How much horsepower to weight is required for a 1:1 thrust ratioWhy are three-bladed helicopters relatively rare?Is there any equation to bind velocity, thrust and power?How to calculate the thrust of a piston or turboprop engine?Why does thrust-to-weight ratio depend from max Mach number?How can the required wing area for climb be calculated, given aspect ratio?How much does a drag chute system weight?How would one calculate the thrust-to-weight ratio for a minimum turn radius?Why is the thrust/drag increase much lower at a lower FL with weight the only variable?How much does weight really affect the operation cost?How to calculate required thrust for take-off knowing gross weight and L/D?How much extra weight is added by strengthening a piston-prop fighter for carrier landings?
Windows 10 deletes lots of tiny files super slowly. Anything that can be done to speed it up?
How far in Advance do I need to book tickets on the West Highland Line in Scotland for a Multi-part Journey?
Received a package but didn't order it
Another student has been assigned the same MSc thesis as mine (and already defended)
Is population size a parameter, or sample size a statistic?
How many stack cables would be needed if we want to stack two 3850 switches
Do mount adapters change the apparent focal lengths of lenses?
Pushing the e-pawn
Would an object shot from earth fall into the sun?
Is there a relationship between prime numbers and music?
What happens to a net with the Returning Weapon artificer infusion after it hits?
How can I become an invalid target for spells that target humanoids?
Read-once memory
Does variance make sense in a fully immutable language?
How to stop the death waves in my city?
Detail vs. filler
Knights and Knaves: What does C say?
How to justify getting additional team member when the current team is doing well?
Is the order of words purely based on convention?
GPLv3 forces us to make code available, but to who?
How do my husband and I get over our fear of having another difficult baby?
What does `idem` mean in the VIM docs?
Role of "einfach" in a certain context
Why does my browser attempt to download pages from http://clhs.lisp.se instead of viewing them normally?
How much horsepower to weight is required for a 1:1 thrust ratio
Why are three-bladed helicopters relatively rare?Is there any equation to bind velocity, thrust and power?How to calculate the thrust of a piston or turboprop engine?Why does thrust-to-weight ratio depend from max Mach number?How can the required wing area for climb be calculated, given aspect ratio?How much does a drag chute system weight?How would one calculate the thrust-to-weight ratio for a minimum turn radius?Why is the thrust/drag increase much lower at a lower FL with weight the only variable?How much does weight really affect the operation cost?How to calculate required thrust for take-off knowing gross weight and L/D?How much extra weight is added by strengthening a piston-prop fighter for carrier landings?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I did a math experiment today, but wanted to verify the results.
I wanted to figure out how much horsepower is needed for an aircraft to hover in midair with no wings/lifting body (1:1 thrust/weight).
So to start I found that a unit of horsepower is the amount of work required to move 550 pounds 1 foot every second.
Then I wanted to find out how many foot/pounds of force gravity places on 1 pound of material. With a static acceleration of 9.8m/s (32f/s), it seems that 1 pound has 32 foot pounds of gravity acting on it.
Now for my equation:
Hp = 550 (f/p)
Gravity = 32 (f/p)
Hp / Gravity = 17.1875
So it seems 1 hp can hold 17 pounds in the air, but to incorporate propeller inefficiency, I just used 70% of that. This leaves me with 1 hp being able to vertically lift 12 pounds when accounting for the inefficiency of a propeller.
Is this a relatively correct assumption? I know thrust changes as the aircraft accelerates, but in a hovering state the acceleration is 0 f/s as a whole. So will these numbers apply?
Edit: I initially used a specific ultralight to prove how high the numbers were, but I used wrong data from the spec sheet. So I removed that reference from my question.
aircraft-design aircraft-performance
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I did a math experiment today, but wanted to verify the results.
I wanted to figure out how much horsepower is needed for an aircraft to hover in midair with no wings/lifting body (1:1 thrust/weight).
So to start I found that a unit of horsepower is the amount of work required to move 550 pounds 1 foot every second.
Then I wanted to find out how many foot/pounds of force gravity places on 1 pound of material. With a static acceleration of 9.8m/s (32f/s), it seems that 1 pound has 32 foot pounds of gravity acting on it.
Now for my equation:
Hp = 550 (f/p)
Gravity = 32 (f/p)
Hp / Gravity = 17.1875
So it seems 1 hp can hold 17 pounds in the air, but to incorporate propeller inefficiency, I just used 70% of that. This leaves me with 1 hp being able to vertically lift 12 pounds when accounting for the inefficiency of a propeller.
Is this a relatively correct assumption? I know thrust changes as the aircraft accelerates, but in a hovering state the acceleration is 0 f/s as a whole. So will these numbers apply?
Edit: I initially used a specific ultralight to prove how high the numbers were, but I used wrong data from the spec sheet. So I removed that reference from my question.
aircraft-design aircraft-performance
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You seem to be confusing acceleration, power and thrust, and then running with it into increasingly more erroneous calculations. What you should be asking is how much of the engine's rated power can be converted into thrust by the propeller. Thrust is a force, which you can compare to gravity. Power, on the other hand is energy per unit of time.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Don't you need the gross weight from the spec sheet, which is ~1000lbs? According to Wikipedia, the engine alone weighs 110lbs, so it seems your estimate that the whole aircraft weights 115lbs is too low.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang oh wow... yeah that needs rectifying. Maybe the math isn't as off as I thought
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AEhere Isn't thrust the amount of force an engine can generate in it's given environment? Since the engine acceleration is 0 compared to the air it's moving through (assuming we are hovering) then isn't the only thing left in covering power to force friction & inefficiencies?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
1 horsepower = 1 horse worth of thrust, ergo horses can fly/hover. =)
$endgroup$
– Eric Hauenstein
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I did a math experiment today, but wanted to verify the results.
I wanted to figure out how much horsepower is needed for an aircraft to hover in midair with no wings/lifting body (1:1 thrust/weight).
So to start I found that a unit of horsepower is the amount of work required to move 550 pounds 1 foot every second.
Then I wanted to find out how many foot/pounds of force gravity places on 1 pound of material. With a static acceleration of 9.8m/s (32f/s), it seems that 1 pound has 32 foot pounds of gravity acting on it.
Now for my equation:
Hp = 550 (f/p)
Gravity = 32 (f/p)
Hp / Gravity = 17.1875
So it seems 1 hp can hold 17 pounds in the air, but to incorporate propeller inefficiency, I just used 70% of that. This leaves me with 1 hp being able to vertically lift 12 pounds when accounting for the inefficiency of a propeller.
Is this a relatively correct assumption? I know thrust changes as the aircraft accelerates, but in a hovering state the acceleration is 0 f/s as a whole. So will these numbers apply?
Edit: I initially used a specific ultralight to prove how high the numbers were, but I used wrong data from the spec sheet. So I removed that reference from my question.
aircraft-design aircraft-performance
$endgroup$
I did a math experiment today, but wanted to verify the results.
I wanted to figure out how much horsepower is needed for an aircraft to hover in midair with no wings/lifting body (1:1 thrust/weight).
So to start I found that a unit of horsepower is the amount of work required to move 550 pounds 1 foot every second.
Then I wanted to find out how many foot/pounds of force gravity places on 1 pound of material. With a static acceleration of 9.8m/s (32f/s), it seems that 1 pound has 32 foot pounds of gravity acting on it.
Now for my equation:
Hp = 550 (f/p)
Gravity = 32 (f/p)
Hp / Gravity = 17.1875
So it seems 1 hp can hold 17 pounds in the air, but to incorporate propeller inefficiency, I just used 70% of that. This leaves me with 1 hp being able to vertically lift 12 pounds when accounting for the inefficiency of a propeller.
Is this a relatively correct assumption? I know thrust changes as the aircraft accelerates, but in a hovering state the acceleration is 0 f/s as a whole. So will these numbers apply?
Edit: I initially used a specific ultralight to prove how high the numbers were, but I used wrong data from the spec sheet. So I removed that reference from my question.
aircraft-design aircraft-performance
aircraft-design aircraft-performance
edited 9 hours ago
YAHsaves
asked 10 hours ago
YAHsavesYAHsaves
4311 silver badge14 bronze badges
4311 silver badge14 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
You seem to be confusing acceleration, power and thrust, and then running with it into increasingly more erroneous calculations. What you should be asking is how much of the engine's rated power can be converted into thrust by the propeller. Thrust is a force, which you can compare to gravity. Power, on the other hand is energy per unit of time.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Don't you need the gross weight from the spec sheet, which is ~1000lbs? According to Wikipedia, the engine alone weighs 110lbs, so it seems your estimate that the whole aircraft weights 115lbs is too low.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang oh wow... yeah that needs rectifying. Maybe the math isn't as off as I thought
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AEhere Isn't thrust the amount of force an engine can generate in it's given environment? Since the engine acceleration is 0 compared to the air it's moving through (assuming we are hovering) then isn't the only thing left in covering power to force friction & inefficiencies?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
1 horsepower = 1 horse worth of thrust, ergo horses can fly/hover. =)
$endgroup$
– Eric Hauenstein
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
You seem to be confusing acceleration, power and thrust, and then running with it into increasingly more erroneous calculations. What you should be asking is how much of the engine's rated power can be converted into thrust by the propeller. Thrust is a force, which you can compare to gravity. Power, on the other hand is energy per unit of time.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Don't you need the gross weight from the spec sheet, which is ~1000lbs? According to Wikipedia, the engine alone weighs 110lbs, so it seems your estimate that the whole aircraft weights 115lbs is too low.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang oh wow... yeah that needs rectifying. Maybe the math isn't as off as I thought
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AEhere Isn't thrust the amount of force an engine can generate in it's given environment? Since the engine acceleration is 0 compared to the air it's moving through (assuming we are hovering) then isn't the only thing left in covering power to force friction & inefficiencies?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
1 horsepower = 1 horse worth of thrust, ergo horses can fly/hover. =)
$endgroup$
– Eric Hauenstein
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
You seem to be confusing acceleration, power and thrust, and then running with it into increasingly more erroneous calculations. What you should be asking is how much of the engine's rated power can be converted into thrust by the propeller. Thrust is a force, which you can compare to gravity. Power, on the other hand is energy per unit of time.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
You seem to be confusing acceleration, power and thrust, and then running with it into increasingly more erroneous calculations. What you should be asking is how much of the engine's rated power can be converted into thrust by the propeller. Thrust is a force, which you can compare to gravity. Power, on the other hand is energy per unit of time.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Don't you need the gross weight from the spec sheet, which is ~1000lbs? According to Wikipedia, the engine alone weighs 110lbs, so it seems your estimate that the whole aircraft weights 115lbs is too low.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Don't you need the gross weight from the spec sheet, which is ~1000lbs? According to Wikipedia, the engine alone weighs 110lbs, so it seems your estimate that the whole aircraft weights 115lbs is too low.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang oh wow... yeah that needs rectifying. Maybe the math isn't as off as I thought
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang oh wow... yeah that needs rectifying. Maybe the math isn't as off as I thought
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AEhere Isn't thrust the amount of force an engine can generate in it's given environment? Since the engine acceleration is 0 compared to the air it's moving through (assuming we are hovering) then isn't the only thing left in covering power to force friction & inefficiencies?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AEhere Isn't thrust the amount of force an engine can generate in it's given environment? Since the engine acceleration is 0 compared to the air it's moving through (assuming we are hovering) then isn't the only thing left in covering power to force friction & inefficiencies?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
1 horsepower = 1 horse worth of thrust, ergo horses can fly/hover. =)
$endgroup$
– Eric Hauenstein
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
1 horsepower = 1 horse worth of thrust, ergo horses can fly/hover. =)
$endgroup$
– Eric Hauenstein
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Horsepower cannot be converted into thrust without knowing the speed at which this is done. In your case this is zero, so the special equation for static thrust applies. With $T$ for thrust, $P$ for power, $rho$ for air density and $d_P$ and $eta_P$ the propeller diameter and efficiency, respectively, this is $$T_0 = sqrt[LARGE3:]P^2cdoteta_P^2cdotpicdot d_P^2cdotfracrho2$$
With this equation you cannot simply say how many HP are required to lift that many pounds; instead, you need to add the propeller geometry. If we assume a very efficient propeller with a large diameter, we can combine blade size and mass into disk loading – here 8.5 kg/m² or 41.5 lbs/ft² is a good value. Now we can write, using standard atmospheric density at sea level:
$$fracT_0^2P^2cdoteta_P^2 = frac2cdot1.225,fractextkgtextm^38.5,fractextkgtextm^2cdot g = 0.0294,fractexts^2textm^2$$
assuming for simplicity a 1 m² propeller diameter. If we now use 70% for propeller efficiency, as you did in the question, the power to mass ratio becomes 8.33 Watt power per N of weight force or 81.7 Watt per kg. Converted into funny units this is 0.05 HP per pound of mass. 1 HP can hold 20 lbs in the air, but that will not be enough to even spin up the propeller unless it can adjust blade pitch. For practical usability I recommend to double that number. If the propeller diameter shrinks and disk loading increases, efficiency will drop and the power required will rise.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In order to hover in the air, you have to accelerate a mass of air downwards. Usually, this is done with a rotor, and the larger the rotor, the less the power you'd need to hover. The general expression (in theory...)for the power required, based upon momentum considerations, is:
$P_required=TsqrtfracT2rhocdot A$
where T is the thrust (should be the same as the weight, in order to hover...), A is the rotor disk area, and $rho$ is the air density.
Using SI units, thrust/weight should be in newtons, A in square meters, and $rho$ is, at sea level, 1,23 kg/m3.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Thrust from a propeller aircraft will vary with airspeed, propeller efficiency, density altitude, etc.
For a very rough guideline you can use 1 hp to equal approximately 3 lbs of thrust. So theoretically a 3,000 lb aircraft could hover if it had about 1,000 horsepower.
The Lockheed XVF weighed approximately 15,000 lbs and could hover using about 5,000 hp.
Here is a link to some detailed testing regarding propeller thrust: Static Thrust Measurement for Propeller-driven Light Aircraft
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f69973%2fhow-much-horsepower-to-weight-is-required-for-a-11-thrust-ratio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Horsepower cannot be converted into thrust without knowing the speed at which this is done. In your case this is zero, so the special equation for static thrust applies. With $T$ for thrust, $P$ for power, $rho$ for air density and $d_P$ and $eta_P$ the propeller diameter and efficiency, respectively, this is $$T_0 = sqrt[LARGE3:]P^2cdoteta_P^2cdotpicdot d_P^2cdotfracrho2$$
With this equation you cannot simply say how many HP are required to lift that many pounds; instead, you need to add the propeller geometry. If we assume a very efficient propeller with a large diameter, we can combine blade size and mass into disk loading – here 8.5 kg/m² or 41.5 lbs/ft² is a good value. Now we can write, using standard atmospheric density at sea level:
$$fracT_0^2P^2cdoteta_P^2 = frac2cdot1.225,fractextkgtextm^38.5,fractextkgtextm^2cdot g = 0.0294,fractexts^2textm^2$$
assuming for simplicity a 1 m² propeller diameter. If we now use 70% for propeller efficiency, as you did in the question, the power to mass ratio becomes 8.33 Watt power per N of weight force or 81.7 Watt per kg. Converted into funny units this is 0.05 HP per pound of mass. 1 HP can hold 20 lbs in the air, but that will not be enough to even spin up the propeller unless it can adjust blade pitch. For practical usability I recommend to double that number. If the propeller diameter shrinks and disk loading increases, efficiency will drop and the power required will rise.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Horsepower cannot be converted into thrust without knowing the speed at which this is done. In your case this is zero, so the special equation for static thrust applies. With $T$ for thrust, $P$ for power, $rho$ for air density and $d_P$ and $eta_P$ the propeller diameter and efficiency, respectively, this is $$T_0 = sqrt[LARGE3:]P^2cdoteta_P^2cdotpicdot d_P^2cdotfracrho2$$
With this equation you cannot simply say how many HP are required to lift that many pounds; instead, you need to add the propeller geometry. If we assume a very efficient propeller with a large diameter, we can combine blade size and mass into disk loading – here 8.5 kg/m² or 41.5 lbs/ft² is a good value. Now we can write, using standard atmospheric density at sea level:
$$fracT_0^2P^2cdoteta_P^2 = frac2cdot1.225,fractextkgtextm^38.5,fractextkgtextm^2cdot g = 0.0294,fractexts^2textm^2$$
assuming for simplicity a 1 m² propeller diameter. If we now use 70% for propeller efficiency, as you did in the question, the power to mass ratio becomes 8.33 Watt power per N of weight force or 81.7 Watt per kg. Converted into funny units this is 0.05 HP per pound of mass. 1 HP can hold 20 lbs in the air, but that will not be enough to even spin up the propeller unless it can adjust blade pitch. For practical usability I recommend to double that number. If the propeller diameter shrinks and disk loading increases, efficiency will drop and the power required will rise.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Horsepower cannot be converted into thrust without knowing the speed at which this is done. In your case this is zero, so the special equation for static thrust applies. With $T$ for thrust, $P$ for power, $rho$ for air density and $d_P$ and $eta_P$ the propeller diameter and efficiency, respectively, this is $$T_0 = sqrt[LARGE3:]P^2cdoteta_P^2cdotpicdot d_P^2cdotfracrho2$$
With this equation you cannot simply say how many HP are required to lift that many pounds; instead, you need to add the propeller geometry. If we assume a very efficient propeller with a large diameter, we can combine blade size and mass into disk loading – here 8.5 kg/m² or 41.5 lbs/ft² is a good value. Now we can write, using standard atmospheric density at sea level:
$$fracT_0^2P^2cdoteta_P^2 = frac2cdot1.225,fractextkgtextm^38.5,fractextkgtextm^2cdot g = 0.0294,fractexts^2textm^2$$
assuming for simplicity a 1 m² propeller diameter. If we now use 70% for propeller efficiency, as you did in the question, the power to mass ratio becomes 8.33 Watt power per N of weight force or 81.7 Watt per kg. Converted into funny units this is 0.05 HP per pound of mass. 1 HP can hold 20 lbs in the air, but that will not be enough to even spin up the propeller unless it can adjust blade pitch. For practical usability I recommend to double that number. If the propeller diameter shrinks and disk loading increases, efficiency will drop and the power required will rise.
$endgroup$
Horsepower cannot be converted into thrust without knowing the speed at which this is done. In your case this is zero, so the special equation for static thrust applies. With $T$ for thrust, $P$ for power, $rho$ for air density and $d_P$ and $eta_P$ the propeller diameter and efficiency, respectively, this is $$T_0 = sqrt[LARGE3:]P^2cdoteta_P^2cdotpicdot d_P^2cdotfracrho2$$
With this equation you cannot simply say how many HP are required to lift that many pounds; instead, you need to add the propeller geometry. If we assume a very efficient propeller with a large diameter, we can combine blade size and mass into disk loading – here 8.5 kg/m² or 41.5 lbs/ft² is a good value. Now we can write, using standard atmospheric density at sea level:
$$fracT_0^2P^2cdoteta_P^2 = frac2cdot1.225,fractextkgtextm^38.5,fractextkgtextm^2cdot g = 0.0294,fractexts^2textm^2$$
assuming for simplicity a 1 m² propeller diameter. If we now use 70% for propeller efficiency, as you did in the question, the power to mass ratio becomes 8.33 Watt power per N of weight force or 81.7 Watt per kg. Converted into funny units this is 0.05 HP per pound of mass. 1 HP can hold 20 lbs in the air, but that will not be enough to even spin up the propeller unless it can adjust blade pitch. For practical usability I recommend to double that number. If the propeller diameter shrinks and disk loading increases, efficiency will drop and the power required will rise.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Peter KämpfPeter Kämpf
172k14 gold badges438 silver badges702 bronze badges
172k14 gold badges438 silver badges702 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seeing the numbers laid out like this helps me understand where all the "wasted" energy is actually going. If I understand it right my initial estimate of "12 pounds per hp" wasn't too far off, but that's assuming perfect air pressure and a very large prop. I see why real world conditions almost never meet that, considering the number of variables accounted for.
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Could we go the route of coefficient of drag for the AVERAGE prop AOA for the prop airfoil. This drag would be equal to power consumption (kilowatts, pints of gasoline etc.) at a given (AVERAGE ANGULAR VELOCITY). Basicly let's turn the prop into a wing. The thrust would be based on the coefficient of lift at a given RPM. There for, RPM cancels out lift coefficient of Lift/Coefficient of Drag may yield a comparison of power. I am believing the higher "pounds per horsepower" for a helicopter prop, but to just throw out half and call it good? Let's try some more!
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
So could we start by establishing a ball park Reynolds number for prop airfoils, if it's over 500,000 it might work.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
And, don't mean to be a pain, but if we look at James Watt's horse lifting (m×gravity) and Accelerating it (v/t), we'd be comparing force to force (thrust). Just amazes me that Mike's Lockheed XVF, a Cessna 172, and my 0.40 cubic inch Enya spinning a 10x6 prop were pretty close.
$endgroup$
– Robert DiGiovanni
1 hour ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In order to hover in the air, you have to accelerate a mass of air downwards. Usually, this is done with a rotor, and the larger the rotor, the less the power you'd need to hover. The general expression (in theory...)for the power required, based upon momentum considerations, is:
$P_required=TsqrtfracT2rhocdot A$
where T is the thrust (should be the same as the weight, in order to hover...), A is the rotor disk area, and $rho$ is the air density.
Using SI units, thrust/weight should be in newtons, A in square meters, and $rho$ is, at sea level, 1,23 kg/m3.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In order to hover in the air, you have to accelerate a mass of air downwards. Usually, this is done with a rotor, and the larger the rotor, the less the power you'd need to hover. The general expression (in theory...)for the power required, based upon momentum considerations, is:
$P_required=TsqrtfracT2rhocdot A$
where T is the thrust (should be the same as the weight, in order to hover...), A is the rotor disk area, and $rho$ is the air density.
Using SI units, thrust/weight should be in newtons, A in square meters, and $rho$ is, at sea level, 1,23 kg/m3.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In order to hover in the air, you have to accelerate a mass of air downwards. Usually, this is done with a rotor, and the larger the rotor, the less the power you'd need to hover. The general expression (in theory...)for the power required, based upon momentum considerations, is:
$P_required=TsqrtfracT2rhocdot A$
where T is the thrust (should be the same as the weight, in order to hover...), A is the rotor disk area, and $rho$ is the air density.
Using SI units, thrust/weight should be in newtons, A in square meters, and $rho$ is, at sea level, 1,23 kg/m3.
$endgroup$
In order to hover in the air, you have to accelerate a mass of air downwards. Usually, this is done with a rotor, and the larger the rotor, the less the power you'd need to hover. The general expression (in theory...)for the power required, based upon momentum considerations, is:
$P_required=TsqrtfracT2rhocdot A$
where T is the thrust (should be the same as the weight, in order to hover...), A is the rotor disk area, and $rho$ is the air density.
Using SI units, thrust/weight should be in newtons, A in square meters, and $rho$ is, at sea level, 1,23 kg/m3.
edited 5 hours ago
DeltaLima
58.4k6 gold badges184 silver badges260 bronze badges
58.4k6 gold badges184 silver badges260 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
xxavierxxavier
6,6622 gold badges17 silver badges51 bronze badges
6,6622 gold badges17 silver badges51 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seeing this equation really helps. I guess we are losing a lot of power due to the environment we are working with. However I don't know where to plug "rho" into the question. Is "rho" the "2p" or how do I apply it?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, rho is the 'p'...For example, if your craft has a mass of 500 kg, that would mean a weight/thrust of 4900 newton. Assuming your rotor has 8m diameter, the disk area will be 50,24 m2. Inserting those figures in the expression, the power will be 30,9 kW. In practice, you'd need 50% more at least, since reality is usually hard...
$endgroup$
– xxavier
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
A real world example for comparison: Robinson R22 ha MTOWof 622 kg, rotor diameter of 7.7m and max power of 124hp. Max hover altitude is 8000 (~MTOW) and assuming 3% power loss /1000ft, I'd say it takes about 95hp to hover R22 at 622kg (when not in ground effect). Feel free to correct if I made a mistake :) It's worth noting that some of that 95 hp (or what ever if I didn't get it right) is "lost" in couteracting the main rotor torque with the tail rotor.
$endgroup$
– Jpe61
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Thrust from a propeller aircraft will vary with airspeed, propeller efficiency, density altitude, etc.
For a very rough guideline you can use 1 hp to equal approximately 3 lbs of thrust. So theoretically a 3,000 lb aircraft could hover if it had about 1,000 horsepower.
The Lockheed XVF weighed approximately 15,000 lbs and could hover using about 5,000 hp.
Here is a link to some detailed testing regarding propeller thrust: Static Thrust Measurement for Propeller-driven Light Aircraft
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Thrust from a propeller aircraft will vary with airspeed, propeller efficiency, density altitude, etc.
For a very rough guideline you can use 1 hp to equal approximately 3 lbs of thrust. So theoretically a 3,000 lb aircraft could hover if it had about 1,000 horsepower.
The Lockheed XVF weighed approximately 15,000 lbs and could hover using about 5,000 hp.
Here is a link to some detailed testing regarding propeller thrust: Static Thrust Measurement for Propeller-driven Light Aircraft
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Thrust from a propeller aircraft will vary with airspeed, propeller efficiency, density altitude, etc.
For a very rough guideline you can use 1 hp to equal approximately 3 lbs of thrust. So theoretically a 3,000 lb aircraft could hover if it had about 1,000 horsepower.
The Lockheed XVF weighed approximately 15,000 lbs and could hover using about 5,000 hp.
Here is a link to some detailed testing regarding propeller thrust: Static Thrust Measurement for Propeller-driven Light Aircraft
$endgroup$
Thrust from a propeller aircraft will vary with airspeed, propeller efficiency, density altitude, etc.
For a very rough guideline you can use 1 hp to equal approximately 3 lbs of thrust. So theoretically a 3,000 lb aircraft could hover if it had about 1,000 horsepower.
The Lockheed XVF weighed approximately 15,000 lbs and could hover using about 5,000 hp.
Here is a link to some detailed testing regarding propeller thrust: Static Thrust Measurement for Propeller-driven Light Aircraft
edited 4 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Mike SowsunMike Sowsun
22.6k2 gold badges76 silver badges93 bronze badges
22.6k2 gold badges76 silver badges93 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that imply that propeller aircraft have terrible efficiencies? Total energy should be preserved, so if the propeller is only accelerating 1/17th the mass of air downward that it could be based on power input, where does the other 16/17th of the power go? Is it lost to circular momentum friction and vibrations?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have edited my answer to correct wrong formation. I have also added some interesting photos and links.
$endgroup$
– Mike Sowsun
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f69973%2fhow-much-horsepower-to-weight-is-required-for-a-11-thrust-ratio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
You seem to be confusing acceleration, power and thrust, and then running with it into increasingly more erroneous calculations. What you should be asking is how much of the engine's rated power can be converted into thrust by the propeller. Thrust is a force, which you can compare to gravity. Power, on the other hand is energy per unit of time.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Don't you need the gross weight from the spec sheet, which is ~1000lbs? According to Wikipedia, the engine alone weighs 110lbs, so it seems your estimate that the whole aircraft weights 115lbs is too low.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang oh wow... yeah that needs rectifying. Maybe the math isn't as off as I thought
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AEhere Isn't thrust the amount of force an engine can generate in it's given environment? Since the engine acceleration is 0 compared to the air it's moving through (assuming we are hovering) then isn't the only thing left in covering power to force friction & inefficiencies?
$endgroup$
– YAHsaves
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
1 horsepower = 1 horse worth of thrust, ergo horses can fly/hover. =)
$endgroup$
– Eric Hauenstein
9 hours ago