|
|
Folding Propeller TEST RESULTS
Many folding propeller tests have been conducted over the past 20
years both by manufacturers and independent organizations. While the
manufacturer-sponsored tests may have validity, the published
results often emphasize those attributes in which that manufacturer
excels. The independent tests, on the other hand, may not have this
bias, but may have test parameters that do not reflect reality. The
two tests having both independence and well-designed test
methodology are the one conducted in the U.S. by "Cruising World
Magazine" in 1995, printed in their June 1996 issue, and the test
conducted in Germany by the Technische Universitat Berlin in 1997
for "Die Yacht Magazine" and printed in their May, 1997 issue. See
notes below.
CRUISING WORLD TESTS, 1995
|
|
Forward Pull (lbs) |
 |
|
|
Reverse Pull (lbs) |
 |
|
|
Max Speed (knots) |
 |
|
| Drag (Lbs) |
|
 |
|
|
Key:
A = 3-blade, self-pitching, feathering prop E = 2-blade,
non-geared, folding prop F = Flex-O-Fold 2-blade, geared, folding
prop M = 2-blade, no-twist, feathering prop W = 2-blade fixed
prop
TEST METHODOLOGY:
These tests of powering performance and drag were conducted on a
Freedom 35 using a Yanmar 3GM30 engine. Participants were asked to
supply their best propeller for that application. The results for
the major brands are shown below. Other propellers were also tested
but are not included in the results below. In our opinion, those
props omitted do not change the conclusions.
NOTE: these tests were completed using "old style" Flex-O-Fold
Propellers. The current Standard Propellers have larger blade areas
than the "old style" Flex-O-Folds, resulting in significantly better
performance, particularly in reverse.
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT TEST, 1997
|
|
Efficiency (%) |
 |
|
|
Drag (Newtons) |
 |
|
Key: A
= Self-pitching, feathering prop F = Flex-O-Fold geared, folding
prop G = Second geared, folding prop M = No-twist, feathering
prop P = Large-blade fixed prop V = Third geared, folding
prop
*Note to efficiency graph: A achieved this efficiency at
approximately 10 knots. Efficiency increased to 65% at significantly
higher speeds. Efficiency at lower speeds was consistently below F
and P.
**Note to drag graph: Drag of A increased to 670 N (150 lbs) if
allowed to rotate. Drag of P increased to 420 N (94.5 lbs) if
locked.
TEST METHODOLOGY:
This test was conducted at the Technische Universitat Berlin in
their test tank. The primary methodology was to determine the
efficiency of each 3-blade propeller submitted at various "rates of
advance" or speed. Efficiency is defined as the percentage of
horsepower converted into thrust. Also tested was propeller drag,
with the props mounted at a zero shaft angle, as would be the case
with a sail drive.
NOTE: the test of the Flex-O-Fold Propeller was conducted after
the original test had been completed, as the Flex-O-Fold was not
ready for sale at the time of the original test. However, given that
the test was under tightly controlled conditions, in an indoor tank,
we are confident the results would have been the same had all props
been tested at the same
time.
|
©
Henleys Propellers and Marine Ltd - 110 Sunnybrae Road, Glenfield, Auckland, New Zealand
Phone: +64 9 443 5886 Fax: +64 9 443 5892 |
|