View Single Post
Old 03-14-2024, 11:51 AM   #11 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,914
Thanks: 24,000
Thanked 7,227 Times in 4,654 Posts
' 3.15:1 'strut' vs 'round' tubing '

I did some simplified 'pencil-whipping':
1) Same propeller
2) Same motor nacelle
3) 3.15:1 NAVY strut of approximately twice the thickness of the round tubing it replaces is the only variable
4) 7.5-MPH velocity submerged in 59-F water
5) Water density ( rho ) = 1.980874
6) @ 745.7-Watts / horsepower
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By exchanging the tubing for the 'thicker' strut, the electric load is reduced by approximately 160-W / hour, or, 21.3-W / mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The strut data was presented by Chief Aerodynamicist, Walter Korff, Lockheed Aircraft Company, as provided in the book, 'Airplane Design: Aerodynamics', by Edward F. Warner, 1927.

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
freebeard (03-14-2024)