Turbine engines are covered, which of course is to contain the process (just like a super/turbocharged engine is as soon as the air enters the intake). But it got me thinking, doesn't this also reduce - or even completely remove - the induced drag around the tips of the fan blades?
Would it be possible to have a similar setup for a standard prop, it doesn't even have to be stationary, it could be a ring connecting the tips of the prop, spinning with it. Like an infinite winglet. :) It has the added safety benefit that it'll be visible when the prop is spinning. And I figure if the ring is strong enough to maintain its circumference, the load on the prop should be marginal since it's spinning around its own center of mass.
Is the induced drag on the prop not large enough to warrant any thought, or would such a prop-winglet-ring (I'm sure there's a real name for it, anyone know what I'm talking about?) cause other disruptions of the airflow? Or perhaps there are other reasons, like it would simply be too hard to solve for constant-speed props?
What you're talking about does exist, they are called Q-Tip Propellers.
Remember that a propeller blade is just an airfoil - like a wing - and the basic aerodynamics are no different than a wing. But the rotation of the blade creates more phenomena than a wing, in particular the helicoidal vortex one sees behind the prop and causes all sorts of propeller effects.
In theory, nothing would prevent us from having winglets at the prop tips : the advantages would be
The big problem is in aerodynamic stresses, and as far as I know there have been some quite spectacular failures during testing, so the solution is now to give a greater sweep to the tips (see that as equivalent to the 777 wing tip compared to the 787 for instance). Try and find articles on the Hartzell Q-tip.
As naval propellers are wider and capable of deealing with bigger torque stresses, modern ones do have winglets. You could find some pictures on the web.
A ducted fan comes close to what you're describing, although the ring around the propeller is stationary instead of attached to and spinning with the propeller.
The main advantage of a ducted fan is higher efficiency due to reduced propeller blade tip losses (essentially induced drag) but this efficiency advantage is lost at higher speeds and/or lower thrust demand.
In "normal" aircraft, the drawbacks of a ducted fan outweigh the efficiency gains. Ducted fans are mainly used in airships and VTOL aircraft like the infamous Bell X-22. They are also used in most jet model airplanes.
For historical perspective do some research on the Culver Channel Wing. This twin engine plane has two ducts that do not completely encircle the prop.
Q-Tips and Ducted fans are the big ones to solve the problems you're thinking of.
Your ring idea would be very difficult to implement for a number of reasons, weight being primary. A metal ring all the way around the propeller would add a significant amount of weight to the aircraft, which would likely cancel out any efficiency gains you get from stabilizing the airflow. In addition, the tips of a propeller are already experiencing several thousand G's at normal operating RPMs. This is acceptable because the prop gets continuously lighter as you approach the tips. But if you were to attach a ring of metal weighing a few dozen pounds, the forces would be astronomical, and your prop would very quickly fail.
A second issue is that in order to have efficient propellers, we rotate the blades slightly to change the angle at which they bite into the air. These are called constant speed propellers, and they're already somewhat complicated. If you go and add a second pivoting point to the prop tips so that they can move inside the ring, you're just adding a bunch of bearings, grease, weight, and another failure point.
Finally, balancing the ring would likely be a difficult task. First your ring would have to be manufactured to very precise tolerances which would be quite expensive. The slightest nick or dent in the ring (which happens frequently to propellers) will cause it to become unbalanced and would at minimum require work, and at most could cause the whole propeller to shake itself apart. This is already a minor concern for props, but when you put your heavy disk out on a long arm from it's fulcrum, then subject it to incredibly high G forces, you're just amplifying any faults it may have.
reduce - or even completely remove - the induced drag around the tips of the fan blades? Would it be possible to have a similar setup for a standard prop, it doesn't even have to be stationary, it could... is strong enough to maintain its circumference, the load on the prop should be marginal since it's spinning around its own center of mass. Is the induced drag on the prop not large enough to warrant any thought, or would such a prop-winglet-ring (I'm sure there's a real name for it, anyone know what I'm talking about?) cause other disruptions of the airflow? Or perhaps there are other reasons, like
I've seen on numerous different constant-speed propeller aircraft and different pilots using different RPMs during the cruise phase on a propeller aircraft. What dictates the RPM used during normal cruise operations, and why is that the case? Often there are multiple possible throttle/RPM combinations that deliver the same power, so where would you pick one or the other?
What does one need to do when a turboprop engine gets over-torqued? I haven't over-torqued an engine before, but it seems it could happen inadvertently, say while doing a go-around. My questions are: Why is important not to over-torque an engine? What happens if you do over-torque an engine?
I read that a three blade can improve climb performance and decrease noise. How does that work?
I was flying on Porter Airlines and they had an info card about how similar the Bombardier (I still say DeHavallind) Dash 8 Q400s are to the Bombardier CSeries they have ordered are. There was a cool overlay photo to show relative sizes and shapes: Looking at that image, it got me wondering about the straight vs angled wing. Straight vs angled tails, etc. I get that a jet is faster than a turbo prop. Cseries cruise speeds are: Mach 0.78 (828 km/h, 447 kn, 514 mph) Dash8 Q400 cruise speeds are: 414 mph (667 km/h) 360 knots Those are pretty close and yet that is a pretty radical
I have not even an idea about how I would search for that on Google, that is why I'm trying my chance here. As electrical engineer I have no clue about fluid mechanics. We all now that when water is pumped very fast into firefighters tube, it gets very rigid and tends to be straight. What is this effect called, I'm interested in doing some research about the forces applied by such a tube from its initial folded position to the final position. Thanks
I'm pretty sure that there are no aircraft equipped with a brake on its nose wheel, however two of my colleagues think there might have been. Are there? Aircraft with retractable gear of course have devices to stop the wheels from spinning when retracted, but I'm asking about brakes used to stop or slow down the aircraft. Please don't consider aircraft with a tail wheel, gliders, experimental aircraft, or aircraft used for flight testing (certified aircraft only).
After answering this question on History.SE, I started to wonder if it would be possible to find out even more detail about the plane now that its serial number is known. I have no idea what kind of flight records the US Army Air Corps kept, however. I know most flight logs today are kept by pilot, but I imagine there would be some way to trace what pilots flew a particular plane. I have no idea if this is possible for USAAC trainer planes in the 1930s. Could I get access to these records? If so, how would I go about it? I'm mostly interested in seeing if I can find out more information
The alpha vane is an external probe used to measure the angle of attack. I have been trying to understand how exactly it works, but I can't find any clear explanation or simulation. Is the vane static or dynamic i.e. does it rotate along its central axis? Given that it has a significant surface area, I think that it would either: Rotate because of the force/drag exerted by the airflow, and give an angle of attack proportional or equal to its angle of rotation Measure the force being exerted on it via a force sensor embedded in the surface Is either of these correct? In short, how
With all the shiny new glass cockpits it would seem that the days of the spinning mechanical gyro (and associated tumbling due to gimbal lock) should be over: Sparing everyone the boring math it should suffice to say that solid-state gyros can be engineered and built in such a way that gimbal lock is impossible, but I'm not certain that's how they're actually designed. Do modern AHRS systems with solid-state gyros (or replacement electronic horizons like the RC Allen 2600 series) still suffer from gimbal lock, or do they provide true 3-dimensional freedom? I'm interested primarily