Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Brown, P. C.

Publications and source records attributed to Brown, P. C..

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1989

Propfan Test Assessment (PTA)

The objectives of the Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) Program were to validate in flight the structural integrity of large-scale propfan blades and to measure noise characteristics of the propfan in both near and far fields. All program objectives were met or exceeded, on schedule and under budget. A Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GII aircraft was modified to provide a testbed for the 2.74m (9 ft) diameter Hamilton Standard SR-7 propfan which was driven by a 4475 kw (600 shp) turboshaft engine mounted on the left-hand wing of the aircraft. Flight research tests were performed for 20 combinations of speed and altitude within a flight envelope that extended to Mach numbers of 0.85 and altitudes of 12,192m (40,000 ft). Propfan blade stress, near-field noise on aircraft surfaces, and cabin noise were recorded. Primary variables were propfan power and tip speed, and the nacelle tilt angle. Extensive low altitude far-field noise tests were made to measure flyover and sideline noise and the lateral attenuation of noise. In coopertion with the FAA, tests were also made of flyover noise for the aircraft at 6100m (20,000 ft) and 10,668m (35,000 ft). A final series of tests were flown to evaluate an advanced cabin wall noise treatment that was produced under a separate program by NASA-Langley Research Center.

Little, B. H.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Propfan Test Assessment (PTA): Flight test report

The Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) aircraft was flown to obtain glade stress and noise data for a 2.74m (9 ft.) diameter single rotation propfan. Tests were performed at Mach numbers to 0.85 and altitudes to 12,192m (40,000 ft.). The propfan was well-behaved structurally over the entire flight envelope, demonstrating that the blade design technology was completely adequate. Noise data were characterized by strong signals at blade passage frequency and up to 10 harmonics. Cabin noise was not so high as to preclude attainment of comfortable levels with suitable wall treatment. Community noise was not excessive.

Little, B. H.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Results of acoustic tests of a Prop-Fan model

Results of acoustic tests in a low speed open jet anechoic wind tunnel are presented for a counter rotation Prop-Fan model. The model tested had 5 front and 5 rear rotor blades with swept planform. Noise spectra are presented showing the influence of operating and configuration variables such as: (1) power absorption, (2) tip speed, (3) rotor-rotor spacing, (4) power split between the front and rear blade rows, (5) variation of the RPM ratio between front and rear blade rows, (6) tractor versus pusher (pylon effects), and (7) angle of attack. In addition to model scale results, calculated levels derived from test are presented showing the influence of the above variables on Effective Perceived Noise Level of a 13.1 ft diameter Prop-Fan at a flyover distance of 1500 ft. It was found that the strongest effects are caused by tip speed and power absorption. A significant finding was that there is an optimum operating tip speed for minimum noise for a given power absorption. Effects of other parametric variations are generally small but measurable. In order to minimize noise to meet airplane certification limits, operation at moderate tip speeds and power absorption is shown to be desirable. Accuracy of predicted Effective Perceived Noise Level is shown to be good with the best accuracy in the 590 to 670 ft/sec tip speed range.

Metzger, F.B.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Effect of angular inflow on the vibratory response of a counter-rotating propeller

This report presents the results of a propeller vibratory stress survey on the Fairey Gannet aircraft aimed at giving an assessment of the difference in vibratory response between single and counter-rotating propeller operation in angular inflow. The survey showed that counter-rotating operation of the propeller had the effect of increasing the IP response of the rear propeller by approximately 25 percent over comparable single-rotation operation while counter-rotating operation did not significantly influence the IP response of the front propeller.

Turnberg, J. E.↗