Back-spinning conveyors instead of wings?

[Cyrus]

I don't agree that he is using incorrect terminology.

If you can have a jet engine and a steam engine, you can have a prop engine.

Find me an aerospace book that uses that term and I will concede to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Find me an aerospace book that uses that term and I will concede to you.

Appeal to authority. That does not make him wrong. Or me.

Don't tempt me to run around going "Cyrus (you know, the airplane expert?) He's never heard of a prop engine!"

 

[Cyrus]

Good luck with that terminology: let me know how it works out for you.

 

[WCOLtd]

The angular momentum of the propeller lies along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, the rollers are on the lateral axis. Why do you think these two are directly comparable?

I thought that critique might come up, the reason I think It's not a problem is because;

1) the fact that the engine powering the belt is far less powerful than the main engine - I don't know exactly how much less because they don't keep track of the torque of the RC propeller rotors as far as I know.

2) Using mathematics it is indeed possible to relate the two axis to one another. Using just intuition - the forces normal to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is equal to 4pi times the integral of the resistance across the surface area over the upper surface from the fusalage to the tip of the wing. (To calculate the resistance forces I assume I will need a more complete understanding of fluid dynamics)

My point is that you need to stop "this way of thinking", and dig into a textbook on flight dynamics because a lot of what one may think and what really happens is counter-intuitive.

Ok. you know more than I do - I'll concede that - so name a book and I'll buy it and I'll read it.

Also, a course correction: what is a "propeller engine"? There is a propeller and an engine, not a propeller engine.

A propeller engine is an engine that powers a propeller.

 

[Cyrus]

I thought that critique might come up, the reason I think It's not a problem is because;

1) the fact that the engine powering the belt is far less powerful than the main engine - I don't know exactly how much less because they don't keep track of the torque of the RC propeller rotors as far as I know.

Engine\belt power has absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum. What matters is the inertia and RPM of the belt. What is the formula for angular momentum?

2) Using mathematics it is indeed possible to relate the two axis to one another. Using just intuition - the forces normal to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is equal to 4pi times the integral of the resistance across the surface area over the upper surface from the fusalage to the tip of the wing. (To calculate the resistance forces I assume I will need a more complete understanding of fluid dynamics)

This is not correct. I don't know where you got four pi times the integral of the resistance across the surface from.

Ok. you know more than I do - I'll concede that - so name a book and I'll buy it and I'll read it.

I don't want to waste your money on a wild goose chase, so I would look over these slides instead for now:

http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lectures.html

A propeller engine is an engine that powers a propeller.

No, an engine powers a propeller. The engine can be reciprocating or a turbine. There is no such thing as a 'propeller engine'. (Or it can be an electric motor)