Toroidal Turbine for Wind Energy & Hydro-Kinetic Energy 💡
Lol the random major hardware clip had me like the Leo meme pointing at my screen
In the future we will have propeller that change like fluid; based on what we need at that moment in flight. Imagine vertical and horizontal flight could be possible. Almost incomprehensible but possible in concept. Might be over complicating when you look at the osprey and the simple rotating assembly at the end of the wing but still could maximize efficiency based on the atmospheric conditions at the time. Maybe even “fly” in water and air
It may work for a fixed pitch aircraft but, for a variable pitch aircraft it has a long way to go.
Thank you for letting me know this information
Aerodynamic noise underwater - GOT YA!
It wasn´t 205% increase, it was 105% peak efficiency. That is a 5% increase. While that might not sound like a lot, its actually quite substantial.
How can something be over 100% efficient? Sounds like perpetual motion quackery.
@@beepbop6697 it just depends on what refernce you have. The referense may not always be imput power, but it might be a other system.
Even if the reference is imput power it can still be higher than 100%, say for all heat extractors is that pretty much always true.
@@matsv201 ok, that makes sense. I always think of efficiency where the reference for 100% would be the "laws of physics maximum" and everything is relative to that.
If fields arbitrarily pick a different reference, then you can have 105%, 200%, a billion% "efficiency" -- but one should state what the 100% efficient relative reference actually is.
The drone that Mark Rober was reacting to at the start isn’t even using those toroidal blades💀
I like propeller and afterburner noise. There’s nothing better sounding than an IO-550 powered Cessna 185 echoing in a canyon.
My tests show that if by disturbing the air in front of the propeller can make a vortex which is excellent when it hits the propeller making the noise under 5
For the time being, I'll stick with my Prince P-Tip prop on my experimental. The P tips make it MUCH quieter, as verfied by comments of others over the last 2400 hours of flying with it. BUT, this looks interesing, if I had a boat.....
The P-tip is a beautiful propeller. I had one but when visiting Paul Lipps in Santa Maria (I was there to meet him to balance the prop (his design and construction) on his Lancair. In discussing my P-tip he explained how the fastest moving part of the prop, the tip, should be minimized, ideally to zero. This teroidal design seems to do just that. A P-tip, even though it's true they are quieter (just like with Hartzell's Q tip) the additional mass being hung out on the ends is detrimental to efficiency. I'm very taken by how sensible the torodial seems to be. CNC machines and composite materials already in existence could be used to 3-D print one to exact specifications for use on Experimental category aircraft. If someone is already doing it it would sure be interesting to read about. I would be happy to contribute the use of my single engine Experimental conventional-gear aircraft. Mass of the torodial may be higher than my existing wooden 52 x 56 but my plane tends to be biased toward the tail when in normal configuration so a little more weight on the nose wouldn't hurt it. If made with a diameter of 55 inches or less and is drilled to mate with my standard shaft, standard prop bolt pattern, and has been statically balanced, I'd be happy to test drive this new idea. Like Paul Lipps, I find props interesting.
right on
The best thing since the blue led was invented.
BRILLIANT! Thank You! :) Hermann
3:33, stating an increase in performance while displaying a graph that shows the toroidal props producing lower thrust at the same utilization prolly ain't the right way to support your point
You just proposed a double decker propeller.
Sound is not the only loss a propeller encounters.
The ring wing concept has again and again proposed as a solution for induced drag.
Newsflash: ist isn't
Higher thrust at lower RPM does not yet equate higher efficiency. The key figure is input power.
the thoroidal propeller is genius, it follows the form of nature, therefore it functions 205 percent better.
How well does it adjust pitch, show me this or stratagem for achieving this, more weight on the outside circumference also increases the gyroscopic mass and load factor on the prop and airframe
Maybe some kind of ducted fan but not like a standard propeller, others noted the inability to change pitch.
That’s the coolest video I’ve seen in months