On the Development of a New-Series Propeller for High-Speed

Crafts
Young-Zehr Kehr
Guest, Department of System Engineering and Naval Architecture, Keelung, Taiwan, R. O. C

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the development of a new propeller series for high-speed crafis with an expanded
area ratio 1.0 will be presented. The experimental results show that this new series propeller delivers
a better performance than the Newton-Rader series. The new foil sections developed by Otto Schere
1994 has been adopted for designing the parent propeller, and the radial loading distribution is based
on the optimal eflciency with a slight root and tip unloading. The variable parameters of this series
are blade number (three and four blades), pitch ratio (1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8), cavitation number (Atm, 0.75,
0.6, 0,S) and inclined shaft angle (P, 6, P, ItY), in addition to the shaft thrust and torque, the normal
and horizontal forces at inclined shaj? conditions are also measured. The actual efficiencies of the
propellers at inclined shafi conditions thus can be determined. The experimental results show that both
the eficiency and the cavitation characteristics of the parent propeller are better than those of
propellers with Newton -Rader sections at inclined shaft conditions, An especially nice feature of this
new series propeller is that removal of the root erosion is far better than that of propellers with
Newton -Rader sections, Howeve~ the experimental data shows that a significant drawback of this
design is that this effect becomes serious when the pitch ratio increases and the cavitation number
decreases with inclined shaft angles larger than 8 degrees.

INTRODUCTION Praefke, 1997). However, the concept of Eppler and

Generally, the conventional propellers of the high-
speed planing crafts are operated at inclined shaft
condition. However, two serious problems are thus
created: first, propeller generates a force normal to its
shaft, and this force increases as the pitch ratio increases.
This force is about 40% of the propeller shaft thrust for a
propeller with a pitch ratio 1.6 at normal operating
condition, and it will reduce the thrust of the propeller in
advanced direction of the craft significantly (Peck, 1974),
Secondly, a propeller operated at inclined shaft condition
has an extra upward inflow velocity component, and
this component will cause a periodic fluctuation of the
angle of attack of the propeller during one revolution
(Rader, 1974), which makes the cavitation phenomena on
propeller blade worse. It thus forces thrust breakdown and
propeller blade errosion earlier, especially for the root
area of the propeller where the tangential inflow velocity
is small due to the propeller rotation. Therefore, it is very
important to develop a propeller series to have relatively
better performance on the cavitation control, the delay of
thrust breakdown and the removal of blade root errosion,.
The concept of the new foil sections developed by
Prof. Eppler (Eppler, 1957) are applied to different kind
of marine vessels (Kuiper, 1993; Yamaguchi, ]988;
Shen (Eppler, 1981) is a two dimensional method, a
propeller is operated in a wake field where the angles of
attack fluctuate differently in one revolution at different
radii. Therefore, there is a fairing problem between
different radii, and the new foil section family developed
by Scherer (Scherer, 1994) is a good solution for this
problem. Thus, these sections are adopted for designing
the parent propeller in this paper,
A 3-bladed parent propeller with a 1.6 pitch ratio and
1.0 expanded area ratio is designed to compare to the
performance of a corresponding Newton-Rader propeller.
Two propellers are tested in NTOW( National Taiwan
Ocean University) medium-sized cavitation tunnel. In
addition to the shaft thrust and torque, the forces normal
and horizontal to the shaft are also measured at inclined
shaft conditions to determine the actual efficiencies of the
propeller. A series of propellers with different number
of blades (3,4), pitch ratios ( 1.2,1.4,1.6,1 .8), cavitation
numbers ( Atm,O.75,0,6,0.5) and inclined shaft angles
(0,6,8,1 Odegree) are tested then.
DESIGN OF THE PARENT PROPELLER
The chordwise loading distribution of the thick
camber of table A-12 in Scherer, 1994 are adopted for the

151

- -.
 design of the parent propeller. The design angle of
attack of this foil is -2,423 degree for the design lift
ccoeflicient (Cli) 1.0. The surface speed and its
corresponding thickness of the foil at C,i 0.5 are shown in
Fig. 1. This chordwise loading distribution is suitable for
the design of a low lift coefficient section, such as used
for propellers, because its pressure recovery on the
suction side starts at 7570 of the chord, This section has
also similar characteristics as the new foil developed by
Eppler, having a short range with zero loading in the
leading edge, the maximal thickness is very close to the
leading edge, and the trailing edge is very thin.
Uppersurfac
AH+--@.rs.d
0.6 I 1 I reduced at the root, especially for the camber, in
0.4
(Scherer, 1994), which has a thicker leading edge in
comparison with an A-12 section, will be used at root
radii. In order to avoid root errosion, a slight root
unloading and a trailing edge truncation at root radii are
used for the design of the parent propeller.
In order to compare with the Newton-Rader propeller
P3002, the design point of the parent propeller P3003 is
as follows: J = 1.35, KT/J**2 = O.118 in sub-cavitation
condition, KQ = 0,0649, q,, = 0.712. Due to the s~ong
pressure recovery at about 20% chordlength of the
pressure side, where the boundary layer thickness will
start to become thick, the effective camber will be
according y reduced, Herein, the camber ratio is
increased zs~o according to the results calculated by the
propeller lifting surface code to compensate the viscous
effect. The final design with a pitch ratio 1.6 and an
expanded area ratio 1.0 without skew has a similar total
loading as the Newton-Rader propeller. However, the
radial pitch and camber distribution are remarkable
0.1
comparison with the Ne wton-Rader propeller (Figure 2).
0.0 P3002 -*- P3003

I I 1 1
0.0~
0.00 0.25 0.50
we
0.75 1.00 0.040---
1\ . .-..:... .: . ...1

%
Ch = 0.5 C+=-1.212 t~ = 0.03718
A-12 thick camber in ref.(Scherer,1994) ().()35 ------......;. . ..1

u ./
Theoretically, the camber and thickness distributions ; 0.030 -----, -------- L=.*. .~
u. .#
of the new foil section are coupled together, and should -*- ----
.- -*--
not be separated. However, such design procedure can ,,?
os)25 ---,--,....,..... . - -~
not be directly applied to 3-D condition in state of the art. .74,
Therefore, a linear assumption is made: the thickness
distribution will not be changed due to 3-D flow, only the
camber distribution. This 3-D camber distribution can
be determined by using propeller lifting surface code
using correct chordwise loading distribution. However,
the faring of the 3-D camber distribution at root and tip
:klllilu
(),2() ().40 ().60

RIRc)
().s0 1S)o

sections are necessary. In order to fulfill the strength Fig.2 Comparison of camber distribution between P3002 and
requirement at the trailing edge, a parabolic and a P3003
symmetric thickness distribution (Scherer, 1994) must be
added to the original thickness distribution of the thick EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM AND TEST
camber, which can be obtained from the design lift CONDITION
coefficient at each radius in lifting line design stage. The tillable dynamometer is the type H39-27
It is found that the thickness distribution at tip will be manufactured by K & R with four components. In static
too high if we use an A-12 section, and this is because its condition, the standard deviations between the calibration
very thick leading edge. Therefore, the thickness points and fitted curve for measurement are as following:
distribution of an A-11 section (Scherer, 1994), which has 0.00236kg-m for torque,
a relatively thinner leading edge in comparison with A-12 0.0607kg for thrust,
section, will be used to replace A-12 in the tip area. 0,0671 kg for horizontal force
This replacement is also good from the point of view of 0.0399kg for normal force,
flow field, because the fluctuations of angles of attack at The test speeds are 6, 7 and 8m/s respectively for the
tip radii are much lower than those at the root radii. On corresponding cavitation number at 5.2, 0.75 and 0.5.
the contrary, the thickness distribution of an A-13 section At any condition, the Reynolds number at 0.8 radius is
higher than 2.0 X 10.

152

h
 1.1
_N.T:O,U.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS I .0 -r ---,--

:&~
-:--- V-o~per-

;
0.9 .... r---, - --, ---
I.Test Results of Newton-Rader Propeller Compared ... ... . . . . . . . ,----
0.8 7-- -
with Those in Vesper Q ....
...
Test results of Newton-Rader propeller at cavitation < 0.7 -.,
E .>. . -.%TA-O : - -
number 5.2, 0.75 and 0.5 at horizontal shaft - 0.6 :-- .,.- --, ..,-- :--
a .. . ..
condition v = 0 are shown in Fig.3, 4 and 5 and S 0,5 lo~Q -%.-:; .,;- ; - -

I<Y
... .,
compared with those tested in Vesper (Newton, 1961). ~- 0.4 :--,. -!,;-.. - -
The difference between two sets of experimental data may 0,3 . ...\... . . . . . !., ! . .
;. .,. .;
due to the different installations (in our test, the propeller . .. . :,
0,2 ------- -! --- ---
is installed upstream of the shaft) and the different free air KT
content during the test at low cavitation number. 0,1 . ! ...!...,. .\ . . .
0.0
2.Comparison Between Newton-Rader and New 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Section Propeller ADVANCED COEFFICIENT ( J)
Test results of the Newton-Rader propeller at Flg.3 Comparison of Newton-RaderPropeller Testex.1
at NTOU
cavitation numbers 0.75 and 0.5 at v = 8(are shown in and Vesper, P/D=l.6, ~ = 5.2
figures 6 and 7. KTOUT & EFFIC represent the effective 1.1 I
thrust coefficient and efficiency respectively, under I.O : r r--N.t.o.u-
,------ Vesper
considering of the negative component due to normal 0.9 t . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
force, From the test results, it is shown that the normal
force is about 40% of the shaft thrust at y = 8 in normal
operating range. This normal force can reduce the
propeller eftlciency about 6%. Horizontal forces are
very small due to no horizontal inclination, These forces
are generated by the counter-influence of the rotation of 0.4
the tested propeller and the impeller of the cavitation E
0.3
tunnel.
0,2
Test results of new-section propeller at cavitation
numbers 0,75 and 0.5 at v = 8(1are shown in figures 8 0.1

and 9. The influence on the effective thrust and efficiency 0.0

of the new-section propeller due to inclined shaft is 1.0 1.2 1,4 1.6 1,8 2.0
similar with that of the Newton-Rader propeller. The ADVANCED COEFFICIENT ( J)
performance comparison between these two propellers at Fig.4 Comparison of Newton-Rader Propeller Tested at NTOU
v =0 and a = 5.2 is shown in figure 10, The loading of and Vesper,P/D=].6, 0 = 0.75
the Newton-Rader propeller is slightly higher than that of
the new section propeller at the design point, and the
comparison of the efficiency shows a reverse trend. At
Klgher J value, the et%ciency of new-section propeller is :! ~
I!l!
remarkable higher due to higher negative angle of attack. 0.8
0
The comparisons between two propellers at v = 0.8, and 4 0.7
b
cr = 0.75 and 0.5 are shown in figures 11 and 12, Figure . 0.6
Q
11 shows that the efficiency of new-section propeller is g 05
remarkably higher at design point due to a better
cavitation control at cr = 0.75. At o = 0.5, both
propellers have serious cavitation problems. The
et%ciency of the new section propeller is also higher than 0.2
that of the Newton-Rader propeller at the design point. 0.1
However, the reductions of thrust and torque due to 0,0
cavitation for Newton-Racier propeller is higher than that 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
of the new-section propeller. ADVANCED COEFFICIENT ( J)
Figures 13 and 14 show the cavitation extension of Fig.5 Comparison of Newton-Rader Propeller Tested at NTOU
these two propellers at different blade positions at and Vesper, P\D=l.6, CJ = 0.5

153

-- --
 1.1 0.9
-+-KH -+-KH
1.0 -9--KV 0.8 -+-KV

0.9 KT KT
ETA-O
0.8
> -*- KT[l UT
ti- ~ :.:
0.7 IOK(JOUT
X
$. 0,, - * - EFF[c
f 0.6 .*+ =iilr

< 0.5 Ii 0.4

Id N.
Q 0.4 g 0.3
? 0.3
~ 0.2
z
0.2
0.1
0.1
*,-.
0.0 +.+.+.+.*.+.+- ~-+,
0.0
-0.1 -0.1
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1,4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.92.0 1,0 1.1 1.2 1,3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1,92.0
ADVANCE COEFFICIENT(J) ADVANCE COEFFICIENT(J)
Fig. 6 Test results of Newton-Rader propelleratv=80, 6=0.75 Fig, 9 Test results of new-section propelleratv=80 , rJ=o.5

1.0
-+-KH
1.1
0.9 -+. Kv
Newton-Ratler pkopelfer
KT ,,, ,,, ,,
0.8 1St
ETA. () , ----------- fl~w.~~c,io, propeller ,- -
-*- KTOIJ(
0.7 (),9
_ll)KQ[)UT
-+-~~p,~
0.6
0.8

0.5 >
y. 0.7
0.4 5
,,,
$ ().6
0.3
,,,
b G
Y 0.2 ~ (1,5 . ..,..!.. #..
g ,,, %
0.1 ; (),4 ,-- !---,- -,---, -
~:z. *.--= Y
,,,
0.0 --.+--+,-+.+. ~.+;+
0.3
I ,,
-0.1 ,,
0.2
1.0 ].1 1.2 1.3 1.4 ].5 1,6 1.7 1.8 1.9
,,, ,
ADVANCE COEFFICIENT(J) ,,, ,
(),1
Fig. 7 Test results of Newton-Rader propeller at ~=8 0, u=o.s
).1 () .()

-+. KH I o Ii I .2 I .3 1.4 1.5 1.6 i.7 1,8 1.9

1,0 -+. K
ADVANCED COEFFICIENT (J)
KT
0.9
ETA.<) Fig. 10 Performance comparison betweentwo propellemat v=(3
0.8 +- KT[lUT *
0 ,-0=5.2
IIIKQHU1
$. (3,7 -+- EFF]c
condition J=l .3, cr = 0.5 and v = 0.8. It is shown that
0.6
?$
the cavitation extensions of the Newton-Rader propeller
q 0.5
E are larger than those of the new section propeller on both
g (),4
the back and the face. It is very important to control the
;. 0.3 face cavitation, because it is easy to cause errosion on
z
0.2 propeller blades,
After a long time cavitation test, a remarkable back
0.1 /. *.+*--- -----
root errosion is found at the Newton-Rader propeller. It
0.0 +---. +.-4..+.+.* *.+.+.+.
m
may be caused by its high camber ratio at root. A slight
-0.1 I errosion tendency is also found at tip of the new-section
I.O 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1,5 1.6 1.7 1,8 1.9 propeller due to its high camber ratio in that area. In
ADVANCE COEFFICIENT(J) addition, the thickness at about 80% chordlength of the
Fig. 8 Test results of new-section propelleratv=80 , rJ=O.75 new-section propeller seems to be relatively thin,

154

- ~. .
 Therefore, the parent propeller is modified as follows: the
camber ratio at 0.7 radius is slightly increased up to 3Y0,
mfgqmw
the camber ratio at tip is reduced to 2.6%, and the
thickness distribution near 8070 chordlength is increased. Sheet Intermitted Cloudy Bubbles

This propeller is numbered as P3004. The comparison

of the section at 0.7 radius of these three propellers is
shown in figure 15.
1.() +
Newtom-Rader propeller 1 O(F)
o.+-:..,...- ~~
. . . . . . . . . . new:se-ctioi prope liei
9R
.8
(),8 -.
SR

0.7
+
+-
90 180
0.6 .,
ii! 9R
I

Q 0.5 . 7R
ii .5R - -
0,4 ., ~
3R
Y=

0.3 Z70(F)

0.2
Fig. 13 Cavitation extensionof Newton-RaderpropellerP/D=1.6
0.1 at different blade positions at J= 1,3, SJ=O.5 , v=8 0

I
0.0
.,9R .9R
. 7R 7R
-0,1
.5R .$
1.0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1,9
9R
ADVANCED COEFFICIENT (J)
+ -i-
Fig. 11 Performance comparison between two Drtmellers
. . at O(i) O(B)
y =80, c7=0.75

0,9

a Newtoh-Rmder ptopelhr
,,! ,,, ,,
0,s - . --,-...:..:. ----------- --: --,-
new-sdc tion propeller
#,, , ,,, ,
0,7 ., . . !...,..,. . .,..!..,.. ,

+ +
90 i80
>
z
0.6 -,--
z-
Y
(),5
0 ,-- .9R
i .7R
.9R
0.4 .!. .
$ .5R .7R
~ .5R
0.3 .3R
,-- * .9R
+ *
$
0.2 -t-
270(F) 270(B)
0.1 .,. .
Fig, 14 Cavitation extension of new-section propeller P/D=].6 at
0,0 different blade positionsat J=l.3 , cr=0,5, ty =8
,--
I ,,
-0, I I I I 1, 0.7 R Section
1.0 1.1 I .2 1,3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 I .8 1.9 p30ua
AD VA NC ED CO Efficient (J)
--------- P3003
Fig. Performance comparison
12 between two propellers at * P3004
v=8,0=0.5 g
*- &
0
~
10 20
t
30 40 50 60 70 X(l 9(3 100
Xlc%
Fig.15 Comparison of the section at 0.7r/R of tl-tmepropellers

155

- --
 The test results of P3004 at rr = 0.75,0.5 at v = 8
are shown in Fig. 16 and 17, and compared with those of 0,9
P3002 and P3003. For c =0.75 , the efficiency of 0.s
P3004 is lower than P3003. The 3% camber ratio at
0,7
0,7r/R of P3004 may be too high for such almost sub-
cavitating condition, However the reductions of the 0.6

thrust and torque due to cavitation at low J values at ~ 0,5

o = 0.5 are significantly improved for P3004 due to its 0,4

higher camber ration at 0.7 radius, but the eftlciency has
0,3 P3002
no remarkable change compared with that of the parent
-,. -P3OO3
propeller P3003. The efficiency comparisons of these 0,2
--- P3004
propellers at cr = 0.75 and 0.5 at ~ = 8) are shown in 0,1
figures 18 and 19. The errosion tendency at propeller tip 0.0
is removed for P3004 due to its reduction of camber ratio 0.00 0.05 0.10 0,15 0.20 0.25
at tip. KTIJ2

0.5
1,1 Fig. 18 Efficiencycomparisonof three propellersat at v =8 0,
,,, P30{12 G=O.7S9
1.0 ,-- ;.-,- -7-: .l. .-..j. - ~,lt~lllI
>>, [
().9 4 -.. P3(1114
0.8
,-- ;-- ,-:-- ,---, - ,---, -

(l, N ,.. 0.7

0,7
-- ..+.! , 0.6
0,6 ... . . . . !..

,,

-., . . ,..
ll)KIJ
... - .,
Q 0.5
,,, ,
0.4
Ii 0.4

0,3 0.3
0,2
0,2 P3002
0,1 --- P3003
0,1 --- P3004
0,()
,,, ,,
.(),1
1.0 1.1 1 ,2 (,3 14 1,s 1,6 I .7 i ,8 1 ,Y 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
AD VA NC ED C1l EFFICIE NT(I)
K,/J
Fig. 16 Performancecomparisonof three propellersat v =8 0,
0=0.75 Fig. 19 Eftlciencycomparisonof three propellersat at v =8 0,
0.9
- P?i)r)2 rT=o.5
,,, ,,,
. . .. .. . .. Pln~3
O .8 -.-$--~--$--~- -- ~-------
,,,
,!,
,,
,,,
- -$
,,
P3004 3.Series Test of 3 and 4-Bladed Propeller at Different
0,7
, + -%-, --:--- --:- $ :- Pitch Ratios
~
Using P3004 as a parent model, propellers with three
=.
x
,,, pitch ratios, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8, are tested at cavitation
0.5 ---, ----
G ,,, ,
numbers atm, 0,75, 0.6 and 0.5 at inclined shaft 8 and 10
;
0.4 --- -- ~ ----~-. degrees. Test propellers with pitch ratios 1.4 and 1.8 are
g ,,, ,,
s
made by just adjusting the blade pitch angles of P3004.
$
,,,
Therefore, these three propellers have the same blade
g section.
,,,
Herein, only K-J charts with o = 0.5 will be
0,1
demonstrated. Figures 20 and 21 are the K-J charts of
,,, ,KHt
propellers at v =8, c = 0.5 with pitch ratios 1.4 and
-0.1 1.8 respectively. By comparing these figures with the
1.0 1 I 1,2 [,3 I ,4 1.5 16 I .1 1.8 19 figure 17, it is found that the influence on the
AOVANCEDCOEFFICIE NT(I)
performance of propeller due to cavitation is increased
Fig. 17 Performancecomparisonof three propellersat v =8 0, with a decreased pitch ratio, but is increased with an
CT=O.5 increased pitch ratio due to the inclined shaft angle.
These are reasonable because a small designed pitch ratio

156

,-
is corresponding to a small designed diameter, and a high 1,1
revolution, Thus, a propeller with a small designed pitch 1.0
ratio must have a larger cavitation extension. A 0.9
propeller with high revolution also means that it has a 0.8
high tangential inflow component and it is not sensible to
0.7
the vertical inflow component due to inclined shaft.
0.6
However, the increase of efficiency is not remarkable
when the designed pitch ratio is higher than 1.6. 0.5

The efllciency characteristics related to propeller 0.4

loadings are demonstrated in figures 22 and 23 for 0.3
rp = 8 and in figures 24 and 25 for v = 10. From test 0.2

results of cr = 0.6, the optimal pitch ratio seems to be 0.1 ,***. -- .- ~,

=.a.-
\\
dependent on the thrust loading of propeller. As the 0.0 t +. +.+.+.+.+.+ .*, *.*.-.

thrust loading increases, the drop of efficiency is -0.1

significant for high pitch ratios. The influence of 1.] 1.2 1,3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 I.S 1.92.02.1
inclined shaft effect on eftlciency is relatively remarkable ADVANCE COEFFICIENT(J)
at high thrust loading range. From test results of
Fig. 21 Test results of P3004P/D=].8 at v =8, c=O.5
o = 0.5, it is found that the influence of inclined shaft
effect is stronger than that of cr = 0.6, It is also found 0.9
that the difference of the efficiencies between pitch ratios
0.8
1.6 and 1.8 is not remarkable at normal design range
(KT/J2= 0,11-0.13 ). When comparing figures 20 and 0.7
21, one can find the fact that a high pitch ratio has a large 0.6
normal force generated by propeller at inclined shaft
condition, and its negative thrust component reduces its 0.5
. ,,
efficiency. Therefore, it is not suitable to increase the 0.4
shaft inclined angle more than 8 in order to get a large
0,3
optimal diameter and high pitch ratio more than 1.6, when
PID=I.4
designing a propeller operating near 40 knots. However, 0.2 -.. -PID=I.6
the pitch ratio lower than 1.4 is also not good for .-. -P/ D=l.8
0.1
propeller operating in this speed range.
Concerning the test results of 4-bladed propeller, t).o ~

only the efficiency characteristics will be demonstrated 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0,20 0.25

herein. Figures 26 and 27 show results for y = 8 , KTIJ2

u = 0.6 and 0.5 respectively. Propellers with pitch Fig. 22 Efficiency for 3-bladed propeller with dfkrent

.
ratios 1.4a, 1.6 and 1.8 have the same camber distribution, ratiosat at v =8 0, u=().6

0.9 r (
+-I(H

$
0.8

0.7

0.6
t
-,-.

KT
ETA.{)
Kv

-+-r(ro~
0.8

0.7

0,6
t

.,/
I
z- _ 14)KQI)U
. 0.5 -*- EFFIc ~ 0,s
0
E
g 0.4 w 0.4 :1
,..

g 0.3 0,3
0 )
~ (3.2 I ) PID=l.4
0,2
--- P/D=l.6

1
0.1 0.1 . . .. P/D=l.8

0.0 0.0

1 1! I 0,00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.2s

-0.1
KTIJ2
0.9 1,0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1,4 1.5 1.6 1,7
ADVANCE COEFFICIENT(J) Fig. 23 Eftlciency for 3-bladed propeller with different pitch
Fig. 20 Testresultsof P3004 P/D=1,4at I/ =8 0, 0=0.5 ratiosat at y =8 0, cr=O.5

157
 0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
t
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
.-.
/;,:;;;
(
u 0.5 Q 0,5 ,;:;<,5
El E ,. ,~,/

,;);,
0,4 ~ 0.4
y..
.

0,3 P/D.1,8
P/D=l.4 0.3
/ -P{ D=l.6
-.-- P/D= 1.6
0.2 ..-, -, P/D=l .4a
0.2
. . . .. P/D=l.8
--- P/D=l.4b
0,1
0.1 -.. -PID=l.2

0.0
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.00 0.05 0,10 0.15 0.20 0.25
KT/J2
KT/J2

Fig. 24 Eftlciency for 3-bladed propeller with different pitch Fig. 27 Efficiency for 4-bladed propeller with different pitch
ratiosarru v =10 0, 0=0.6 ratiosat at V =8 0, 6=0.5

which is similar to that of P3004. Propellers with pitch

0.8 ratios 1.2 and 1.4b also have the same camber distribution,
0.7 but about 16% lower than that of the pitch ratio 1.4a.
1
...... . ..=....4 The tendency of efficiency characteristics is generally
0.6 ,,./
,.. similar to that of the 3-bladed propeller, However, the
u 0.5 .,:
,,.,//
efficiency breakdown at high loading range is very
,.
k 0.4 j? serious for the 4-bladed propeller, It is also suggested
,.,. that he pitch ratio lower than 1.4 should not be adopted
0.3 ~:..

:; for operation in this speed range. The comparison of pitch
PID=l.4
0.2 j -.. -PID=I.6
ratios 1.4a and 1.4b shown in figure 27 has suggested that
.-.,-.P/D=l.8 a higher camber ratio is necessary for propeller operating
0.1
r in the low cavitation number.
().0 ~ Efticienc y characteristics of propeller for
0.00 0.10 0.20

.-;
.
v = 10),c = 0.6 and 0.5 are shown in figures 28 and 29
KT/J2
respectively. The tendency of efllciency characteristics
Fig. 25 Efficiency for 3-bladed propeller with different pitch is similar as at v = 8, However, the influence of
ratiosat at ~ =10 0, 0=0.5 cavitation on the performance of propeller is stronger for
4-bladed propellers than that for 3-bladed propellers.,
0.9
0.8
0.8

~, r
0,7 .
0.7
0.6 ,&:s-.q!
0.6 ...:-, --- .<:-..
..,-.,
~ 0.5
g..
/ ,. /,+::,
,.,,. . ..
---
\

E ,!:,., ~ 0,5 ,/,,.,,, ..

, ., ,.
~ 0,4 .,.,
$ E ,(:;;>
~ 0,4 ,:. ,/
. P/D.1,8 ,..,,,
0.3 ,.! :/
P/D=l.8
,.~ P/D=l,6 0.3 :./
--- P/D=l.6
0.2 .. .. PlD=l.4a ;;
0.2 . . . . .. P/D= l.4a
--- P/D=l.4b
0,1
--- P/D=l,2 0.1 -.- PID=l.2
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0,00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
KTIJ2
KTIJ2

Fig. 26 Efficiency for 4-bladed propeller with different pitch Fig, 28 Efficiency for 4-bladed propeller with different pitch
ratiosatatr#=80, r7=o.6 ratios at at v =100, 0=0,6

158

-- .
 0.8

0.7

0.6
~+
. # .. . . .
!. .,
:< ---
KQ

KT
: torque coef. at v = 0

KQOUT : torque coef. at inclined shaft condition

: thrust coef. based on shaft thrust

r
,,::...

u 0.5 ,./.:. KTOUT : thrust coef, based on thrust in advanced

,/
E /:., direction
~ 0.4 ,,:,.:
,:,..
,,,, KV : normal force coef. at inclined shaft condition
0.3
,: PID=l.8
0
0,2
cavitation number based on advance speed
-.. -PID=I.6

0.1 . . . .. P/D=l .4a v : inclined shaft angle

f
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10
KTIJ2
Fig. 29 Efficiency for 4-bloded propeller with different pitch
ratios at at ~ =10, 0=0.5
CONCLUSION
In this paper, two parent propellers for high speed
craft are designed based on the new sections developed by
Scherer, Both cavitation behavior and efficiency of
these propellers are better than those of the Newton-Rader
propeller at an inclined shaft condition.
A series test has been performed in a medium-sized
cavitation tunnel. The parameters of this series test
include blade number ( 3 and 4 blades), pitch ratio (1.2,
1.4, 1.6 and 1.8), cavitation number (atm, 0.75, 0.6 and
0.5) and inclined shaft angle (0[),6),8),10(). In addition
to the shaft thrust and torque, the normal forces at
inclined shaft conditions are also measured to determine
the actual efficiency of the propellers. The experimental
data show that there is a significant negative effect on the
performance of propellers when the inclined shaft angels
larger than 8 degrees, and this effect becomes serious
when the pitch ratio increases and the cavitation number
decreases. The experimental data also show that the 3-
bladed propellers have better efficiency and cavitation
behavior than four-bladed propellers in low cavitation
numbers.
NOMENCLATURE
ETA-O : propeller open water efficiency based on
shaft thrust
EFFIC : propeller open water eftlciency based on
thrust in advanced direction
J: advance ratio
KH : horizontal force coef.
0.15 0.20 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is commissioned by the Ministry of
Economic Affair, R. O. C, and sponsored by United Ship
Design and Development Center, Faster Propulsion
System Co. LTD., Hung Shen Propeller Co. LTD and
Solas Science and Engineering Co. LTD.
REFERENCE
[1]Eppler, R. 1957. Direkte Berechnung von Tragfluegel
Profilen aus der Druckverteilung. Ingeniewr Archiv,
pp32-57.
[2] Eppler, R. and Y. T. Shen, 1981. Wing Sections for
Hydrofoils - Part 2: Nonsymmetrical Profiles. Journal
of Ship Research, vol. 25, no.3,
[3] Kuiper, G, and S, D. Jessup. 1993. A Propeller
Design Method for Unstready Conditions. SNAME
Transection, vol. 101.
[4] Newton, R. N. and H. P. Rader. 1961. Performance
Data of Propellers for High-Speed Craft. The Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, vol. 103. no.2.
[5] Peck, J. G. and D. H. Moose, 1974. Inclined-Shaft
Propeller Performance Characteristics. Naval Ship
Research and Development Center, Report 4127.
[6] Praeflce, E. 1997. Reduction of Propeller-Induced
Hull Pressure Pulese by Means of Unconventional
Propeller Profile Sections. Propellers / Shafting 97
Symposium.
[7] Rader, H. P. 1974. Propeller bei Schraeganstroemung,
Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft,
Band 68.
[8] Scherer, O. and R. Stairs, 1994. Propeller Blade
Sections with Improved Cavitation Performance.
Propeller / Shafting 94 Symposium.
[9] Yamaguchi, H. et al. 1988. Development of Marine
Propeller with Better Cavitaton Performance: 3rd
Report. J. of SNAJ, vol. 164,

159