2020
DOI: 10.2514/1.c035647
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical Investigation of a Two-Bladed Propeller Inflow at Yaw

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

5
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(19 reference statements)
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An azimuthal shift of about 45 • following the blade rotation (counter-clockwise) can be observed for both induction factors. Similar phenomena are reported in the study [29] of un-ducted propellers at yaw. The maximum axial induction is seen near the blade tip between 0 • and 90 • azimuth, while the minimum is near the root between 180 • and 270 • .…”
Section: Ducted Propeller Performance At Cross-wind Conditionssupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…An azimuthal shift of about 45 • following the blade rotation (counter-clockwise) can be observed for both induction factors. Similar phenomena are reported in the study [29] of un-ducted propellers at yaw. The maximum axial induction is seen near the blade tip between 0 • and 90 • azimuth, while the minimum is near the root between 180 • and 270 • .…”
Section: Ducted Propeller Performance At Cross-wind Conditionssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Comparing to the open propeller study [29], the maximum values move further outboard towards the blade tip and the inner duct surface. Further, a concentric pattern can be noticed in Figure 25(a) for the axial induction, indicating a more azimuthally even distribution of the axial induced velocity.…”
Section: Ducted Propeller Performance At Cross-wind Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Previous investigations using HMB3 have provided propeller flow validation in both installed and isolated conditions, by comparison with the experimental results of the Joint Open Rotor Propeller (JORP) blade [9], the Improving the Propulsion Aerodynamic and aCoustics of Turboprop Aircraft (IMPACTA) wind tunnel tests [10,11] and the model aircraft propeller inflow investigation at the University of Glasgow. Good agreement in terms of aerodynamics, acoustics and aeroelasticity were seen by all [12][13][14][15]. In addition to propeller flows, HMB3 has also been validated for tiltrotors, including the AW609 and XV-15 [16], for hover and forward flight.…”
Section: Hmb3mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Comparing the results of these methods with the experimentally obtained data demonstrates that they fail to correctly predict the inflow distribution over the propeller plane. For perspective, the maximum discrepancy exhibited when comparing a case from the experimental study with CFD data was over an order of magnitude smaller [27]. As propeller inflow is tied to thrust generation this puts in question the ability of said methods to determine forces over the propeller plane itself.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While higher-order solvers do exist (e.g [26]), they will be omitted in this paper due to their computational expense and because the experimental result set has already been compared in detail against CFD [27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%